Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
PBL you are making the same assumption in your counter argument, the person wasn't aware of his indiscretion.
This one was. He knew what he was doing was wrong.
First point: are you sure the Continental mechanic was fully aware of his indiscretion? Or was he just trying to make an effective repair with what he took to be equivalent materials because the "regulation" one wasn't available? Do the court records decide these questions?
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
You wouldn't dream of being so relaxed with a drunk driver who just killed a few kids and it wouldn't aid road safety by letting him off.
Driving while drunk is very closely related, both by statistics and by overwhelming scientific evidence, to inability to judge situations and control the car, in a continuous manner. That is: you drunk, you not can judge, you no can control. That's how many of them are picked up.
Repairing a duct with titanium rather than with stainless steel is not so related. Witness the people on this thread who think that the effect would have been the same with stainless steel, and witness the extensive experimentation conducted by the BEA under contract to show that it wasn't the same.
Bad analogy. The mechanic could have judged that engendering an accident due to his choice was extremely improbable (in aerospace terms) and I dare say that had he done so he would have been right!
PBL