It’s funny in a way that I among others can admit that lock failures are rare and it does not really bother us if one carries and ILS gun yet many yourself included feel the need to argue to opposite here to the extreme.
First off in response to your point about S+W ejector rods unscrewing, I can tell you that personally, I would agree with you, in an absolute sense the ruger design is a "better" design as it can not back out and lock up the gun. In addition I do not know many engineers who would disagree with me. In absolute terms one should always design a devise to fail in the most benign way possible, in that sense the smith ejector rod as designed / manufactured is some manner of a poor idea.
Furthermore many of us apply thread locker when we service our guns to prevent this very failure mode. Does everyone? Do all gunsmiths agree that it is prudent to do so? No, it's a bit of a debate, like the ILS but I can tell you I would rather have to heat and cuss at an ejector rod when taking the gun down than have the gun lock up on us.
A similar situation exists with 1911 plunger tubes. You can have anything from original GI, to GI with a lip milled in the frame to add support, to a housing that is brazed or bonded to the frame as well as staked to bolt on, to a plunger tube cast / milled integral to the frame. All of these solutions seek to reduce or eliminate what is by most accounts anywhere from and uncommon to a very rare problem. Why I ask you is seeking to eliminate ILS failures which are admittedly rare not a good idea?
Second I am not reviewing and arguing auto lock cases with you, you seem interested in minimizing the number of failures for your own reasons, I will leave it at that.
Third what you are failing to grasp and insist on waving you hands around regarding your friend's experience with ventilators is I am not talking about a specific piece of equipment, I am speaking of HOW choices are made. In medicine we do not look at a given procedure and say if we can make it some small percent safer, even if it is expensive, we do not ignore that, we embrace it. It is one of the reasons medicine cost what it does and why people fear managed care. Do we want insurance companies or government commissions looking and saying 0.001% risk is fine, never mind if we could knock it down to 0.00001. I mean if you are the company managing it or the gov and are looking to save dollars that probably sounds great, but IF, YOU, or your brother, mother or sister is one of the ones that comes down to the bad side of that equation it could really stink.
Web Unless you are simply hopelessly invested in the ILS and it's alleged merits I do not think you can argue with this logic, even if as you say to YOU that risk is insignificant.
In the case of the ILS it need not cost anything to eliminate this risk whatever it is, just remove the lock.
As to aviation ask yourself this, when was the last time you heard of a jet turbine in commercial service suffering a catastrophic, stuff flys apart failure? As you have said Jets are infinitely more complex than revolvers. Yet the last time I can find of a jet going grenade is 1996 on a Delta jet. That’s pretty dang reliable. For something much more complex. They do not get that way ignoring the small chances of failure, they get there eliminating them at any chance they can. No one in aerospace engineering would design a lock that renders something critical inoperable in the event of a failure.