Originally Posted by
Cows getting bigger
I'm starting to draw parallels with the "Guns don't kill people, people do" argument. There certainly appears to be a lack of subscription to modern safety management principles (layers, bow-ties etc).
The whole 'defence' seems to be based around an argument that whilst BA created a characteristic of HAL that would make him suicidal purely because of a single corrupt data path, everything would be OK as long as you subsequently disabled HAL within a finite period. Hmmmm, I'm not detecting an overly mature hazard analysis process there.
I agree. There seems to be a strong correlation between:
- chauvinistic attitudes to 3rd world pilots
- a protective attitude towards a 1st-world manufacturer
- the mentality of blame the victim/dead guy.
Even if its 99% the manufacturers fault, and 1% the pilots fault, its still "pilot error", and "they caused the crash".
Edit: Another irony is that a few pages back in this thread, we have a link to the great Ralph Nader, pointing out the greed and iniquity of the corporate villain Boeing! So far, I don't see Ralph Nader suing the airline. IMO both aspects highlight the gulf in understanding the complex causal chain in any accident.