Originally Posted by
Stranger
I obviously don't disagree with the gist of your comments re MEL.
But just one detail.
There is no such a thing as "safe."
There is safer, not as safe, safe enough, or not.
When you write "safe," it really translate into "safe enough as far as you (or whoever) is concerned."
Or in other words, safe enough when taking into account how mch an improvement would cost.
Which begs the question, what's the $ amount you assess my life at?
(In the larger scheme of things, what I assess my life to be worth might not be the same as the guy next door... But eh, let him fly WS. Or should it be the reverse?)
In the context of aviation there is such a thing as "safe" and while there is a $ amount assigned to life, that is not how safety is addressed when it comes to the failure of a safety function.
For example, a function whose failure would result in a catastrophic event has to be demonstrated as having a failure rate of 10^-9 per flying hour. That means there must be a .0000000001 chance of a safety failure occurring during a flying hour.