you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Just because something is outside of your personal knowledge or experience doesn't mean it's wrong. You have access to the internet with plenty of information available on these topics. Strange to just assume the information is entirely incorrect without bothering to look into it.

Here is a random article that comes up and links to a full database on the topic: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/03/02/most-dangerous-jobs-america-database/11264064002/

You can certainly argue with data collection and such, but most related lists are pretty similar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Pilot surprised me as well. Thank you for the link. Here is the pilot section:

    2. Commercial pilots

    This does not include pilots of passenger planes for major airlines like you might use to travel for work or vacation. These folks navigate planes or helicopters to carry cargo and, in less common and less hazardous roles, lead air tours or navigate air ambulances. Nearly all deaths and injuries were caused by catastrophic crashes, which is why the nonfatal injury rate for the profession ranked low, at 297th.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Just because something is outside of your personal knowledge or experience doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

    just because you saw cool picture on the internet does not mean you have personal knowledge. i actually do have some knowledge, which is why i reacted.

    in 2025, there were 300056 (three hundred thousand) pilots with either cpl or atpl - these are pilots legally allowed to accept reward for piloting a plane.

    so it would seem that the tabloid story in usa today drawing some conclusion out of 37k "workers" - roughly 8 times smaller number, has very loose connection to reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I openly said you can take issue with the data collection, but the link makes clear they're talking about specific commercial pilots. My understanding is that the cpl and atpl do not expire. I have no idea how many of those people are in the workforce anymore, or in aviation at all, much less the specific segment in question.

    Even if you took that stat and spread it over all of aviation it'd still be more than cops, but just for fun here's an article using data from the bureau of labor and statistics. They happen to link pilots with flight engineers, but the pattern still holds: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-police-officers-die-in-the-line-of-duty/

    You can disagree with whatever data collection or collation you want, but acting like the meme is misleading seems disingenuous, especially when you consider the brevity of the format.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I openly said you can take issue with the data collection

    thank you for your permission. my issue is more with studying small subset of the data carefully chosen to support your theory and then presenting it as if it applied to the whole group.

    but the link makes clear

    the link makes it anything but clear. it ultimately admits that the sample is manipulated, but doesn't say how and why.

    Even if you took that stat and spread it over all of aviation it’d still be more than cops

    it would be more than "no data"? 😂

    https://hostux.pics/images/2026/08/25/Screenshot-from-2026-08-25-14-27-0984d2800ddf65be81.png

    one number manipulated, one non-existent, but the conclusion is one is bigger than the other?

    acting like the meme is misleading seems disingenuous, especially when you consider the brevity of the format.

    the "meme" is tabloid trash. brevity of the format is not an excuse, no one forced the author to present misleading data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    10800 forestry workers in the us in 2024: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/farming-fishing-and-forestry/forest-and-conservation-workers.htm 53 deaths (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm) = a death rate of about .5%, 1 in 200.

    826,800 police workers in the us in 2024: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/police-and-detectives.htm

    132 deaths (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm) = a death rate of about .02%, less than 1 in 2,000.

    Edit math and spelling, but check for yourself. Still the difference in magnitude is obvious and always has been.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    cool, but that doesn't really address my complain about pilots. i don't trust these numbers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    It is on the same website. Not always the same year.

    Working pilots: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/flying-too-high-workers-fatalities-in-the-aeronautics-field.pdf

    80.5 per 100k/ year

    Police: https://www.bls.gov/iif/factsheets/fatal-occupational-injuries-police-2018.htm

    13.7 per 100k/year

    No matter what year you find stats for, pilots outweigh police for death risk. Prove me wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    ok, fair. it seems i may have underestimated the number of the bush pilots, but i still insist that the presentation is confusing and it presents "specific subset of the pilots" as "pilots".

  • source
  • parent