Originally Posted by CZAM
Flyer;32028230 None of these flights exposed the public on the ground to any undue risk.
How can that be said when non-systemically redundant AoA instrumentation can fail at any time for a number of causes, and there is not a credible fool-proof recovery procedure in place? If either of the two prior incidents were replicated, for any reason, there is certainly the possibility that the crash happens in a populated area, given how significantly populated the lower Mainland, or the GTA is.
Is it too much to expect the larger media outlets to weigh the reasonable and likely explanations for such activity prior to airing the grievances of a few understandably biased individuals, and be able to determine the absence of controversy?
Either an aircraft is airworthy, or it isn't. Airline personnel and the on-the-ground public should not be exposed to the risk of flying an unairworthy aircraft, merely for the sake of commercial convenience (such as repositioning to contract maintenance facilities to fit entertainment systems, or cheaper parking spots). The risk is low, but the consequences are severe. Perhaps they should have explored with Boeing the possibility of special training and procedures for the 737 so that MCAS could be locked out, placarded and MEL'ed to make the flights. Maybe that's already the case, hence there should be something in the TC and FAA ferry permits that requires such as a condition of operating authority.