I think Mr
mjbow2 likes comparing apples to oranges and introducing the occasional red-herring. Nothing like diversion and evasion when simple questions can't be answered.
Lead, it does not matter what the 'High Court of Australia has found.' In the case of an accident resulting in 100+ fatalities, 5E-9 will mean squat. The questions will be specific, pointed and go directly to why avoidable deaths occurred. Statistics will not save anyone who introduces a class of airspace that has a level of risk that is higher than an alternative that would have prevented the accident (for the same, or similar, cost).
That's the whole thrust of this thread
Lead!
As regards:
Incidentally, the design risk for an unknown volcano pipe destroying a high level nuclear waste repository, with the widespread threat to life and health that would entail, is only 1E-8.
I'll file that one for the next trivia night.
As for your assertion that we can't 'define safe,' cute.
Nobody on here purported that 'safe' is other than a relative, generic term. The majority of us contend, however, that in the terminal environment C is 'safer' than E. I'd argue that a jury would accept that argument as well.