Chris, #110, '
who is paying' - re request for Dr Dekker to publish similar reports on other accidents.
Why do we frame safety benefit with money first; cost benefit, a tradeoff between competing resources.
The request to Dr Dekker for other materials could enable a comparison with different situations, more recent technology, or alternative influences, with possibly different conclusions.
Other reports would provide a larger baseline from his point of view, from which we might consider the many other analyses of these accidents with their alternative conclusions (also the range of views in this thread).
Even so, or without more reports, we are required to think about these issues for ourselves, with biased views, without a baseline or measure by which we could provide reasoned argument; but then we don't - it costs too much in mental effort.
'Falling off my perch' into the real world, the issue of balancing commerce with safety is a threat which must be managed. The industry has put great effort into managing safety at the sharp end, but in a very safe industry the effects of commercial influence is increasingly important. If the balance is changing, then what are the disturbances - man, machine, or money; what are damping factors, or the mechanism of maintaining balance.
Did Boeing ask 'who is paying' as priority in their their designs, or in response to accidents like AMS; if so then the 737 Max has answered, but this does not immediately provide a better question.
If education is about learning to ask better questions opposed to stating answers, then Boeing could have learnt from their pilots advice '
the question is not can it be done, but should it be done.'
(
Boeing Shelves NMA Link to Boeing background document.)
There are many contributions to safety @
Papers | Sidney Dekker but none specific to this issue.