Originally Posted by
xollob
so you can provide some elementary logic as to why the areas listed above as examples do not need to be protected in a similar fashion ? closing the barn door after the horse has bolted isn't pro-active risk assessment.
if its what public think will make them safe so be it. I don't think and at least hope the public aren't that misinformed though, where there is a will there is a way, as mentioned in the excellent Marxist article.
We just end up becoming a red tape society, like H&S & HR drones !
The areas that you list probably do need to be protected in similar fashion, indeed some are.
However, - if you had not noticed - aviation is held to a higher level of safety than other forms of transport . There have been several occasions when lone pilots have become suicidal and killed their passengers (
ASN News » List of aircraft accidents caused by pilot suicide ) It is less easy to find similar occurrences in other walks of life; the Moorgate train crash 'suicide' claim is just one of the possibilities together with the driver totally losing attention. Also, unfortunately, an aircraft accident will get far more publicity than other accidents. So you are in the spotlight as a 'Sky God' and all you can do is give the school yard response "
train drivers are left on their own too"?
This is a problem that the industry must fix. If there is another similar suicide incident in the next year or so, the politicians will take over with mandates and wholly indeterminate regulations with unintended consequences. Individuals or airlines refusing those political mandates would just have their licenses to fly/operate withdrawn. (Note how rapidly BA backed off when 'told' by the CAA to institute 2 in the cockpit) It makes eminent sense for the industry to mitigate the certain hazard of another lone pilot crash before the decision is taken out of the industry's hands.