Originally Posted by
CZAMFlyer
Garneau's background as an astronaut has zero relevance to his decision not to suspend the airplane. His primary role is as a Minister in a federal government, and as such is forced to consider political as well as practical solutions.
It may be telling in hindsight that Garneau opted to hold the line while as-respected civil aviation authorities chose the opposite course of action. Garneau stated in effect, we don't know any details yet, so there's no reason to stop flying. The agencies quoted in the following article:
https://www.businessinsider.com/ethi...-3#australia-8 stated in effect, we don't know any details yet, so we're ceasing flying or even allowing them to pass overhead.
Time will tell who's "correct", but I don't believe we can attach a notion of "right vs wrong" to these decisions - for or against.
Garneau is very much focusing on the politics, and the fallout that would result from a ban on the airplane. This isn't an "astronaut" decision at all - yes he is a former astronaut, but I think we have to remove his career history from these discussions. He's not flying or maintaining those planes, and if he's not getting on one, he's not taking the risk beyond political fallout.