Interesting statistics

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:37 am

The following was cut and pasted from a booklet producted by "Worksafe BC" using statistics gathered from 1989 to 1998. I though it was significant enough to post here.

Reference: http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/ ... ty_rpt.pdf

Worksafe B.C. is the "Worker's Compensation Board" for the province of B.C.

This is cut and pasted from page 7 of that document. Graph roughly recreated.

Worksafe BC wrote:"Industry and Risk
The idea that work-related deaths occur only in high-risk industries is a myth. Logging, mining, and construction, for example, are high risk and do have a large number of deaths. However, some industries traditionally considered low risk - such as farming and the hotel and restaurant industry - also have work-related deaths. In attempting to eliminate work-related deaths in B.C., the WCB works with employers and workers in every industry, because no industry is free of workrelated injury, disease, and death. Different industries, however, do present different risks.

By identifying industries that have higher incidences of work-related accidents Number of work-related deaths in the top 10 high-risk industries in B.C., 1989-98 Ten-year average death rates in the top 9* high-risk industries in B.C., 1989-98 Ten industries accounted for 909 (61%) of the 1,482 work-related deaths that occurred in B.C. from 1989 to 1998. All other industries combined had 573 deaths (39%). The logging industry had the highest number of deaths: 252 workers died in accidents that involved being struck by trees, logs, vehicles, or machinery.

Rates versus numbers
It is important to distinguish between death rates and the number of deaths in an industry. The number of deaths in an industry can be deceiving because it usually fluctuates in proportion to how many people are employed in that industry during any given year. Death rates, by comparison, reflect the number of deaths in an industry in relation to the number of workers employed in that industry. Rates are a better indication of how risky an industry is."

And this (poorly recreated) graph:

Worksafe Graph wrote:Ten-year average death rates in the top 9 high-risk industries in BC, 1989-1998

1> ------------------------------------------------------ 21.5 Charter air service
2> ------------------------ 9.3 Logging
3> --------------------- 8.0 Mining (not coal)
4> ------------ 4.8 Trucking
5> ----------- 4.1 Farming
6> -------- 3.3 Road building and related work
7> ----- 2.5 Building construction
8> --- 1.8 Heavy manufacturing
9> -- 1.3 Sawmills
_____________________________________________________________

Death rate per 10,000 person years

Just thought this was interesting... good information.

-Guy

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:17 am

They left the sex trade off the list.

With Willie Picton behind bars, it should be a little safer.... for now.

beechy · Post by **beechy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:04 am

Out of curiosity what was the rate for coal mining?

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:33 am

beechy wrote:Out of curiosity what was the rate for coal mining?

Honestly, I don't know... didn't see that in the document.

What caught my eye is that a charter pilot in BC between 1989 and 1998 was more than twice as likely to die on the job than a logger.

-Guy

beechy · Post by **beechy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:45 am

That is kinda wierd.....though it is still only a small percentage. I just found it funny how they indicated, not coal mining. It tends to be alot more dangerous then hard rock mining. Thanks for the info tough!

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:09 am

I was very surprised to see that an average of 21.5 air charter workers had piled it in every year for the past ten years. This is actually not the case: I read the pdf and the statistics are corrected to deaths per year per 10,000 workers in the industry. The death rate includes all flightcrew, but not passengers (as I'd expect). So there are actually more logging deaths, but percentage risk indicates that air charter is in fact the more dangerous work.

Another thing I found very interesting was that despite it's high rate, the air charter accidents only recieved one short page of coverage in the entire document, where most other accidents (logging, MVA, etc) took two. Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:29 am

I wonder if the study included the motor vehicle fatalities that wer enot directly connected to the job.

I know for a fact that in the Oil and Gas industry, far more injuries and fatalities occur on the road commuting to and from work than have ever happened on the job site.

Obviously, the daily commute for a person running a tree harvester is going to include different hazards than the commute for a person working out of YVR.

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:20 pm

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... ht=#167006

AIRCRAFT FATALITY ACCIDENTS WCB FACT SHEET

The charter air service industry is the most dangerous industry in B.C. for fatalities, with 21.5 deaths per 10,000 people working in a one-year-period.
A total of 124 workers were killed in aircraft accident deaths in the ten-year-period, 1989 to 1998.
62% of all aircraft accidents involved an airplane crash; 77 deaths between 1989 and 1998.
32% percent of all aircraft deaths involved helicopters; 40 deaths between 1989 and 1998.
There was one death resulting from an ultralight accident between 1989 and 1998.
Workers who died in work-related aircraft accidents worked in professions and jobs such as the charter air service, heli-skiing or sport fishing operations, or flying workers into remote worksites. Workers were also killed while serving the logging industry.
The death rate for the charter air service does not include workers from other industries who may be killed in aircraft crashes. For every air service worker killed in a crash, several more workers from other industries such as logging, mechanics or tree planting, may also lose their lives.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/128.html

http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/ ... ty_rpt.pdf

just another pilot · Post by **just another pilot** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:40 pm

That is why we make the BIG BUCKS

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:27 pm

Are the raw numbers available?

