Agreed. We'll possibly never have all the answers. The overall irony is that as much as we all are concerned with having the safest aircraft possible and operating it in the safest manner possible it always comes back to money. I say this in the sense that behind the safety talk, there is also the cutthroat requirement of having the most efficient aircraft in terms of what it can do for what it costs. If we all really wanted safer flying we'd slow down, carry less , ask for less, never push the envelope we are given and not worry about empty weight. Who among us has never looked at an airframe fitting that has cracked and thought" if they'd just made it out of steel or beefed it up just a bit, it wouldn't have cracked". Occasional tragic accidents are the price we seem to pay for leaving the ground in any kind of way that allow a company to make money. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I firmly believe everyone does their best when designing a transmission. There will always be risk attributable to this issue. It just has to be true (in my world) that every OEM knows in their financial hearts that nailing down a problem and fixing it to the point where, notwithstanding abuse of the parts (like falling off a truck), it will never happen again is so superior to covering up or inadequate fixes that they do what needs to be properly done. If that gearbox had 50 kilos more metal engineered into the critical parts I think nobody would notice the reduced capability. Unfortunately it seems that has to start in the design phase, not in the fix the problem phase.