ARFOR,
Wonderful demonstration of your dexterity in cut and paste, but there is nothing there that is inconsistent with what I have said, on this or previous occasions. And the results for Broome and Karatha are (obviously) consistent with everything you have cut and pasted from the Airspace legislation.
I love one of the posts that says "risk" is not a good word, then goes on to "probability ----" ------ exactly, in the simplest possible terms, that is what we are talking about.
And I say again, ALARP as was(is?) applied by Airservices in their SMS manual is NOT the same as a "conventional" ALARP, they had their own version that did not recognize (as some of you blokes don't) "vanishingly small" (a statistical zero) as the cutoff for a calculated probability of collision. You cannot have "less than zero" probability ---- except in Science Fiction.
A short course in cost/benefit analysis wouldn't go astray either, see the Productivity Commission web site, there is plenty of info around. In particular, you should note carefully how "proponent bias" is factored in a proper CBA assessment, not to mention the full range of costs to be taken into consideration.
We all genuinely look forward to Clinton's views on liability for negligence, as it concerns public servants properly applying the law that they administer.
You should all go and look up Jones v. Bartlett ----- that will tell you what the High Court thinks "safe" means, for public policy purposes. It is a very interesting read, stated far more clearly than some of the new draft CASA regs.
Tootle pip!!
OZ,
You are falling into the common trap that techniques for measuring quality control effectiveness in mass production (reliability engineering) is essentially the same as ASNZ 4360 Risk Management, and it ain't so. An ex-CSIRO chap, who opposes ICAO cruising levels, and wants us to go back 20 years or so falls into the same trap. I, too, started life as some kind of an engineer.