I would suggest that people here that are saying that a 7M8 is safer than “x” (driving) and therefore it is foolish to avoid it are kind of missing the point. The question is: is the 7M8 less safe than the alternative aircraft one could choose? Is it less safe than a 319? If the answer is yes (due to evidence not suspicion) then it is reasonable to choose other aircraft. Who cares if it is safer than driving, texting and walking, or going over Niagra falls in a barrel. I also think it is rational to take an action based on suspicion or inadequate evidence too. As a flyer if I think it is possible the 7M8 is less safe due to design problem than a 319 why would I not avoid it? Why do I have to wait for the FAA to make a determination? If the cost of avoidance is zero it is rational and defensible to not fly the 7M8 even if the probability of a problem is less than winning the lottery so long as that probability is greater or likely greater than the alternative.