Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:02 pm #1783755
Gertie wrote:"I'll take you both together if that's what you want.
About 10yrs ago my twin sisters and their husbands went to NY to celebrate a birthday. We were on child watching duties, an 11yr old boy a 3 younger girls. They would probably be mid Atlantic when I considered how much our lives would change if that aeroplane was lost. Interestingly on their return one BiL remarked on the very scenario with the assumption we wold have had all 4 kids.
Gertie wrote:I have decided not to do that, I have decided that it's pointless having a rule if I don't follow it.
What I had in mind was not so much a black and white difference such as in fuel quantities.
I was referring to how easy it is for us to convince ourselves of improbable outcomes when it suits our objective. Maybe someone with a rule of not flying over water has a real desire to visit a particular location across water. They do the checks and factually determine they will always be within gliding distance. Rule satisfied. However they conveniently don't consider what they are within gliding distance of is not landable. Another example may be someone exaggerating the probability of a favourable outcome in any number of scenarios because doing so satisfies them they are sticking to the rules. EG any off field landing whether in a remote area, or in crops, the likelihood of a lifejacket saving their life in a ditching, the probability of successfully inflating and getting in to a life raft…
My point is we cannot be certain we are always as safe as we may believe. Of course it works the other way in believing certain risks are greater than than they are.
All just human psychology, fascinating and we are all susceptible. Moreso because actual risks are impossible to quantify.