Originally Posted by
safetypee
I am intrigued, increasingly concerned, as to why many views across Pprune start from a legal position.
Flying is about safety, thus the primary position is to consider if the proposed action is safe, then compare with the requirements.
In the very rare event the choice of violating the rules, then the safety view is a basis for legal defence, if there is an unwanted outcome.
Safety first - providing we understand what safety means.
A worthy debate, but elsewhere.
The reason for the legal first approach is due to the modern trend in the highly competitive environment of aviation of dispatchers and managers putting new regulations, schedulating practices, flight planning strategies etc. forward that would make any pilot sqeemish and then telling them 'but it's legal'. Pilots who speak up tend to be frowned upon as being undesirable, leading to cultures where we are second guessing ourselves and our innate instincts. The days of the commander being the final say in overall safety is being quietly usureped in favour of the bean counters and other so called experts.
As an example one of the major global airplane manufacturers just recently killed 300+ people in their drive for profits all while declaring their planes perfectly safe.
But yes, you're you're, we do what's safe and shouldn't worry about the consequences, it's our sworn 'and legal' duty.