ap, too kind.
The objective was to avoid selecting a specific view as ‘truth’; keeping an open mind, considering another view, dealing with reality.
Truth – ‘in the eye of the beholder’, scientifically is the currently agreed, peer reviewed opinion; however, there could be local truths for expediency which may be the case here – good for debate.
“I prefer steam gauges over tapes …” yes, so do I. But in a flight directed, autothrust environment the tape is sufficient, do we understand why.
Conversely, try a night MEL (no autothrust, no FD) takeoff with engine failure. Then the tape may be less than ideal, even hazardous. Has this been identified, what mitigation has been applied: – prohibit these MEL items?
Much of this comes down to task – the context of events; these are rarely clear-cut.
So yes acknowledge that there are problems, define them and their characteristics. Similarly look at the successes, the benefits, and the safety record.
Those who wish to judge the ideal – a truth, look at the balance of problems vs successful safe capability.
In AF 447 we have one very surprising and unfortunate accident – we must learn from it. There were preceding events which did not result in accidents; why?
Was this man or machine, or circumstance?
A previous post cited luck; then was it good luck or bad luck?
In general we don’t think about issues particularly clearly, perhaps a facet of modern life, but this limitation should not dictate a particular course of action – we should consider a wider view.