Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason the FAA considered fuel tank inerting in the first place is because of a 1996 crash of a 747 that killed 230 people[1], and which is thought to have been avoided had the tanks been inert[2]. Other 747s were lost to the same issue, such as the ULF48 that crashed in 1976 killing all aboard[3]. To answer your question, no, the 747 is not "safe". No aircraft ever made is "safe". They will all crash and kill pe…
I appreciate your answer and the informative links. No aircraft ever made is "safe". They will all crash and kill people given sufficient flight hours. The question is what we consider acceptable risk, Let's give our fellow HNers a little credit, shall we? When the other poster asked if 747s were "safe," do you really think they meant to ask if 747s were literally indestructible? Or do you think the other poster mean…
This isn't how e.g. trains, buses and even taxis are regulated. E.g. I believe in most of the western world you could still operate an antique car without seat belts as a taxi.
This is how I read the GPs comment of "I take it 747s have been safe up til now". The only way the bus/train/taxi in my example would lose its license is if it could be shown if the vehicle didn't adhere to the safety standards at the time, whereas the same isn't true for airplanes at all due to how the FAA & EASA regulate them.