On 2008-06-08, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If you are saying that a high-speed abort would have done more damage
(to the aircraft) than to continue to fly, that's one thing. But if
you are saying that it is ok for $1.4 billion machine to continue to
takeoff simple becase it is more convenient than aborting...???

But we don't know that, we don't even know when the master caution
illuminated (at least, nothing I've read says when it illuminated). We
know very few facts at this stage and it's all speculation.

As an example, if the master caution illuminates *after* V1 has been
reached you do not abort; at this stage you're committed.

Blame has to be placed somewhere, or shared, right? If blame is not
placed, it starts to give the impression that no one is at fault, at
least not the pilots.

But we don't know that yet. The crash has to be investigated to find out
who or what was at fault, and like most aviation crashes there will be
an entire accident chain rather than one single screwup that had the
results they did. Simply pointing fingers at people before the
investigation has turned up the facts is unhelpful and unproductive.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.