What's happening at Ballina?
A lesson in maths.
Let us assume that in the USA, 10% of the fleet is comprised of transport/RPT aircraft and 90% of the fleet comprises GA aircraft.
Let us assume that in Australia, 30% of the fleet is comprised of transport/RPT aircraft, and 70% of the fleet comprises GA aircraft.
Let us also assume that the accident and incident rates for all aircraft in both countries are the same.
Loh and behold! The outcome is that "90% of US accidents involve general aviation (Part 91) flights, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents are in general aviation (Part 91)".
That's the outcome, even though the rates of accidents and incidents are, in that set of assumed circumstances, the same.
Let us now assume that in the USA, 60% of the hours flown each year are flown by GA aircraft, and 40% of the hours are flown by transport/RPT aircraft.
Let us also assume that in Australia, 20% of the hours flown each year are flown by GA aircraft, and 80% of the hours are flown by transport/RPT aircraft.
Let us also assume that it is true that 90% of US accidents involve general aviation, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation.
Loh and behold! On the basis of that set of assumed circumstances, the rate of accidents and incidents in GA in Australia is higher than in the USA, even though 90% of US accidents involved general aviation, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation.
And please: I'm not suggesting that the assumed circumstances are the reality. I am merely pointing out that you cannot draw any valid comparisons of the rates of GA accidents and incidents in the USA and Australia from the sentence you quoted.
Let us assume that in the USA, 10% of the fleet is comprised of transport/RPT aircraft and 90% of the fleet comprises GA aircraft.
Let us assume that in Australia, 30% of the fleet is comprised of transport/RPT aircraft, and 70% of the fleet comprises GA aircraft.
Let us also assume that the accident and incident rates for all aircraft in both countries are the same.
Loh and behold! The outcome is that "90% of US accidents involve general aviation (Part 91) flights, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents are in general aviation (Part 91)".
That's the outcome, even though the rates of accidents and incidents are, in that set of assumed circumstances, the same.
Let us now assume that in the USA, 60% of the hours flown each year are flown by GA aircraft, and 40% of the hours are flown by transport/RPT aircraft.
Let us also assume that in Australia, 20% of the hours flown each year are flown by GA aircraft, and 80% of the hours are flown by transport/RPT aircraft.
Let us also assume that it is true that 90% of US accidents involve general aviation, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation.
Loh and behold! On the basis of that set of assumed circumstances, the rate of accidents and incidents in GA in Australia is higher than in the USA, even though 90% of US accidents involved general aviation, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation.
And please: I'm not suggesting that the assumed circumstances are the reality. I am merely pointing out that you cannot draw any valid comparisons of the rates of GA accidents and incidents in the USA and Australia from the sentence you quoted.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate,
My post #115 is a direct quote from the report of the ATSB as indicated by the inverted commas.
That is the full quote. The mention of '90% etc is part of that quote and is merely there to show the FULL quote to avoid the accusation of 'cherry picking' my sources; not for any other reason.
I do not consider those percentages to be particularly relevant to the '3 times the USA' nonsense but others may.
As I have said since the start of this thread, I stand to be corrected but only by published facts not by speculation or some other 'red herring' approach.
Why do some people continually want to degrade OZ? We are not that bad and I find it amazing that those who do not think so (which they are entitled to believe) want to force their unsubstantiated negativity down everyone's throat.
I have spent a lot of time in the test flying world. DATA (if available) but always the 'scientific method'; hypothesis: test the hypothesis etc.
As Maynard Keynes (the economist) said: 'when the facts change, I change my mind: what do you do'?
My post #115 is a direct quote from the report of the ATSB as indicated by the inverted commas.
That is the full quote. The mention of '90% etc is part of that quote and is merely there to show the FULL quote to avoid the accusation of 'cherry picking' my sources; not for any other reason.
I do not consider those percentages to be particularly relevant to the '3 times the USA' nonsense but others may.
As I have said since the start of this thread, I stand to be corrected but only by published facts not by speculation or some other 'red herring' approach.
