Michael wrote:

I would argue that accuracy is not only important but essential, and
an inacurate report is worse than useless - it is actively dangerous.
I would further argue that distorting the facts of an accident to
advance an agenda is never justified. However, I know it happens -
and therefore I distrust the reports. Given my experience and that of
others, I consider the distrust justified.

Fair enough on all counts.

You'd call the talk given by that guy "encouraging dangerous behavior"?
I'd agree that that would not be a "safety seminar".

Well, isn't flying a light plane on a long overwater leg dangerous
behavior? Or are you suggesting it's safe? See the problem here?

I see a linguistic trap. Nothing is safe but death (and I'm not even sure
of that {8^). The question is whether the decrease in safety of a given
act is balanced by whatever benefit is accrued. Put another way, is it
(whatever "it" is) "safe enough".

I know that you know this given what I've read from you. But perhaps making
this more explicit would help explain my own perspective on the matter of
"safety" and the question "is it safe".

[...]

Then by that definition, any skill/knowledge training is safety
training.

Yes. Failing an example which disproves this, that is my opinion.

- Andrew