I note that nobody had taken up the point that the design risk criteria for instrument procedure design and losing an aircraft due to CFIT during the departure/approach is several orders of magnitude greater than the probability of a collision, ie: the separation assurance standard.
How many aircraft/lives have we lost, in Australia, during departure or approach phases of flight??
Interesting piece of psychology, that those of you with a window seat happily accept this (much higher) risk, but become as unhinged as the media about a midair.
Why am I not surprised that you don't want to take that one up?? You do understand the (statistical) reasons for the shapes of the current obstacle clearance envelopes in instrument procedure design (compared with the previous shape), don't you ???
Damn, there I go on again about statistics.
OKAY
I will bite. the reason is that humans are prepared to accept higher risks when they are in control of themselves and their surroundings. An RNAV into some rather hilly areas for example Lockhart River or even the RNAV or ILSinto Hobart for that matter is possibly a good example of what you are talking about?
Now when you are in control of your destiny, you are prepared to take on managing and mitigating against those risks. You know where you are, you know there is a surveyed approach, you know where the nasty bits are, and you know what to do in the MA. You also know if you cock it badly, you die!
On the other hand Captain Bloggs and co....(just to coin a phrase
) he is happy no doubt dealling with those risks, its the ones he has no idea about, no control over and are not consistently in the same spot and he can't see that has him a little less than happy.
So yes I can see why he is happy dealling with some approaches Vs unknowns. this is not unique to the world of aviation either Mr Leadsled, have a look around industrial safety, sports such as motor racing etc.
Cheers
J