Tell me you don't know what you're talking about without telling me you don't know what you're talking about.

These are machines. Machines break, no matter what the maintenance regime is. The number of cycles on these planes is awe inspiring, and while there are always squawks, the captain and FO always have the authority to ground a plane for any maintenance items they don't like.

> They were lucky that the weather was cooperating. In bad weather and strong winds who knows what would have happened.

Exactly the same thing would have happened. Maybe if it was raining or very cold we wouldn't have quite as much passenger cell phone footage from the runway. But weather had nothing to do with this, nice weather didn't make the landing any easier, and bad weather wouldn't have made it any harder. Ridiculous.

Weather had nothing to do with it. They had a warning light come on during landing that the nose gear had a safety issue, so they did another few passes, requested emergency services available at touchdown, and then did effectively a pretty normal landing (just holding the nose up a little longer than normal).

Nobody is assuming "extensive maintenance checklists" are _preventing_ serious malfunction. They do however reduce the risk for such events to occur to an acceptable level.

The likelihood for a malfunction is never zero.

Wearing a seatbelt doesn't prevent you from dying in a car accident, guess we might as well stop that too, sounds useless to me.