you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the 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