Would you have said that before and after the first Lion Air 737 Max crash prior to the Ethopian crash?

Certainly a lot of people have spent a lot of time looking into a lot of the plane's systems. But are there more fundamental issues that can't or haven't been addressed?

Those same people spent a lot of time prior to certification looking into the plane...

I don’t know much about airplane design. But if you told me that a software was so buggy that it was pulled out of market and then years were spent fixing the bugs in it, I almost certainly would not trust the resultant software more than I would have trusted a complete rewrite.

If aircraft manufacturing is anything like software development (and considering a lot of the issues in the Max are software related there’s at least some of that), this does not make me confident in the Max at all.

Is your software safe from multiple simultaneous cosmic bit flips? The FAA required Boeing engineers to handle this situation when rewriting parts of the software even though flight computers are hardened against this sort of anomaly.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/newly...

There's a similar tenet for purchasing refurbished hardware. The supplier only wants to stomach a single RMA, so they will put in the effort to make sure the re-certified doesn't ever come back.

That's not true at all. All work is a trade-off between effort/cost and reward. The person refurbishing the equipment will decide how much work is reasonable for the amount of money they are making on it.

In an ideal world, we want to sell something that works perfectly and don't want any returns for sure but the truth is we never know its perfect and perfection costs money.

A piece of hardware that has been re-certified has absolutely been through more extensive testing than those sold as new, its a simple fact of the matter