Citation needed.<p>And I&#x27;m not only concerned about the plane staying in the sky.<p>I also want the jet fuel and the weapons to stay in the plane, to name a couple other items that are pluses.<p>Nor do I have any confidence that a plane that stays in the sky today will do so tomorrow, given the record of this team.<p>All kinds of things can go wrong[1]. Focusing on one aspect and claiming (without evidence) that this aspect is safe doesn&#x27;t help a bit. And triply redundant means very little (as with a famous bomb accident example, sometimes all those redundancies are shown to still be cutting it very close)[2]. This is especially the case when the entire system is a poster child for projects going wrong[3].<p>1. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;catless.ncl.ac.uk&#x2F;Risks&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;catless.ncl.ac.uk&#x2F;Risks&#x2F;</a><p>2. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;2013&#x2F;sep&#x2F;20&#x2F;usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;2013&#x2F;sep&#x2F;20&#x2F;usaf-atomic-bom...</a><p>3. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;#q=f-35+failed+project" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;#q=f-35+failed+project</a>