Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
There wasn't "no data." There were two similar crashes in a short period of time coupled with reports from other pilots saying they had encountered the same type of dangerous aircraft handling that preceded the two actual crashes.
You determine it is safe to fly after you determine it is isn't unsafe to fly. The whole world was able to deduce it was potentially unsafe to fly based on glaring similarities in what was immediately knowable with the two crashes.
|
Pilots did not say they had similar types of handling. The media reported every anomaly that the Max had whether or not it was related to the MCAS system. Were the crashes similar from the beginning. Both planes crashed on take off. Was their other data that was sufficient to say they were the same.
The nations that were the first to ban had a limited number of planes. When the consequence of banning is low you can be less certain in your decision making process and base it on avoiding catastrophic loss without eating the short term impact.
I think that the process used was reasonable. What needs to be confirmed is that there was not inference in the decision process.