Consider that it’s also now true that “normal” incidents among the 100k+ daily commercial flights are now newsworthy if they involve a Boeing plane, when they wouldn’t have been a couple of years ago.

You’re still far safer in any commercial flight than walking the dog in your neighborhood.

If it's a software issue, I'd think owners would be pretty clear on its status on each plane.

But for physical defects, yeah that's scary.

>If it's a software issue, I'd think owners would be pretty clear on its status on each plane.

Ha. I have some bad news for you:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-...

I can't read that article, but I'm assuming (hoping?) that even if the software is flawed, there's still clarity about which source code / build configuration is installed on a given plane.

Contrast that to the allegedly faked test results, and known defects, of the planes' physical characteristics.

The source article was talking about how their software practices were so bad they’d hire $9/hr engineers to work on core avionics stuff.

As for your point: There’s not much contrast. MCAS was software, after all.

Only upside to software is because it can be updated (maybe), it’s at least more likely to be fixed instead of covered up.

> If it's a software issue, I'd think owners would be pretty clear on its status on each plane.

That assume that it is a known software issue. If it is an issue with some unknown triggering factors how would they be clear on its status?