VoR.
Thanks for the response. I'm still troubled by
How is that measured? In the identification of the hazard, it is important that the hazard is correctly specified, so that the causal chain can be seen, and the expected effect of the mitigation seen and recorded
What level of mitigation is being offered? Are the same people responsible for determining "expected effect"? eg. If see and avoid between jets and C172s is identified as a hazard, and the mitigation offered is 'switch on your lights', at what point is that mitigation measured for effectiveness ie. will switching on lights adequately mitigate? If it is determined afterwards that it happens to be a piss-poor mitigator, what happens- everyone just shrugs and says "the safety case wasn't very good"?
Second, it is possible to test the effectiveness of the material by examining pilots
Education may reduce the hazard, but maybe only by an infinitely small amount. How will we know? Is that adequate? Given that the error event is catastrophic, is it worth finding out the 'hard way'?
All this assumes a safety case is even attempted.
Here I was thinking safety cases were just hastily cobbled-together shams written to achieve a set objective. Cynical?
ftrplt. Too right. You'll only get emotive argument out of Dick.