We are well away from Al's 'demonstration' now and into fine semantics, but I believe the RAF's actions on that event were taken not on perceived 'risk' of any kind but purely on disciplinary grounds.
I wonder if Heliport recognises that in aviation a very high percentage of risk, actual and not fanciful (indeed demonstated) has arisen from unplanned and impulsive manouevres conducted by pilots? I have, sadly, a few friends who have damaged aircraft and some indeed killed themselves in such manouevres. Others, not of my acquaintance, have killed by-standers. Risk becoming event.
Does he indeed know that the life of an experienced pilot revolves around the 'what if'? Why are engine failures on take-off briefed? After all, they are extremely rare, though they have indeed occurred. Is that 'fanciful'? Do not all aircraft accidents happen when the 'what if' becomes the 'it did'?
I have in my life taken 'risks' with aircraft (hopefully well-considered), am fully supportive of the Tim's desire to avoid the 'nanny state' and get fearlessly out of bed (most) mornings. Is it not just a question of balance and necessary risk? Everything we do has an element of risk. Do we actually have a god-given right to impose an element of risk on others in the interests of keeping the 'free spirit' alive? To take Heliport's driving analogy a stage further - is there a risk to others, actual or fanciful, if we exceed the speed limit in a built-up area, just because we want to?