Isn't aerospace engineering the field that gave us pitot tubes that froze up at high altitude? > well-understood and rigorously accepted simplifying assumption

Isn't aerospace engineering the field that gave us pitot tubes that froze up at high altitude? > well-understood and rigorously accepted simplifying assumptions that were conservative (from the point of view of a factor of safety), and fully encapsulated all the understanding I needed to produce a part fit for use. Isn't even this "reaching for abstractions"? I would argue that software engineering has two factors that result in higher bug counts: the lack of consequence, and the youth of the field. Lack of consequence shows up in errors in other fields, too. How many times has a civil engineer created an intersection that doesn't drain properly, or a curb that was slightly too high? Youth of the field shows up in other engineering fields also. See: pitot tubes, above.