| > 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? |