Originally Posted by
MechEngr
The reply was to the situation in the cockpit regarding MCAS as the cause of the chaos. On that basis your response is nonsensical.
My agenda is to focus on all elements regarding safety and not to ignore major ones, an oversight which the NTSB and other ICAO participants attempted to rightfully correct when the flawed Ethiopian report skipped their own actions. I didn't suggest or imply the NTSB should shrug off anything, though I would have liked to see the investigation include the SMYD giving a false report; I don't recall seeing that mentioned.
If the airline were instead operated by a hedge-fund backed venture capital firm that got it via leveraged buyout and saddled it with insurmountable debt, would that make an ethical difference when they continued to fly? Would they be held blameless for operating in the face of a known fatal hazard after taking no steps to mitigate it?
Apologies, contextually it appeared your response related to the NTSB follow-up.
Rather than again misunderstanding a post, and especially because it's not entirely certain (to this SLF, anyway) what outcomes you're comparing in the question with which your post ends, I'll wait to have the outcome of today's hearing - and related proceedings, if any - in the DPA matter to take into account. That said, and with that caveat, I'd say yes.... outright greed and purposeful manipulation of vulnerable safety regulatory processes would make an ethical difference, at least insofar as a jury's consideration of punitive damages is concerned.