|
|
|
|
|
|
by WalterBright
1516 days ago
|
|
|
> That, of course, immediately raises the question of why, then, this was not done. Which I raised in the antecedent post. I did not write that Boeing "did not have to" have dual sensor input. I said if they did have dual sensor input, and had done the other changes to the software, in my not-so-humble opinion additional simulator training would have been entirely unnecessary. The other question I have is why two sets of pilots did not understand what the STAB TRIM CUTOFF switch was for, despite it being in a very prominent position on the console and is supposed to be a "memory item", meaning the pilot should not have to look it up in an emergency. That indicates inadequate training, whether the airplane had MCAS or not. Keep in mind that the first MCAS incident, which is never mentioned by the press, landed safely because the crew simply turned off the misbehaving trim system. That crew didn't even seem particularly concerned about it after they landed. |
|
|
> Which I raised in the antecedent post.
You did, in the sense that you wrote "I've never seen an explanation for why this mistake was made." That does not mean it is somehow wrong for me to also make that point as a prelude to continuing that line of thought.
> I did not write that Boeing "did not have to" have dual sensor input...
And I did not say that you did. I pointed out that this would not be a full answer to the question that both of us raised.
> ...in my not-so-humble opinion additional simulator training would have been entirely unnecessary.
I very much doubt that Boeing was at all concerned about what you or I think. It is rather more plausible that it was concerned about what the FAA might think, especially if the FAA also understood the extent to which MCAS's power had been increased.
And nothing else you have written here has any bearing on the possible motives behind Boeing making a decision that you yourself call a mistake - one which was made before these incidents.