Dudley Henriques wrote:

Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields
improved safety, but I believe that to be true.

I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I probably
assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
comprehension yields improved safety.

Good. I did expect you'd think this way, but I tried several different ways
to confirm this, and never received a direct answer. However, I suspect I
see one problem with our communication on this topic (see below).

I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face of
it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adaquate to produce a
safe pilot.

You're treating "safe" as an absolute, at least in your writing. I don't
believe that this is possible while alive (and I'm not terribly sure about
death {8^). I see safety as you've described perfection: something towards
which we strive while aware that the ultimate goal is unattainable.

Safety is also involved in a tradeoff. As Michael has pointed out on a
different thread, if safety were our top priority we'd not being flying.
We're willing to trade a little safety away for the benefits of flight.

That said, given the constraints of our tradeoffs we still try to maximize
safety. And this takes us to my question about your opinion.

If comprehension improves safety, then is it not reasonable to require that
comprehension from pilots? I am not suggesting a change to the knowledge
required for a PPL, but I do believe it reasonable to require that this
knowledge we're already required to have be clearly and comprehensively
understood.

If DEs are not confirming this (as best possible given the limited time
involved), then there is something wrong. And it would appear, based upon
Dudley's experience, that at least some DEs are not confirming this.

- Andrew