2 ms·

Do you mean to argue that Boing and the FAA and / or any other regulatory bodies who approved the 737MAX should get a free pass due to their outstanding work ov

Do you mean to argue that Boing and the FAA and / or any other regulatory bodies who approved the 737MAX should get a free pass due to their outstanding work over the past 30 years? That doesn’t sound like an argument anyone would intentionally make. They’ve done good work, great. But these two incidents represent a fall from grace, and both organisations should be pilloried for that incompetence especially because they have a history of high standards.

acqq 8y ago
Exactly, it's not about the "blame" is some abstract sense, it's about the process that has to be permanent in order to keep the risk low. Different people already mentioned here a work of MIT Prof. Nancy Leveson http://sunnyday.mit.edu/ http://sunnyday.mit.edu/ An important quote from her book "Engineering a Safer World" section "Questioning the Foundations of Traditional Safety Engineering": "Old Assumption - Major accidents occur from the chance simultaneous occurrence of random events. New Assumption - Systems will tend to migrate toward states of higher risk. Such migration is predictable and can be prevented by appropriate system design or detected during operations using leading indicators of increasing risk." So it's: either the organizations are themselves able to keep the risk from increasing (as quoted, that is even "predictable" and of course it "can be prevented") or there have to be the external influences in that direction. In this case, the organizations themselves failed.