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:28 pm

Are the raw numbers available?

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:02 pm

Here you go, the complete report is in the link in my last post. The numbers are based on deaths per hours worked not total deaths. This shows the risk of dying in a given job rather than number of total deaths; a number that doesn't really have any meaning by itself.

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:39 pm

Dog wrote:

Here you go, the complete report is in the link in my last post. The numbers are based on deaths per hours worked not total deaths. This shows the risk of dying in a given job rather than number of total deaths; a number that doesn't really have any meaning by itself.

Sorry, Dog...

I didn't realize that you had already posted this topic with this reference. I think it does bear some repeating though. Shocked me!

-Guy

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:13 pm

No need to be sorry TC Guy. I think this should be kept in the public eye untill something is done to change it.

mduffy · Post by **mduffy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:23 pm

I would be very interested in seeing the average wages of each of these occupations. I know how it would turn out, but it would make an interesting statement.

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:13 pm

mduffy wrote:I would be very interested in seeing the average wages of each of these occupations. I know how it would turn out, but it would make an interesting statement.

In actual fact the wages don't have anything to do with the accident rate. Rather one should look at the hours of training / experience and the regulations surrounding the operating conditions of the equipment being used.

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:41 pm

Wouldn't you say that higher wages would attract and retain more experienced pilots who won't fly crap airplanes in weather beyond their abilities? I would say that wages have alot to do with accident rates.

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:12 pm

Any guess as to how many operational fulltime 703 pilots there are here on the west coast? Disclude fling wings and the boat wanabes… So basically Navair, Regency, Orca et at…. I have a hard time imagining its more than 90 pilots… And there have been what? 14 fatalities in the last year? (yes I know they weren’t all pilots, but bear with me here…)
SO if those numbers are ever somewhat accurate, that’s is 1 in 6.428 deaths. Now if you round that down to 6.0 (a bit of a stretch but not that much IMO) then that is 1 in 6. how many bullets does a revolver hold?

chubbee · Post by **chubbee** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:13 am

Life insurance is a different rate for persons who regularly travel on unscheduled aircraft, has been for decades. The insurance industry runs on statistics.
It took the Vancouver police many years to notice hookers were disappearing, in a bad way. Streetwalkers tend to be disorganised individuals with mobile,transient lifestyles and were often not reported as missing.
Have Vancouver prostitutes now completely stopped disappearing? Was Picton the only freak out there?

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:41 am

I think wage enters the equation, but not as a primary consideration. The general public keeps hearing that flying is the safest mode of operation, pilots are exhaustingly trained, and every airplane is like new because of maintenance requirements.

What they aren't told is that the level of safety varies quite a lot based on the operating class. They aren't aware that the experience and trainging requirements of a 747 PIC are much different than the average pilot flogging a 185 back and forth to the camp.

This allows the lower rung of the industry, in particular 703 operators to create the illusion that they are as safe as any 705 operator and create public demand. We all know that this just isn't the case even if the operators followed the regulations to the letter.

So why are these operations successful? They have created the illusion that they are every bit as safe as 705 operators, creating the public demand and they are able to convince young pilots that they need to work free or very little.

So are wages a factor? If wages were higher, would the factor of safety increase? We won't know unless the public is made aware of the reality and begins to demand better. If that happens the increase in wages will follow. It can't happen the other way around.

They left the sex trade off the list.

I think they combined them since there is little difference between a common whore and a pilot that works for free.

Leerboy · Post by **Leerboy** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:13 am

The aviation market in BC ten years ago was a damn sight bigger than today. Of the companies that were in operation, few exist anymore. Anyone remember Waglisla or Awood?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:29 am

Of course Awood at one time operated nine PBY Catalina water bombers and nine Cessna 337 bird dogs in their waterbomber division and then went into the charter business.

In fact I flew for them for twelve years.

Cat

Over the Horn · Post by **Over the Horn** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:30 am

A-Link & SkyLink are a few other beauties that come to mind

Leerboy · Post by **Leerboy** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:46 am

Six years for the Woods here! was there when the last PBY went over to spain. Got there just as Burrard Air was winding things up.

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:22 pm

Quote:
They left the sex trade off the list.

I think they combined them since there is little difference between a common whore and a pilot that works for free.

Man, I wish that we could get away from the whore analogy in aviation. Whores don't work for free, and I'd hazard a guess that they are fairly well paid for what they do. Ask one to work for free, and you'll get laughed at...not so with pilots....

Edited to add:

Are the training and experience requirements really that different for a 74 skipper vs, say a 185 driver out of Campbell River? Training, yes, but in terms of operating safely, year-round, I think that you could make a pretty decent argument for the experience level being quite similar...