Originally Posted by
WillowRun 6-3
These last few posts are fascinating. .... for a couple different reasons.
1-2-3
.......
Unless I've botched up understanding of the timeline regarding Flight 191 (SLF that I am), it would be quite a "case study" in a course intended to train future aviation lawyers about how little we legal types actually know, yet how much we must understand, even so.
Yep, you are touching the biggest issue around legal proceedings.
These tend to detach from reality, because of the lack of subject knowledge at all legal parties involved, deviating the legal proceedings away from the factual reality into legal nitpicking. And the result of that, is a verdict no longer covering the factual situation, but moving into theoretical mesmerizing around tidbits not relevant for the situation at the ground. Have a look at the fall-out of the Colgan crash (the 1500 hours rule, which does have little to do with the cause(s) of the Colgan crash).
So, yeah, if one, as a lawyer, really wants to accomplish something useful for the society, take care, you have subject knowledge and understanding, and use that to "win" the lawsuits .......
And around the 737 and its over-extended life-line, the faults with this aircraft go much further than the nitpicking around the MAX introduced issues, the -7 / -10 cockpit items, and so on. The Turkish AMS, Kegworth and several other 737 incidents/accidents just show, the 737 airframe does lack sufficient integrity to protect its human content against the harsh effects of a crash. The 777 at SFO as well the 321 into the Hudson, showed to be a much, much better crash performer. But hey, this ancient 737 stuff is still allowed according to the regulations, signaling, these regulations do desperately need a stiff update......