Why does more fuel equal more safety?
More fuel only means extended holding and a greater choice of in-flight planned destination alternates. It may increase your chances of landing at your planned destination, only because you can hold for longer than those on "minimum fuel". Where the 'extra' safety comes from is a mystery, all the time we have control over where we point the aircraft and up to the minute information about airfield weather, it is not compromised.
I couldn't agree more if weather was the only decision making cause for a pilot to decide on fuel quantities.
Unfortunately "weather" only accounts for a mere 8% on accident statistics. But "mechanical failures", for example, represents something like 24% and "pilot error", more than 50%.
As to the phase of flight, "approach and landing" accounts for 36% of all the accident statistics.
How long did it took that Qantas A380 (re-enforced) crew to deal with their emergency? Airliners are much more liable today, but they are also much more complex to handle, especially when not in normal operation.
So why do we take our fuel decisions only having in mind the weather circumstances? Aviation is not an exact science. Airmanship and experience are the answers, not been counters and rules.
I understand that SOP's are necessary for guidance, and rules are minimums, but captain's discretion must never be challenged by pen pushers. Final fuel decision is Captain's decision.
After a two men crew long night flight (or even after a long day short-haul roster) I'd rather reach my destination with some time/fuel to spare if needed, than with only a 5 minute extra...that's why I believe that a 30 min final fuel reserve is not enough. It should be extended to 45 minutes.