>>1637133>The Loop is as powerless as all other industries to eliminate risk of fatalities completely, which is why no industry is seriously trying to achieve that goalthis, on the face of it, is also correct. nobody is trying to eliminate all risk whatsoever, because that's impossible. however, on the flipside, as a society we've agreed on standards and best practices and whatnot where, ultimately, the aim is to reduce risk as far as is reasonably practicable, because mass transit companies (and other companies, of course, but staying on topic) have a duty of care to keep their passengers safe. bringing me to my next point:
>All industries have plans for eventualities so as to *mitigate* fatalities and injuries, and so will the loop, but no industry even pretends to have plans for every scenario.this, again, is true on the face of it. however, expanding on this from my own direct personal experience producing risk assessments on oil refineries, the aim is not to eliminate risk altogether, but to reduce the factors that cause the risk, to reduce the overall risk to an acceptable level. this is called the swiss cheese model of safety.
>For the airline industry, when a plane is stalled a hundred meters above the ground, the contingency plan is "fuck it".i don't know much about air travel, or air machines, but this sounds absurd. do you have anything to share that expands on this scenario?
