PW100 wrote:You are not addressing my point. The point was that the certification system should (have) demonstrate(d) that the design was safe. Of course one can debate to death what constitutes as safe, but fact is that the two crashes revealed serious issues (MCAS 1.0) which that certification system was unable to detect. So it is very obvious that the first thing after correcting MCAS, is the question if there are perhaps other issues might have that escaped through the very same certification system. That is not politics, but engineering 101. And just in case, for those binary minds: please note that this is not claiming the thing is unsafe and that there must be other issues.
Further I never claimed any sort of "standard for safety" in my message (it was brought up by yourself). It is beyond me why you would bring that up and turn that into something against me claiming that "would mean no new airplane would ever take to the skies".
Oh I got your point. I just pointed out how it was irrational. The plane is grounded because of two crashes. It isn't grounded because something was found regarding certification.
If you want to keep it grounded until it proves the unprovable, that's a different point. I recommend making that point before you expect someone to address it.
And oh, yes, you positively made a "standard for safety" inference that would mean no new or grounded airplane would ever take to your skies.