At what point did the regulator’s paradigm shift? Or was there no single point and we’ve just been swimming in a pot of water that has been heated so slowly, we only now realise its boiling?
Once upon a time, it was the culture of the Aviation industry to “err on the side of Safety”. If there was suspicion of a systemic, design or manufacture issue, the type would be grounded until the issue was resolved. Instead, here we’ve had a situation where the both the Manufacturer and the regulator, refused to act until it was proven that there was a problem with the Max.
Even after the second Max crash, both parties were initially saying there was no evidence to support a grounding.
Two smoking holes in the ground and the Regulator is saying “prove it”? When did the onus shift from proving an aircraft is safe, to proving it is unsafe and what does it take to do that? Apparently the answer to the latter part of that question is 300+ dead bodies.