There seems to be a wee bit of confusion here.
Risks are either Intolerable, tolerable or broadly acceptable. All risks should have the ALARP principal applied - even those that are broadly acceptable (according to Def Stan 00-56 Issue 4). However, if you have an intolerable risk you would be mad to spend all your time and effort addressing the 'ALARPness' of a broadly acceptable one prior to the intolerable one - it is all about criticality. This is a defensible position but not an excuse for not applying the ALARP principal to all your risks.
A quick analogy. You need your brakes on a car to be to a certain standard to operate effectively. Similarly, you need the rear seatbelts to function effectively (both 'risks' - I won't get into the risk/hazard debate here!). You need them both functioning to pass an MOT (~similar to the ALARP principal). If you drive the car, with a current MOT, and you don't generally use the rear seatbelt which risk do you address first? The brakes!
Secondly, we can all harp on about the golden age of Qualified Engineers (arguably equated to Chartered Engineer). With the new 'fast track' CEng open to RAF Eng Officers I would be worried at some of the SO2's who are eligible for this track to CEng - BTW not scare-mongering I feel that CEng has been devalued. I am a mentor for one of the Institutes and (hopefully) an interviewer. So a 'whinge' in perspective.
What also amazes me is the amount of people running around quoting H-C when they really don't have a clue (not talking about this forum btw). Remember ALARP is a verb not a noun as most people have been intimating.
Also, the eng v operators discussion has raised it head. It is a combined effort and no-one has the right to overrule anyone else. I remember an SAC ringing ATC to stop a jet leaving. The rest of the sorties were cancelled. Aircrew were not happy. Who was right? One of the most junior people. Don't judge this by rank/trade/branch. Remember there is no 'i' in Team (but there is a 'me')!
