Originally Posted by
mcloaked
In running a business of any kind the management has to take seriously the low probability but extremely high impact events that might only happen very occasionally.
The central fallacy to your argument is that a "solution" to those extremely rare but very bad events can be implemented without affecting any other part of the operation.
I would argue that this is almost never the case. The two crew rule that was implemented in a totally knee jerk panic by Airline execs and Regulators is a perfect example. What is to stop the flight attendant brought in from waiting for the door to close, clubbing the defenseless pilot strapped to his or her seat, activating the door over ride and crashing the airplane.
Considering that flight attendants are not required to have a valid aviation medical and get a fraction of the mental health oversight of pilots, I would argue this rule actually increases the risk of a "low probability but high consequence event" occurring.
Similarly the back end is there fundamentally for flight safety reasons, not to serve cookies. Eliminating any personal in flight interaction between FA's and flight crew
will over time cut the bond between crew which in extremeis must work as a team. How can that help flight safety in the long run ?
Risk can be managed but never eliminated.
It has been suggested by mental health professionals that 10 % of the population has a diagnoseable mental health issue. Absolutely airlines will evaluate their mental health protocols but it is a practical impossibility to eliminate anyone who
might pose a mental health risk.
bottom line is this:
The chance for a similar accident happening on any flight is so vanishingly small that there is no requirement to do anything but let the professionals study the issue in a dispassionate and scientific manner and then make recommendations that consider
all of the possible consequences of their implementation.