Originally Posted by
Indelaware
If we assume that the risk hasn't changed - and it likely hasn't - your conclusion that the ban was stupid in the first place is a logical fallacy.
It could be that issuing the bad was the prudent thing to do based on information available but with additional information being available the risk is now being evaluated as less than it had been.
It could be that the prudent thing to do would be to continue the ban, but that it is being lifted owing to political pressure.
It could be simply the case that while the risk remains the same, the appetite for risk among professionals at the FAA has increased. Having a low appetite for risk - leading to a halting of flights - is not a "stupid" thing nor need it be influenced by external political pressure. Risk acceptance must always be, at least in part, a subjective thing.
Humans - and institutions comprised of humans - are not purely rational machines. Emotions matter. So does location in terms of time and space. A few days after the ban, we are a few days further from the MH17 incident.
It is rather presumptive, IMO, to ascribe stupidity to those in the aviation field for not wishing to accept a risk. Perhaps we should simply compliment them on being humans.
It's not at all crazy to take a step back, take a breathe, and do a threat assessment.
There are many unanswered questions with respect to MH-17. In hindsight, perhaps threat considerations by aviation authorities needs to be more frequent, and more robust to include security and intelligence professionals. War zones transit represents a risk.
A security event occurred, namely the rocket strike within 1 mile of Ben Gurion. I don't see what the issue is with security professionals getting together and doing a threat assessment.