Reducing the Accident Rate

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

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

Michael wrote:

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.

I don't see this. It sounds like you're requiring that a safety seminar
provide a means to achieve absolute safety. That doesn't seem reasonable.
We'd call those "absolute safety seminars", I expect laugh.

[...]

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.

Flying for any purpose involves unnecessary risk. Driving involves
unnecessary risk. Walking involves unnecessary risk (at least where I
live, given that we can have food delivered {8^).

But we don't really want to think about the risks involved in eating, do we
laugh?

I think we're in agreement in all areas but your definition of "safety
seminar". I don't see it as necessary that one such provide absolute
safety, nor do I have a problem with one describing how to increase the
safety involved in performing an unnecessary act.

- Andrew

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
snip
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.

Michael, I have to poke in here for a minute to comment this seems
like a very non-standard usage of the word "safety".

You seem to be saying that it's not valid to speak of safety
for non-essential (or recreational) activities, and/or that
it's not valid to give safety advice except in absolute terms
("hide under the bed" = "take no unnecessary risks"??)

But there are many non-essential activities which can be carried
out in a manner which carries more risk, or a manner which decreases
risk, and it's quite common and accepted usage to speak of that
relative risk management as "safety" and to consider courses and
seminars which discuss the risks and provide advice about how to
manage them as valid and meaningful.

Basically, it seems to me that the only way you can assert that
"for us they basically have no meaning" or aren't valid, is to
define "safety" and "safety seminar" in a non-standard, individualistic
way which excludes non-essential activities, then argue from the
perspective of your own, unique definition.

FWIW,
Sydney