Old 31st Jan 2018, 08:25
  #63 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 891
To quote my previous post:

Originally Posted by Derfred View Post
I don't think there is any question that any safety must be affordable safety - the only alternative is an outright ban. What I mean is, you can always make something "safer", by spending more or doing more. You have to draw a practical line somewhere.
If you can accept that, then the question becomes where to draw the line.

Dick, I think that is what you are actually about... your views on airspace and mandatory ADSB have always been about where to draw the line (and with respect to ADSB, "when" to draw the line, as a cost vs risk equation).

I think perhaps where you need to be heading with this is not just cost vs risk, it's cost vs risk vs benefit.

That is, it should be a three-way analysis, not just a two-way analysis. The third being the benefit to aviation, the economy, and society in general. That is the bit that CASA seems to miss. That's the bit that the FAA seems to get.

Substitute the word "safety" in place of "risk" if you like, it matters little. I dislike the word "safety" because it implies black or white (safe or unsafe), and as you know there is no such thing. It's actually all about risk, unless you are trying to sell something.
Derfred is offline