The military Flight Safety Organisation was set up for a very good reason. At the time, the number of losses were astronomical and impacting operational effectiveness.
For example
RAF Losses 1952
18 Ansons
1 Athena
22 Austers
1 Balliol
1 Beaufighter
9 Brigands
1 Buckmaster
9 Canberras
15 Chipmunks
1 Dakota
1 Dragonfly
37 Harvards
3 hastings
10 Hornets
6 Lancasters
6 Lincolns
1 Martinet
150 Meteors
32 Mosquitos
21 Oxfords
9 Prentices
5 Proctors
1 Sabre
2 Shackletons
7Spitfires
1 Sunderlan
1 Sycamore
5 Tempests
20 Tiger Moths
11 Valettas
82 Vampires
2 Varsities
1 Venom
1 Washington
15 Wellingtons
You can see that this was totally unsustainable.
Flight Safety organisations were invented.
Enormous leaps forward in terms of safety were possible with very little effort and compromise in terms of extra weight etc on aircraft.
However, as the years passed, and things got safer, the law of diminishing returns inevitably reared its head.
The Graph of Accidents over time is now pretty much flat at a spectacularly low level, and it takes huge efforts and airframe comromises to improve anything at all. It is also almost impossible to do statistical analysis on such a small data set, thus we don't really know whether our latest plan has any effect.
We are well past ALARP in terms of the inital aim of Military flight safety
ie. To improve operational effectiveness by reducing the number of accidental losses of personnel and aircraft.
We have migrated into the belief that there should be zero accidents, and as such we are becoming woefully unable to produce a decent aircraft at a price we can afford.
The original reason for Flight Safety was good. But the people involved refused to stop once the objective was reached. They just kept moving the goal posts.
The US have the same problem.
A classic, if non military, example is the US space programme.
50yrs ago, the US put a man in space.
Now, they cannot.
Why?
Because they have lost the technology to make a rocket motor?
No.
Because modern computers cannot handle the calculations?
No
Because modern materials technology is not as good?
No
It is pure and simply because cretins have decreed that nobody is allowed to die anymore, and making things like rockets safe as this century defines safe is impossible within a reasonable budget.
The US have lost space, and we are going to be catastrophically embarassed in the next proper war in my opinion.
This is not the fault of the pilots, as I believe that we would have no shortage of guys willing to fly at 1952 RAF risk levels, any more than the US would have a shortage of volunteers to fly a Saturn 5 rocket tomorrow.
It is the fault of H and S chimps.
Ghostnav
"One presumes that airline pilots would not share your view given the job they do!"
I am talking about Military. Civvy is different. If anything, I would tighten up their regulations in various areas including pilot minimum standards/currency of training.
Rigga
"What you call "your" choice is no longer valid - even for military aircraft. It is not up to crew to decide if an aircraft is fit to fly. It is sheer testosterone that uses rank to go on a mission. More balls than brains? "
You misunderstand.
I may not have the choice to fly anything I want, but that was not what I was refering to.
I was refering to the fact that I have the choice not to fly anything I dont want to.
As such, I have the deciding vote on safety.