Originally Posted by
TylerMonkey
In most cases I would agree. This one is different,
Missing wreckage may help to solve the puzzle but they don't have it. There is only one conclusion I can see logically . . . they found something outside of the wreckage evidence that made them issue this advisory that the 225 is safe to fly. I don't buy the theory that it is all
PR spin to keep business as usual. My 2 cents, and worth as much.
That seems very plausible. Also, I can't imagine that either their lawyers or the various regulators would allow such an assertion if they did not have strong grounds.