Why do some people continually want to degrade OZ? We are not that bad and I find it amazing that those who do not think so (which they are entitled to believe) want to force their unsubstantiated negativity down everyone's throat.
I have spent a lot of time in the test flying world. DATA (if available) but always the 'scientific method'; hypothesis: test the hypothesis etc.
As Maynard Keynes (the economist) said: 'when the facts change, I change my mind: what do you do'?
'when the facts change, I change my mind: what do you do'?
But, my dear chap, the "facts" have not changed.
The AOPA AU study was verified by NTSB, on behalf of the then Minister --- because he was disinclined to believe it, because he "knew" how safe aviation Australia "is", so he wanted and received independent expert NTSB verification ---- FACT.
So, those "facts" have not changed, they are F-A-C-T, FACT.
Just to try and make the point, again, for you and Bloggs, who both seem to be equally challenged when it come to reading and comprehending plain English, I did NOT STATE AS A FACT, at any time, that the current rate was three (3) times.
The three (3) times came from a report in credible media, all I have ever said about that report, based on trend data in US and AU over the years since the AOPA AU report, is that it is probably correct, it is more likely to be true than false.
I know what you would like me to have said, but I didn't. FACT.
Tootle pip
PS: Re. accurate utilization totals, the uncertainty factor is not new, and is equally true in Australia. This was considered,and allowed for, in the original AOPA report.
After all, would you expect otherwise, given the professional competence of those employed by AOPA to do the study, and the professional competence of those who peer reviewed the final document --- Statistics PhDs.
Ask AOPA for a copy of the document.
CASA has actually claimed that the difference between US and AU (having acknowledged the poor AU comparison) that the reason is the number of accidents that go unreported in US. Given the population densities alone, an unreported aviation accident in US is more unlikely than Australia, let alone CASA allegations of unreported US fatal accident. If you want "proof" of that CASA attempted such a "justification" of the poor Australian air safety outcomes versus USA, look up the minutes of the CASA SCC for the first couple of meeting.
A similar claim was made (by the same CASA person) at the so called FLOT (FLOP) Conference around the same time.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sled,
Post #2 on the 'Forsyth Review-Dead in the Water' thread, you said this:
QUOTE:
"Sunny,
Already happening.
In around 2000, our GA accident rate was around double the US.
In figures published quite recently, it is now treble the US, a great outcome for the L-A-W/We are policemen/Capital R Regulation approach of CASA.
This as well as the economic disaster CASA has visited on ALL sections of aviation.
Tootle pip!! UNQUOTE.
Now you say you did not say that, huh?
Post #2 on the 'Forsyth Review-Dead in the Water' thread, you said this:
QUOTE:
"Sunny,
Already happening.
In around 2000, our GA accident rate was around double the US.
In figures published quite recently, it is now treble the US, a great outcome for the L-A-W/We are policemen/Capital R Regulation approach of CASA.
This as well as the economic disaster CASA has visited on ALL sections of aviation.
Tootle pip!! UNQUOTE.
Now you say you did not say that, huh?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He did say, IN FIGURES PUBLISHED QUIET RECENTLY without attributing it to himself. Somewhat like I said on 9MAR: "I've always fund them, (CAsA), quick to enter into action. They are understanding, helpful, honest, flexible, polite and generous to a fault". It was on Dicks thread and you really had to read the whole text to see what I was really saying.. I hope this helps your Legal studies.
In figures published quite recently,
Give it up, it is exactly as I have said.
Turn your "auto-rage" setting down a click or three on your Kneejerk-O-Meter, better still to "Off Mode" and take a deep breath.
Learn to read and comprehend plain English. Nothing in your last post invalidates what I have said, you know as well as I do that I did not publish the figures, and have not claimed to.
Tootle
Last edited by LeadSled; 11th Mar 2016 at 04:17.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank,
Are you for real???
There is a statement (look at the thread yourself) made by SLED that he is adamant he did not make.
Seems to me (and the quoted statement is what caught my attention in the first place on the 'Forsyth' thread) that he can only be accused of either:
1. Lying in the post above, or
2. That his memory is comparatively short and works only to support his current position on any subject.
Can you think of any other reasons that might have caused SLED to seemingly lie?
