Winco,
It is obvious from your statement above that you aren't actually reading what I've written:
First you say that ALL aircraft are dangerous to one degree or another, only to retract that statement by saying that they you don't think they are. So what's it to be?
- I never said that all aircraft were dangerous, then changed my mind to say they weren't.
What I said was
The safety case should reflect the level of risk. There may well be a risk of loss of aircraft through fire. The safety case should should identify the hazards leading to such an accident and show that such hazards have been mitigated to an acceptable level (As Low As Reasonably Practical). Such an level doesn't mean no risk though.
and then
transport, aviation, and military aviation are, in that increasing order, risky activities. The risks can never be removed completely - risk of systems failure, structural failure, human error (be it aircrew, air traffic or maintenance) - but can only be reduced ALARP.
So I didn't say that aircraft are dangerous, but that flying carries a risk (even in a 'safe' aircraft).
I followed this with a simple
There are 3 levels of risk - Intolerable, Tolerable and Broadly Acceptable. Where risks are tolerable, it is for the duty holder to weigh up the benefits of introducing a safety system against the implications of doing so, ie a judgement of "reasonable practicality".
and an explation of the civil safety requirements to show that even they don't expect absolute safety.
I also agree that Mr Boeing and Mr Airbus are making aircraft which, given the currently available technologies are as safe as possible, but once again, don't confuse this level of safety with an absolute absence of risk.
I have no problem with the fact that Mr Boeing and Mr Airbus fix problems when they find something "dangerous". That is also what I think Mr MOD should do with Nimrod.
All I'm trying to point out is that it isn't as simple as you make out - the wheels will be establishing THEIR argument about what THEY are doing (be it right or wrong). You seem to be missing the point that I'm not defending their position so your accusation that I "seemingly defend this level of danger as being within your 'tolerable' limits " is way off mark. What I'm trying to explain is what the CORRECT process is for management of risk.
sw