I'm not understanding the "highest level of safety" argument; at least not the way it is being interpreted. If we all operated the way a lot of you are interpreting the phrase "highest level of safety", then we would never take off if there were the possibility of light ice accumulation, if there were a chance of a thunderstorm being within 100 miles of the flight planned route, if the visibility was less than 10 miles, if the aircraft had any MELs, if the braking action was less than good, etc. Flying airplanes if all about calculated risk, and keeping that risk within an acceptable margin of safety. Every pilot's acceptable margin of safety falls within a different range. I also don't understand how disagreeing with a CA's decision is eroding his authority. I think the KLM CA, involved in the Tenerife disaster, had all the authority in the world to make the decisions he made. However, most of us probably do not agree with the decisions made in that accident. At least I would certainly hope not. If I refused to take a flight, because the arm rest was missing on the aircraft; and I need something to rest my arm on while I do my sodoku puzzle, I would certainly hope that my company would ask me what the hell I was thinking. Just as others have said, just because you are the final authority, it doesn't mean that you can't and won't be held accountable for your decisions. Like I said before; in the end, there may have been a multitude of factors that influence this CA's decision. We don't know the full story. If fatigue, or anything else were contributing factors, then perhaps his decision was 100% acceptable and reasonable. I don't know enough about what happened to judge his decision.