And it's the reason why flying is no longer only for the adventurous willing to risk their lives. Too bad you don't appreciate that and seem to take it for granted.
And I could point to lots of counterexamples like Deepwater Horizon. What's your point, that you would be happier with a riskier aviation industry? As I said, get a PPL, or better yet start an airline and start lobbying against FAA rulings.
And I could point to lots of counterexamples like Deepwater Horizon.
Yes, clearly we should... um, do what?
What's your point, that you would be happier with a riskier aviation industry?
My point is that many of the things that annoy passengers don't have anything to do with quantifiable risk. Suggest reading some Feynman, specifically his essay on "Cargo cult science."
As I said, get a PPL
That wouldn't give me any special authority on the subject. These questions must be answered analytically, not with fearmongering from bureaucrats or anecdotes from pilots without RF engineering credentials.
I've read the cargo cult essay. Would you say that based on their actual performance, you would place the aviation industry or the FAA in that category? If so, could you point to other, more successful industries?
I suggested getting a PPL to get rid of all those annoyances that commercial air transport impose on you to reduce their risk. There is even an experimental airplane category if you want to err on the risky side.
I agree that it has to be approached analytically, but since you can't prove a negative, in the end you have to make a risk assessment. I certainly don't agree with all of them, but there have been enough examples of fatal accidents when the FAA didn't do their job, that I'm happy that they are taking their time to, guess what, do the analytical work, before changing a regulation. As opposed to acting on a gut feeling about what would be safe.