Originally Posted by DianNC
As Tubemonkey said in an earlier post, the potential for disaster is either there or it's not.
With all due respect, no it isn't. The potential for disaster is always there. When you fool yourself into thinking you brought risk to zero, the risk of disaster is higher.
Blood alcohol level 0.040 percent -- fit to fly
Blood alcohol level 0.041 percent -- no way partner
Does anyone really believe there is a limit below which impairment is, for every pilot, always zero? You could say -- only hire and retain those with no measurable blood alcohol. But then you would lose many unusually outstanding pilots.
What is the maximum crosswind allowed for takeoff or landing? That's a lot more complicated than the blood alcohol limit, but, again, the thinking is matter of degree, not safe/unsafe. It's a balancing act where if the runway is a little bit slushy, the maximum allowed crosswind for that aircraft type goes down. Everything is a tradeoff. No risk is zero. Reducing risks of RF interference is not all or nothing, just like many other air safety measures.
Here's a quick PDF that, in how it is worded, gives a feel for the idea that reducing risks, rather than eliminating them, is normal air safety practice: