Well on a slightly different note however still theoretically relevant, I guess another comparative between RA-Aus vs CASA ways of dealing with acceptable risk would be that as adopted by RA-Aus with respect towards Pilots medicals, which is (as copied from the RA-Aus website):
An aviation medical certificate is not required but an RA-Aus pilot must be medically fit to a standard equivalent to that required to hold a private motor vehicle driver’s licence in Australia. It is the responsibility of all Pilot Certificate holders to report to RA-Aus any change in their health status which would cause them to be below that minimum health standard required.
Now if (when dumbed down) the definition of risk basically is "
The effect of uncertainty on objectives.." and taking this context when balanced against the plethora of CASA medical requirements for flight under the VFR I just wonder which is the more prudent mechanism for management of an acceptable risk of a pilot's medical status for example.
I guess the same definitive could be used with this engine argument. But then again I'm only guessing, hang on, guessing and risk management? Surely not....
Stiky
