Was there an “objective risk assessment” for “safety”? What were the probabilities at which the mitigations for the perceived risks of ETOPS operations turned those operations from objectively “unsafe” to objectively “safe”?
Are the probabilities of a passenger fatality on a transport category ETOPS operation higher or lower than the probabilities of a passenger fatality on a 9 seat piston twin charter? CASA certifies both operations. Are they equally “safe”? If not, on what objective basis can they both be permitted to continue?
Someone proposes to use a single turbine engined aircraft in RPT operations. Because of the perceived risks of that operation, the regulator mandates that the engine be changed every 100 hours, prohibits the aircraft from operating over built up areas and requires a twin engined aircraft to fly in front with red flags. Were those mitigations a cost-effective and necessary response to the objective risks of engine failure?
You’re missing Dick’s point (although I do concede that he sometimes makes them poorly).