[Gpetrium]

What op seems to imply is that airplane incidents rates actually have a stronger track record as opposed to the opioid epidemic, road fatality, etc. And that if society believes that this individual/group should go to prison based on this mistake and in hindsight, without account for all the other factors that were a part of the decision making process, then society should start reconsidering the way it treats opioid, road fatality, etc.

The mindset of "quick to imprison" can also run the risk of creating a society that is overly averse to risk taking, which can hinder technology and scientific advances. For example, it may take 10 times as long to get a new, more advanced traffic light implemented in your city because now everyone wants to make sure no stone was left unturned, otherwise someone will get into an accident and a staff/group will be imprisoned. Or a new software is implemented but 3 months later it is found that failure under very specific scenarios has caused over 50 deaths. There are millions of potential scenarios that may fall under similar conditions as exemplified above.

Please note that this writing is not advocating for or against either views, it is simply shedding light on risks that should be considered.

[WalterBright]

This is already the case with the FDA 1962 "safe effective" regulations. There is little downside to the FDA wanting to take no risks whatsoever in approving a drug, but a huge downside to the regulators if they approve a drug that turns out to have a fault in it.

The result is that developing new drugs got enormously more expensive, far fewer new drugs get developed, long delays in effective treatments getting approved, diseases that don't affect large numbers of people don't get cures developed, etc.

The net result was a negative for patients.

This was all discussed in "Regulation of Pharmaceutical Innovation" by Sam Peltzman.

There have been a lot of deadly aviation crashes due to mistakes, false assumptions, oversights, incompetence, human failings, etc. But somehow we've wound up with incredibly safe airline travel. Millions of flights with no incident. Do we really want to start jailing people now? What improvements will we forsake if we give airframe makers powerful incentives to hide mistakes? or simply avoid making improvements to safety, because who wants to risk jail for making a mistake?

[luckylion]

Has anybody argued that nobody else should be punished, ever? Otherwise "but there's drug addiction and car accidents! We shouldn't pass judgement on Boeing until everything else is perfect" is a really strange argument.

[privateSFacct]

The really strange argument is saying it is totally OK for people to willfully engage in activities that result in significant and ongoing fatality rates within the bounds of US law without punishment (slaps on the wrist for everything from willful pollution to opiods where the investigators were waved off) and then demand jail time for folks who have no fatalities within US law AND have an incredible safety record in their field, a record FAR FAR better then lots of other areas (drug distribution, medical malpractice, enviro health and safety etc).

If you wanted to reduce auto accident rates, opiod deaths etc you'd put these folks in charge, not put the law enforcement lobby in charge (yes, they will arrest lots of low level offenders but will not systematically address the issues and do not chase the folks at the top).

[privateSFacct]

I'm making the point that for for US flying (with US levels of maintenance / pilot training etc) boeing and even the 737MAX has a safety record that is incredible.

Not only that, it beats almost all other regulated modes of transit and even other regulated hazards (OSHA controlled worksites etc).

As always, it could be better - but it's actually amazingly good already - these planes are incredible safe in a challenging environment (miles, landing cycles, tolerances etc).

The demand for prison time here, when we have so many many areas where prison time can be MUCH more closely and immediately linked to bad actions (and goes unpunished) is misguided.

[situationista]

If it were safe to fly the Max in the US, and the problem were the pilots, it would be in the air now. It isn't, as the problem is clearly with the plane. It was likely just a matter of time before another Max fell out of the sky somewhere in the US, Europe or elsewhere.

[privateSFacct]

The problems were a chain -> starting with terrible maintenance not pilots.

And part 121 planes in the US do not fly multiple legs with the problems described on these planes.

I know it's partly a labor issue, but mechanics at united will take a plane out of service for practically any reason.