Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
The insurance company makes an objective assessment of the probabilities of having to pay out, puts a price and margin on that risk, and off Dick goes in his JetRanger and insurance cover. That’s a commercially-driven decision, not a safety decision.
Dick’s point is that CASA makes equivalent decisions, but pretends they are determined by safety considerations.
For example, there is no safety basis for the classification of operations. Passengers boarding a charter flight on a 9 seat piston aircraft and passengers boarding an RPT flight on a twin jet have no idea about the absolute and comparative probabilities of each aircraft being involved in a fatal accident. Amazingly, if the passengers on the first aircraft happen to be a patient being medevacd, and her husband, the flight is acceptably ‘safe’ at aerial work standards, but not acceptably ‘safe’ if they are just ‘plain old passengers’.
The classification of operations scheme results in some people being less safe than others, based on cost and practical considerations. “Cost and practical considerations” is long-hand for “politics”.
So your (and Dick's) argument is there has been no objective risk assessment for safety? Especially given all the data that exists that proves his point that ETOPS operations are unsafe... wait, he's basing all his "data" around one bit of anecdotal data from a single source.
Dick, how about instead of sounding like someone who is willing to just jump on a single bit of anecdotal evidence because you have a bone to pick, show us an intelligent argument by reasonable person and come to us with hard statistical data you've compiled on engines which power ETOPS approved aircraft and show us what the real probabilities are and how the regulator has compromised safety. Then we all can have a reasonable discussion about this subject.
Because right now your argument has the scientific veracity of that of a flat earther.