Off-Topic: Rambling on Risk

Logan Martin Lake Topics

(Logan Martin Lake Specific)

4,319 messages

Updated 7/5/2024 7:54:28 AM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

84,005 messages

Updated 10/7/2024 5:02:23 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,204 messages

Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM

Logan Martin Lake Fishing

(Logan Martin Lake Specific)

126 messages

Updated 12/23/2022 9:21:15 AM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,172 messages

Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,261 messages

Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,979 messages

Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Welcome, Guest

Select View Mode: [ classic | beta | recent ]

	Name:	MartiniMan -
	Subject:	Rambling on Risk
	Date:	5/26/2010 11:44:04 AM

There is no doubt that economics played a role in some decision making but I am firmly, 100% convinced that no one making these decisions did so knowing this disaster would result. There are tens of thousands of decisions made on every rig during the course of its operation that take into account any number of criteria, including economics. That all but one or two did not result in an accident can't be ignored. That the one or two that caused this to happen did can also not be ignored and we have to learn from this mistake.

What is interesting to me is that the entire arena of flight is rued by reactive changes. Almost every procedure, both big and small, came from an incident or an accident. The most recent one is the Buffalo crash where they are proposing to increase the number of hours required before you can crew a commercial aircraft. I could go on and on with examples specific to certain accidents. And those familiar with aircraft systems could go on for hours about modifications and additions tied to specific accidents. I wonder how uncomfortable the average passenger would be to know that factoid?