Andrew Gideon wrote
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^).

Right. That's why I don't believe that there is any such thing as a
safety seminar. The only really valid safety advice it could give is
to hide under the bed. It would be different if we HAD to fly.
Professional pilots, who MUST fly, can speak of safety and safety
seminars. For us, they basically have no meaning.

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".

Right again. But if what you're doing is primarily recreational,
which is true of most flying most of us do, safe enough really means
that the fun is worth the risk.

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".

And the point I'm trying to get across is that there is no such thing
as safe. When you're flying for fun, you're taking unnecessary risks.
I don't have a problem with that, obviously, but I think you should
be honest about it.

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

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

There won't be an example to disprove it. There can't be. Whatever
kind of flying you do, you're going to be safer if you get training
than if you don't. It's not a crap shoot, after all. But the reality
is that some kinds of flying present more risk than others.

Michael