[henryrp]

Are you trying to say the MAX was safe to fly with that EAD in place? If so, why did Boeing go to the trouble of redesigning MCAS?

It looks like you are pushing a certain agenda.

Anyway, just because the pilots "could have" recovered the plane(s) they were flying, does not make the design of MCAS sound. By all accounts the MCAS design was botched (single source of inputs, no sanity check on the inputs, etc.). This does not seem to be a point of controversy. Plus, as others will point out, two hull losses are a grim testament to this.

[WalterBright]

The agenda I'm pushing is the facts about the crashes that are consistently omitted from popular narratives about it.

Other times this has come up, I faulted Boeing for making several design errors in the MCAS.

But the pilots bear some responsibility, too, because they did not follow runaway trim emergency procedures. In order to make flying safe, all causes of an accident (and there are usually many for each accident) must be addressed.

[rramadass]

You must excuse me but I need to be blunt here;

Your agenda is throwing "shade" at Pilots and insinuating that their responsibility is much larger than it actually is.

I am not sure why you keep pushing this given that you yourself are not a Pilot. Yes, you have listed your credentials but they are not a substitute for the actual job of "Piloting".

As a layperson starting with the collection of data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings (which also contains a link to this article) it is very clear that Boeing is fully to blame for NOT disclosing the changes done to the 737 MAX system and how different it was from what the Pilots were used to. The Pilots were shown and assured a facade (i.e. everything works the same as what you know and trained on!) but when things went wrong they had no training to handle the new components behind the facade (they were not even told about these!).

It is inexcusable and Boeing bears full liability.

[rad_gruchalski]

> The agenda I'm pushing is the facts about the crashes that are consistently omitted from popular narratives about it.

So you're saying that out of 3 flights with this issue occurring: 2 have crashed and 1 has been recovered by the crew. And this supposed to be a supporting point? So 66% failure ratio due to whatever circumstances?

Everywhere in this thread you are saying that MCAS was a good concept, the execution wasn't. As a software person, albeit not in aviation but worked with piston aviation engines engineers (so I kinda understand the whole concept of airworthiness and what goes into the certification process), I have to say that there are many ideas one comes across as sound on paper but should never be done just because they can be done.

The other thing which really raises my eyebrows is the claim, and I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying, that the EA and LA crews were able to apply the correct procedure multiple times yet the aircraft still crashed?

> But the pilots bear some responsibility, too, because they did not follow runaway trim emergency procedures.

So here's a question: would that single procedure justify the need to retrain pilots? Why would pilots fail to execute this emergency procedure if the aircraft was flying like the original 737 or NG? Would the crew be required to execute the same procedure on earlier 737's in a similar scenario?