Thank you for the advice on the legal studies.
Are you for real???
There is a statement (look at the thread yourself) made by SLED that he is adamant he did not make.
Seems to me (and the quoted statement is what caught my attention in the first place on the 'Forsyth' thread) that he can only be accused of either:
1. Lying in the post above, or
2. That his memory is comparatively short and works only to support his current position on any subject.
Can you think of any other reasons that might have caused SLED to seemingly lie?
Thank you for the advice on the legal studies.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(now awaiting one of Leads disdainful comments in reply)
Tootle pip.
or
or
or
When losing an argument just revert to talking down to your opponent in a disparaging tone
my dear chap
You really have difficulty with reading and comprehension, don't you
you are no more able to read and comprehend plain English
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actus my old spiv: Indeed I am real. Send me a PM and I'll put you on the Christmas card list.
wishiwasupthere: Sometimes it's better to be down here than being up there and wishing you weren't. That's all folks.
red_dirt: are you related to the poison dwarf or possibly had recent contact?
wishiwasupthere: Sometimes it's better to be down here than being up there and wishing you weren't. That's all folks.
red_dirt: are you related to the poison dwarf or possibly had recent contact?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank,
When someone quotes something or someone (without any citation) and then proceeds with a derived argument from that proposition, or develops an extension of that statement (e.g. LEAD decides the difference in accident rates between the USA and OZ is CASA's fault) without any cautionary comments, it is normally to be taken 'in context'.
There is a legal convention around that but I will not go on as it is most probably not too important for those of us who struggle with 'plain English'.
When someone quotes something or someone (without any citation) and then proceeds with a derived argument from that proposition, or develops an extension of that statement (e.g. LEAD decides the difference in accident rates between the USA and OZ is CASA's fault) without any cautionary comments, it is normally to be taken 'in context'.
There is a legal convention around that but I will not go on as it is most probably not too important for those of us who struggle with 'plain English'.
I do not consider those percentages to be particularly relevant to the '3 times the USA' nonsense but others may.
You were the person who quoted the percentages. Why would you quote percentages that you don't consider to be "particularly relevant" to support your argument?
Not only are the percentages you quoted not "particularly relevant", they are completely irrelevant without knowing the percentage of the fleet and hours flown GA v everything else in the USA and Australia.
The "legal convention around this" is: Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus vntosissimis exponebantur ad necem. (Rough translation: In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gerry,
Thank you; obviously you are correct. In my haste to do other things today I mixed up my leads.
Lead Sled,
My sincerest apologies, I have wronged you.
Lead Balloon,
There is your answer in post #136.
Too many lead saddlebags.
Actus.
Thank you; obviously you are correct. In my haste to do other things today I mixed up my leads.
Lead Sled,
My sincerest apologies, I have wronged you.
Lead Balloon,
There is your answer in post #136.
Too many lead saddlebags.
Actus.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Everything old is new again"
Yup, even the shiny new part 61 licence, remarkably like my old licence from 1979, only difference the old licence fitted in your shirt pocket, the new one you need a valise to fit it in, guess the next one will require a wheelbarrow, after that a minivan.
With regards to fuel remaining, I wouldn't worry too much, after the Pel Air disaster.
(sorry incident)
A whole bunch of CAsA experts calculated entirely different fuel burns for the event, all of them were wrong according to the real experts from the industry.
Let the Numpies think or accuse what they like..."prove it"
if you run out completely, well you deserve all you get.
Yup, even the shiny new part 61 licence, remarkably like my old licence from 1979, only difference the old licence fitted in your shirt pocket, the new one you need a valise to fit it in, guess the next one will require a wheelbarrow, after that a minivan.
With regards to fuel remaining, I wouldn't worry too much, after the Pel Air disaster.
(sorry incident)
A whole bunch of CAsA experts calculated entirely different fuel burns for the event, all of them were wrong according to the real experts from the industry.
Let the Numpies think or accuse what they like..."prove it"
if you run out completely, well you deserve all you get.
