JFZ90: It is clear from what you say in your second paragraph to Mick Smith that you do not understand the concept of ALARP. Adding a additional engine to a Harrier is not what ALARP is about.
When I was first taught about ALARP more than 10 years ago the Harrier example was used to highlight the principle quite well I thought. The Harriers loss rate doesn't meet 'normal' safety targets, due in large part to its VTOL / single engine design. The fact that you wouldn't consider e.g. adding another engine to Harrier to improve its loss rate (totally impractical) is exactly what ALARP is all about.
From what you said earlier,
If it is not ALARP it is NOT SAFE.
I was concerned that you or a reader may erroneously draw the conclusion that ALARP = safe from your statement above. I hope the Harrier example shows why this is not the case - it is considered as safe as it can be, but this should not be confused with "it'll never go wrong & crash" which is a different thing.
Was this a way of sending a secret message? I have no idea.
You're kidding right?