> But not finding failures during testing maybe means you’re not testing hard enough. Also not an airplane expert... Agreed that finding issues is (often) goo

> But not finding failures during testing maybe means you’re not testing hard enough. Also not an airplane expert... Agreed that finding issues is (often) good (it means you are human and you also found your errors). But of course such testing, certification, is costly and uneconomical, and if you aren't allowed to fail, then you can't do the correct testing either... I suspect the issue is two-fold: Firstly, Boeing can't afford to fail, and hence can't test. Secondly, it is driven primarily by profit, not safety, which is part of why it can't afford to fail. Profit drives/motivates new features, efficiencies, and ultimately complex systems, which require exponentially more time to thoroughly test than simple, inefficient, easily verifiable systems. Falling apart because they are no longer profitable may not be a good thing either - sure, something could "rise from the ashes", but that thing will be in all likelihood, immature, poorly tested, and mostly incompatible with existing systems. The best bet would be to simplify, as much as possible, all systems, suppliers, etc, and to double, quadruple, perhaps even expand by an order of magnitude the testing effort(s). Perhaps even some sort of new New Deal could come about...