This week we are reminded of our old friend Bob Besco, who has periodically published the Oliver Ostrich Head-in-the-sand awards celebrating those who issue clueless rationalizations for minimizing the reality of safety risks in aviation.
These awards ignore the relative cost-benefit arguments implicit in aviation safety risk management and zero-in on statements that just plain betray blissful denial. They highlight the imagery of the perpendicular Cheshire Cat left beaming at the world once one's head is fully ensconced in sand.
The usual suspects are airline suits, but that once-treasure trove of quotes has dried up thanks to our nothing-you-say-ever-goes-away new media-everywhere world.
In any case, Mr. Besco made certain the recipients of these awards remained anonymous to minimize embarrassment in favor of spreading enlightenment.
In that spirit we cloak the identity of this week's nominee submission (and paraphrase to fend-off Google sleuthing), which comes by way of a midwestern city elder who asks whether a proposed runway overrun barrier will result in any new customers at the local airport.
New customers? Some marketing wank could probably invent lots of them.
Return customers? More likely, which is what progress in aviation safety is all about, and not a bad cost-benefit argument, either.
The floor is open for new aviation risk-denying submissions in the comment section below.