Thanks Tuc,
I think this is a difficult area as I tend to agree that surely "loss of aircraft" is catastrophic (not only due to risk to the pilot/aircrew, but also those near the smoking hole).
However, when you consider fast jet aircraft with only one engine the numbers game wrt loss rates starts to get a bit tricky - does this automatically mean single engine aircraft are likely to be "unsafe/unacceptable"? Theoretically this would mean F-16s and Harriers are fundamentally flawed designs, but its difficult to argue this given their basic success (despite their (especially early) loss rates).
"... when you map the various risks noted in BAeS and QQ reports, you'll find there are a number of Class As..."
Really? I'm getting a bit confused by this, I would have thought that all risks in Class A would need to be mitigated usually to a lower level (i.e. B or C) through system design or procedures? Otherwise how can you demonstrate you can meet the overall target? Surely a system with lots of real unmitigated Class As would be causing mayhem on a regular basis.
PS - there are some useful ALARP fallacies explained here.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm