Originally Posted by
DenverBrian
The only place where we disagree is that I do think Boeing and/or the regulators have an interest in operating an aircraft even with faults, as long as they can rationalize the faults to minor or not dangerous or hazardous to people's lives. "What can possibly go wrong?" We've seen, twice in five months, what can possibly go wrong.
I want my manufacturers and regulators to be absolutely ruthless about safety, and in this case, I think the foot went ever so slightly off the gas.
Absolutely, the MAXes will be safer when they return to service. They damn well ought to be. And it shouldn't have taken stalling on the part of Boeing to ground 'em on the second crash, let alone the first. Abundance. of. caution. Not abundance of profits.
Every aircraft has faults.
The entire point of the design, testing and certification process is to minimize risk. You can’t eliminate risk, otherwise it would be uneconomical to build airplanes. All you can do is apply learnings to improvements. Unfortunately, some lessons come from fatal crashes.
What the investigations need to uncover is whether the contributors to the incidents were known risks, known unknowns or unknown unknowns.