On 4/8/2016 11:42 AM, Giaco wrote:
I don't think they have, regulations are just the minimum standards, would you prefer you have average speed limits? If you raise the standard, then you have just set a new lowest common denominator, and are eternally in a snake eating itself kind of intelligent thought.

We haven't won a war since 1945 because we haven't declared one since 1941...
True, neither have we had a successful conclusion. Think Korea,
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan... You gotta go in it to win or else you're
just wasting blood. My point wasn't about geopolitics, it was about
wimpy flight regulations, chintzy training, and the exaltation of
"accident free" days above all else. How many missions did we cancel
because the field was IFR? Jeez...

As to standards, the point I was attempting to make is that you can talk
all day about risk matrices, yadda, yadda... but that does not do
anything about accidents, it only addresses risk tolerance/acceptance.
You either have to quit flying or accept that there will be accidents.
Some people can handle a particular situation while others can not.
Some of the people who /_can_/ handle the situation one day will screw
it up (and possibly die) the next day. I accept this risk in trade for
the pleasure I derive from flying. You want to institute a "hard
deck"? Someone will spin in from above that altitude. Then what?
Raise the limit again?

PS - I'm not implying that you actually want to institute a hard deck.
--
Dan, 5J