Originally Posted by
Jagboi
The point here is that respected and competent regulators disagree and have taken an opposite stance to the same risks. One says an activity is safe, the other says it is not. Who do we believe? Why should we believe one over the other?
You're not being asked to believe either of them. All you're being asked to do is to follow the applicable rule on the day. It is not up to you to decide or choose between the two regulators' rules, particularly when you have no better knowledge or expertise than either of the regulators about this. Aviation safety is a field in which both regulators may be simultaneously right (or not wrong); this is not a binary choice between "safe" and "not safe" (that's for tabloid newspapers); and both regulators may both legitimately and properly hold the views that they do.