This thread continues to demonstrate the range human thinking (see # 57). Perhaps this reflects modern society, instant answer web search, knowledge retention not required, text a question to provoke reaction, and litter the thread with lengthy quotes like a wiki with meaningless content.
Some have suggested a like / dislike button response, but explanation would better develop understanding which is an objective of this forum.
Perhaps an APP which prevents posting without first visiting previous pages, it might provoke thought or even answer questions.
The moderators have a difficult task, but has the balance between free expression (even commercial influence) detrimentally changed the high ideals of Pprune.
Relating the above to the thread subject; why don’t the regulators intervene, identify threats and then strengthen technical and operational defences; preferably proactively, or at least in response to an accident
But there are always external influences; commerce rules the world, modification will cost someone, but without cost, financial, thinking, or action, then where will the safety improvements which the industry need come from.
What was the last major independent intervention - U.K. CAA Stick shaker? Trans Atlantic harmonisation is good, but compromise often results in the lowest acceptable level of safety.
Some views suggest that we are safe enough - low stats, others judge that with increasing traffic low stats will not be enough.
Boeing appears to follow the stats; similarly for regulators, both avoiding change based on history and certification like grandfather rights or ‘acceptable’ system weaknesses (sleepy AT Arm (777), rad alt monitor (737 AMS). This attitude overlooks the changing operational environment and decreasing training resource, and the unchanging, limited human capability, or even degraded capability due to societal effects as above.
This is not to blame manufacturers or regulators, they depend on the same human judgement which pilots are required to execute, but they might have the greater capacity for change and time to do it - it is their day job.
We must not ask pilots to do something which manufacturers or regulators are unable to do.
Society has the right to judge the line of acceptability; the court in Chicago will make a judgement, but whatever the result, will this add safety value. Out-of-court settlements might be a better commercial value than retrospectively modifying aircraft; but without change the industry will be the poorer. Safety requires an appropriate culture, will a court judgement change safety culture; one small step to improve culture or a giant leap backwards.
Wild speculation and inaccuracy in this thread will not help; we need to re-establish the valued ‘Pprune’ culture.
We should be concerned about the unhelpful range of views appearing in an aviation forum possibly influencing the unwary pilot or ‘wannabe’, and also concerned that these views might be held by the public or those selected as a jury, but that's freedom.