You can certainly eliminate certain pilot errors from statistics depending on your mission. For example, if you are doing flight instruction, you can certainly eliminate weather and fuel exhaustion accidents, because instructional flights are very unlikely encounter those. I am airline trained so fuel exhaustion isn't likely to be a factor, because I use the same tools and methods as the airlines to calculate fuel, every time. As for weather, I am instrument rated, so most of those aren't going to be a factor either.
The bottom line is in flying, the amount of risk you take on starts on the ground, depending what kind of mission you do. On Jan 14, 3:43 am, "Vince O'Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 13, 3:14 pm, Lenny P <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Most heli, like airplane accidents are pilot error, so discounting > > that it's safer to fly than to drive. > > And I image that if you discount mechanical failure then helicopter > flying is safer still. > > It's disingenious to eliminate accidents that don't count (in your > opinion) from one side of the equation without doing the same on the > other side. Unless you discount car driver errors as well then the > above statement is meaningless.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
