[cmpolis]

The quote from Marc Moller seems counter to what I have seen as the prevailing thought regarding aviation accidents, which is: accidents are the result of a "chain" of failures; if any link in the chain does not occur the accident can be avoided. It is easy to say "software bug" or some single thing caused this failure, but there are many other factors that need to be considered: a/c certification requirements, training requirements (sim time, transitioning to new variants of an a/c), design philosophy for the Max, etc...

(Not an expert, but private pilot, have read many NTSB accident reports).

[dredmorbius]

A lawyer's job is to win the case.

A forensic engineer's job is to prevent the next accident.

Cases are won on clear, persuasive argument. A simple, single-cause narrative works.

Accidents are avoided by removing or mitigating contributing factors, based on significance and costs.

Put another way: truth and science are not rhetorical activities. Politics and business are.

[salawat]

Note that the aviation industry (as you are likely aware) operates on a blameless basis in the interest of preventing a repeat of the same tragedy. That part has come and gone. The cooperation has happened. The investigation has been conducted, the physical, objective nature of the issue; it's implementation, and the physical chain of events that led to the crashes is established.

Boeing survived that.

What they haven't survived is the full process of peeling back the layers of paperwork, and subsequent investigation into what enabled the physical foundation of these crashes to come about.

Considering there was apparently a whistleblower willing to testify that decisions material to enabling the crash were made specifically to meet deadlines by dodging regulator scrutiny, I have the feeling Boeing will have a rough time of it.