Please point out where this has ever been said
AFAIK only 1 CB got pulled - the one for the RAT Heater, and the RAT Heater alone... so I for one believe it has been said repeatedly.
The query seems to me whether the reason the RAT Heater was heating was examined i.e. investigate the cause of the problem, or whether just the symptom was addressed i.e. not work out
why the RAT Heater was incorrectly heating, just stop it doing so.
Whilst I am sure some Spanish judge will state the Engineer should have "thought more deeply", and the 20:20 hindsight pPrune judges as well, my personal opinion is that "curing the symptom" is what 90% of engineers would have done, especially given the time pressure. That is how MELs are used today - you might not like, and I don't
The immediate solution is to amend the MEL for the RAT Heater (and other systems) to prevent pulling those CBs without specific other fault finding.
But longer term, I think MEL philosophy needs to be addressed. These are supposed to concern "faulty / defective" items i.e.
not working. Items working correctly but at the wrong time, or intermittently, can cause additional problems, or mask the real problem, and the MEL IMHO should not be the first port of call
NoD