This was a unique, catastrophic and tragic accident .................................exposed to unforseen risk when airborne
Your assertion about the unforeseen accidents is worrying, particularly so given your speech as an aircraft captain. What many people have argued on here, based on supposition of course, is that the circumstances were far from unforeseen. There are numerous techniques that aircraft engineers have at their disposal to identify and analyse hazards, and then design and build aircraft to mitigate the risk. Once aircraft are in service, they are monitored, failings are identified and they should be rectified through modification if neccessary.
You (mis)quote the loss of XW666, I suggest you get hold of the accident report, and read carefully the reason why it was lost. Yes there was a fuel tank fire, yes there was a short circuit in the engine loom, but look at why the starter motor failed, read the report and see that similar failures had happened at least twice previously. A modification programme had been introduced, but, some 10 to 15 years later, XW666 flew with a pre-modification starter motor. If XW666 had not been on a post major air test, if it had happened with a full crew in a less fortuitous location and if the crew had not displayed such skill and judgement we would probably be discussing a tragedy.
When carrying out the safety analysis, the engineer is not allowed to factor in providence (luck) as some on here, and it seems some who are exposed to the greatest risk, would have us do.
Safety_Helmut