WWW:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">ps the substantive point of commensurate risk has still not been addressed by anyone</font>
As a matter of debate/logic, I'll try this point: I would suggest that this point is being addressed.
However it is being done in an individual and anecdotal fashion, not with any sort of scientific rigour.
For risks to be described as commensurate requires, by definition, some measurement to allow direct comparison. No-one has been able to produce statistically valid data to support their viewpoint (of course that data may not exist
). The only activities mentioned here for which data are available is a comparison of the risks of day vs night flying: the risks are greater at night on the numbers published.
I would suggest that for each of the other issues of risk raised here, no-one has produced anything other than a personal opinion with anecdotal examples for support. Each has done with this issue what every pilot does on every flight. They make decisions based on incomplete or imperfect information. They look at their situation and decide go/no-go. That decision is based on experience, information, or lack of it and Factor X. What is being discussed here indirectly is Factor X - does it
feel right; how important is this flight; what's my way out - that sort of thing.
At the end of this thread each of you will have aired your opinions and discussed specifics based on qualitative not quantitative data. The matter of commensurate risk will still be as nebulous as when you started, possibly because some of the quantitative measurements needed to assess
commensurate cannot be made.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-