> Another contributor to many crashes is the FAA?s requirement that the safety of a given component or system can be proven by test or analysis. In the case of the Lauda air crash Boeing had the opportunity to demonstrate a thrust reverser deployment during flight test. It was felt that it would be both expensive and it would place the aircraft in jeopardy so they ran a complete computer flow pattern analysis, which proved that the aerodynamic disruption would be survivable and could be controlled safely. In the case of the Sioux City DC-10 crash GE performed an analysis of the fan disc and it proved that it would never fail but their quality assurance program overlooked a flaw in the disc. P&W performed an analysis on the combustor can of one of their engines and that analysis proved the can would never fail. Since the engine would never have an explosive event, which is what was indicated in the P&W FMECA Boeing did not protect the underside of the wing of the 737. The result was in the Manchester catastrophe. <
This stuff above is just plain wrong!
You are mixing a few facts with your faulted idea of what was wrong to support your idea that critical fault analysis could of/should have prevented these accidents. You must have eyes in your backside to see things so clearly post accident. If things were really thought to never fail than there would have been no need for the manufacturers to have issued Service Bulletins against the possible malfunction before these accidents.