JFZ you accuse everyone else of not getting it
Not everyone, there are quite a few on here that seem to grasp that the fact that an unairworthy aircraft can be made airworthy by taking measures to fix the problems that were making it unairworthy.
the evidence put before him was that the aircraft was tolerable but not alarp.
but here's the issue - I certainly don't question the problems and airworthiness issues leading upto the crash - the use of
was in past tense may apply. But did any of the experts specifically say it was still not safe/alarp, or were they actually talking about the pre-crash design issue when talking about safety shortcomings? Or is this evidence coming from the much quoted QQ report? Is this still 'current' (its quite old isn't it?), or have things moved on?
If it was still really genuinely unsafe would it be flying over London? I'd certainly hope not.
He therefore had no choice but to call for it to be grounded.
I'd agree he had no choice but to say it should be grounded until the airworthiness shortfalls were fixed - did he ask if they had now been fixed? Did he ask what would need to be done to restore its airworthiness? Did anyone answer such a question? I have only read on here snippets of what happened, but if he had asked these questions and got answers it would have been posted here surely? I can only assume therefore that he didn't. It seems odd to me not to ask these rather important questions but then call for the fleet to be grounded.