How to talk to non-pilots

[kimberlyanne546]

Not sure how to word this question, and I know we've all talked about this before.

Something happened to me today, aviation related, and I wanted to ask everyone for feedback and advice.

I was on the phone with a vendor of mine (VERY NICE electrical person). I called regarding my regular properties, and we've met before, and I needed an HVAC recommendation.

So at the end of our phone call, I plan to hang up, when all of a sudden he asks:

"So Kimberly how is the flying going? Been on any flights?"

And I tell him yes, I'm flying almost every weekend if I can, and I'm getting more and more in love with the whole thing yada yada yada.

Then he says at the end:

"You know, I worry, whenever I see a small plane crash around here on the news, I worry it is you. Be safe."

I told him that unless they are 172s or 150s or 152s it is probably not me. But then I realized I fly in other people's airplanes too.

What do you say to non-pilots to "prove your point" that your flying is relatively safe?

What "facts" do you quote or . . . ?

I know how to talk to pilots or potential pilots and get them excited about GA, but what about "the public"? How do you talk to them to at least try and counter all that crap in the media about us?

 

[Jim Logajan]

"Whenever I hear about a car crash, I think of you too!" LOL!

Not bad.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I don't say anything, because I believe it is a dangerous activity and I say so.

Driving has it dangers also, but nothing like flying.

On a per-hour basis, flying a small plane is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle.

I think if one feels the need to provide any comparably dangerous activity to someone who states some concern, that may be the one. They may not like that answer either, of course.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I already don't like that answer. I rode motorcyles and quit due to everyone dying or having life-long injuries. Motorcycles are dangerous.

Sorry, remembered wrong - the stats for motorcycles makes then generally 2 to 4 times more dangerous than small airplanes:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36229/cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf

 

[Jim Logajan]

I like this table from the NTSB report. I think you should just carry it with you and whip it out if someone mentions flying safety.:wink2:

View attachment 25129

Minor correction: it's an ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) report, not NTSB report.

 

[Jim Logajan]

That is true Jim, however if you remove turbine aircraft from the GA statistics then you are back to about the same as motorcycles. There is a very good thread on Beech Talk where some of the guys went in depth on the statistics. Any way you turn it flying small piston planes is dangerous.

So far as I can tell, the Australians define "general aviation" differently; they do not include charter operations. I suspect the turbine aircraft you are thinking of are included in the "Low capacity RPT" category that is treated differently in the cited report.

From http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2485752/ar2011020.pdf :"Commercial air transport: Commercial air transport refers to scheduled and non-scheduled commercial operations used for the purposes of transporting passengers and/or cargo for hire or reward. Specifically, this includes:
High capacity regular public transport (RPT). Regular public transport operations1 conducted in high capacity aircraft. A high capacity aircraft refers to an aircraft that is certified as having a maximum capacity exceeding 38 seats or a maximum payload exceeding 4,200 kg.
Low capacity RPT. Regular public transport operations conducted in aircraft other than high capacity aircraft. That is, aircraft with a maximum capacity of 38 seats or less, or a maximum payload of 4,200 kg or below.
Charter. Charter operations involve the carriage of passengers and/or cargo on non-scheduled operations by the aircraft operator, or the operator’s employees, in trade or commerce, excluding RPT operations.2
General aviation: General aviation is all flying activities outside of scheduled (RPT) and non-scheduled (charter) passenger and freight operations. General aviation in this report does not include Australian non-VH registered aircraft. General aviation does include:
Aerial work: including ambulance and emergency medical services, agriculture, mustering, search and rescue, fire control, and survey and photography.
Flying training.
Private, business and sports aviation. Sports aviation includes gliding, parachute operations, and acrobatics."

 

[Jim Logajan]

You can't fly GA and declare yourself exempt from GA statistics. Same as saying: I only smoke cigarettes on weekends/after a drink/don't inhale/etc so the cancer statistics don't apply to me...
Those retarded pilots that crash doing stupid things are you and me.

Aircraft accidents are not generally random events just because we happen to use statistics to analyze them.

If I were relying only on statistical analysis (I would never rely only on that) then if I want to lower my risk, I should find the statistical subcategories that show the lowest risks and do whatever is needed to move myself into one of those subcategories.

Of course, it is possible to find via statistics some useless subcategories - like discovering people who wear green underwear are never involved in accidents and then attempting to emulate them in hopes of reducing one's risk.

It is possible to "exempt" oneself from the worst of the statistics by analyzing not just the statistics, but the causal chains and acting accordingly. (This happens to be true of the smoking example; according to statistics and reasonable causal mechanisms, there are things one can do to lower the probability of getting lung cancer and still smoke.)

 

[Jim Logajan]

Thinking yourself safe enough to beat the odds sure sounds like a dangerous attitude to me.:yesnod::lol::mad2:

Your sentence doesn't make sense. Be careful what you are trying to say, because it is very dangerous to treat airplane accidents as random events whose probability is not amenable to change.