the BA 'incident' was a controlled risk all the way through, all be it with a less than optimal outcome
If it had a less then optimal outcome, then risk was less then optimal controlled all the way through, or shall we better say: less than optimal contained. Full stop.
What is being discussed here are different risk-taking (or risk-averting) cultures, i.e. different attitudes and approaches towards translating a (potential) danger into a calculable risk. Basically all leading to the same outcome: compromising safety, or even safety breaches. The gist of many postings is that Japanese risk-taking approaches are inferior to "Western" risk attitudes. I am afraid that just because these approaches are different they are not necessarily inferior - in fact, some procedures might even be "better" than those practised in the "West".