Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
Please don't become ridiculous now on drink driving.
i am very rarely "ridiculous" (and when, then at home, not in public). if you think that, then that is a reasonable personal warning sign that you have misunderstood.
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
Everybody has a duty not to drink and drive long before the side effects of drink take a hold. You drink, you drive, you get caught, you deserve what you get.
Well, that is very current thinking. The thinking, say, fifty years ago was not nearly so absolute. It said that, if you could handle your car, then OK. If you couldn't, then <fill in the appropriate sentence>. Rather as the situation is for marijuana or other drugs nowadays. Now, I think that is both fair and just, but it turns out to be impractical in terms of deterring incapable driving under the influence of alcohol. Now, the law for drink says: more than x amount, you're <fill in the sentence appropriate to your blood-alcohol level>.
These things are mutable. Whereas I don't think that the likelihood of engendering a fatal accident if one substitutes titanium for stainless steel in an engine-duct repair is so mutable. I rather doubt that anything about stainless steel versus titanium renders the practice of substituting the latter for the former impractical in any sense which affects aviation safety very much.
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
It serves no useful purpose particularly as far as flight safety is concerned to send out a message of no matter what you do you are not responsible.
I agree. And I don't see anyone here arguing for that, except perhaps Mountain Bear (but I imagine he may change his mind).
PBL