Andrew Gideon wrote
You exclude all those that recognize the risk, and accept the risk as
payment for the various benefits, but that would be even happier to gain
those benefits w/o the risk.

I sometimes wonder how many of those there really are.

Think about how you feel when you pull off a landing with a lot of
gusty crosswind and squeak it on, right on target. Or when you make
an approach to minimums with the needle(s) dead centered all the way
and the runway is right there. Intellectually, you know that you just
completed an increased-risk operation - and what made it an
increased-risk operation was the increased degree of difficulty. But
you still feel good - you were faced with a challenge and you were up
to it. You wouldn't feel nearly as good making that approach/landing
in calm winds/CAVU.

How many pilots don't feel that way?

"Comfort" does not imply "enjoyment".

I wonder.

In any case - whether they enjoy it or not (and I think most do, at
some level) the fact that they are comfortable with a certain amount
of risk means that most pilots are not too interested in reducing that
risk if it means a reduction in capability. Just say no doesn't cut
it. To have acceptance and value, a safety seminar has to show you
how to reduce risk without reducing capability. That's much harder,
and in my opinion few safety seminars accomplish this. I think that's
why most people don't go.

Most (if not all) pilots I know have been to at least one. They
didn't come back because they were not impressed.

I think the real solution is to have safety seminars that actually
teach you to increase safety without decreasing capability. Then
people will come and pay attention. However, you don't accomplish an
increase in safety without a reduction in capability with rules - you
accomplish it with skill and knowledge. That means we need a very
different method for choosing the people who teach these safety
seminars.

Michael