And please don't try to insinuate I got something against Boeing, because I don't, I'd fly Boeing over Airbus any day. Companies must however be held responsible for what they do, and if Boeing has been taking shortcuts in order to save money and time then that has to be taken seriously. It's also not a good thing how their relationship with the FAA has changed over the years. The FAA is supposed to regulate and challenge Boeing, not share jobs and friends.

It's not mindless denial. If it were, I wouldn't have spent the time listening to the arguments. I am not convinced that it is not true, and I'm not wanting it to be in favor of Boeing. I'm a Boeing fan, don't get me wrong, but I'm also a fan of myself. Every once in a while, I will do something that may be out of line, and I expect someone to step in and tell me to do the correct thing. In other terms, even though I hold myself in high regard, I am not infallible and require external moderation on occasion. Boeing, in a similar manner may also need external moderation. I have no qualms about admitting that. If you present me with no hard evidence or fact, however, I have nothing to go on. No way of convincing myself, or others, that you are correct and the other side is wrong. So far, in the drop test, I've seen more evidence in support than I have in detraction.My insinuation wasn't fully intended, and really only existed as part of an observation that both controversial posts from you have included Boeing aircraft (that I have seen to this point).The last part of your post isn't entirely true, which is one thing that Mary Schiavo (who shows up in one of your links in the first post) has railed against for years: the FAA has been given a charge that is a conflict of interest. More specifically, the FAA has been charged with both promoting aviation and overseeing aviation. The FAA sees the airlines, manufacturers and pilots as its customers. As such, there is a conflict of interest: which customers should they protect the most, by regulating which?

http://www.b737.org.uk/rudder.htmhttp://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s2_2010___airbus_a321_231__g_medj.cfmBest regards,Robin.

I appreciate the links, but some context as to how this fits the discussion would be awesome. They're great reads, but what point is to be proven with them?

The point that things are never as they seem in the world of aviation.NTSB find the only explicable cause is a fault, whilst Boeing vehemently deny any problem and the FAA do nothing to make them fix it.A problem that causes a crash in 1991 takes nearly 17 years to fix? Meanwhile in the case of Airbus, this is far from the first time, yet the aircraft continue to fly. More Airbus crashes have occurred in dubious circumstances than any other type.Best regards,Robin.

The point that things are never as they seem in the world of aviation.NTSB find the only explicable cause is a fault, whilst Boeing vehemently deny any problem and the FAA do nothing to make them fix it.A problem that causes a crash in 1991 takes nearly 17 years to fix? Meanwhile in the case of Airbus, this is far from the first time, yet the aircraft continue to fly. More Airbus crashes have occurred in dubious circumstances than any other type.Best regards,Robin.

Great observation. Thanks for the clarification.

The point that things are never as they seem in the world of aviation.NTSB find the only explicable cause is a fault, whilst Boeing vehemently deny any problem and the FAA do nothing to make them fix it.A problem that causes a crash in 1991 takes nearly 17 years to fix? Meanwhile in the case of Airbus, this is far from the first time, yet the aircraft continue to fly. More Airbus crashes have occurred in dubious circumstances than any other type.Best regards,Robin.

If you can't stand the answer, don't ask the question. Just hope it goes away. Right? That seems to be the mentality.Nice finding, I remember seeing this on an Air Crash Investigation episode.