At the same time, the incidents last year are not excusable. This is all the noise about, the quality control problems are inexcusable and having a safe year does not do anything to save face.
Technological advances also increase complexity which can increase risk in unforeseen ways. Here is a perfect example where a single action within a 180 millisecond window was almost enough to crash a plane [0].
Could software be made to handle it even better? Absolutely. But it's not a software error per se that caused this.
> the video even emphasises that it is not banned in Europe
No, what's strictly not demanded by EASA is that the manufacturers enable safe application of go-around thrust even if reversers have been deployed. Airbus implemented this nevertheless, but that was only tested with both wheels on the ground.
The same thing happened with vaccines to a large degree, right? A generation grows up without measles, and then they think maybe vaccinating against measles isn't really that important. After all, they never knew anybody who got it, how bad could it be?
Successful public health and aviation both require both deep engineering & science, strong top-down policies and enforcement, and robust & knowledgeable on-the-ground personnel.
And of course a public bought-into all of this.
The closest I can think of-prior and surely because I’m a poor student of history—goes back to Roman aqueducts and roads, where so many things had to go right and maintained.