[sho]

Everything you said might well be true, and indeed as far as I know it is, but aircraft should not have fail-deadly systems which require lightning reflexes and up-to-the-second training to diagnose and disable fast enough before they crash the freaking plane in the first place. Yes, the pilots of the affected flights might have been able to save the aircraft if their training had been just that little bit better. We'll never know. But the real blame falls squarely on the shoulders of Boeing for shipping such a ticking time bomb in the first place.

Which is why the entire worldwide MAX fleet was grounded for more than a year, and the regulators didn't just mandate a bit of extra training.

Coming up with this narrative about how it's the crew's fault because they failed to disable Boeing's quietly introduced little self-destruct system fast enough to save their own lives was a particularly despicable move from their PR department and I lost a lot of respect for them over that.

[WalterBright]

It did not require lightning reflexes or up-to-the-second training. The first LA crash came after the crew dealt with it for 11 minutes, and restored trim 25 times. The EA crew restored normal trim a couple times, and crashed after 3 minutes if I recall correctly.

As for training, turning off the stab trim system to stop runaway trim is a "memory item", which means the pilots must know it without needing to consult a checklist. Additionally, after the first crash, all MAX crews received an EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE with a two-step procedure:

1. restore normal trim with the electric trim switches

2. turn off the trim system

I expect a MAX pilot to read, understand, and remember an EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE, especially as it contains instructions on how not to crash like the previous crew. Don't you?

> might have been able to save the aircraft

It's a certainty. Remember the first LA MAX incident, the airplane did not crash because after restoring normal trim a couple times, the crew turned off the trim system, and continued the flight normally. They apparently didn't even think it was a big deal, as the aircraft was handed over to the next crew, who crashed.

> a bit of extra training

They are already required to know all "memory items".

> Coming up with this narrative about how it's the crew's fault because they failed to disable Boeing's quietly introduced little self-destruct system fast enough to save their own lives was a particularly despicable move from their PR department

AFAIK Boeing never did say it was the crew's fault. The "have to respond within 5 seconds" is a fantasy invented by the media. It is not factual.

Both Boeing and the crews share responsibility for the crashes.

[sho]

> Both Boeing and the crews share responsibility for the crashes.

And I never said they didn't. I just choose to assign Boeing the lion's share of the blame, as they should never have let that rush-job, cost-cutting death trap of a machine take to the skies in the first place.

Anyway, I see you have your mind made up, so there's not much point in arguing further. If you feel like continuing, why don't you take it up with - let's see - every single global aviation regulator, who also somehow came to the conclusion that there was maybe something a little bit wrong with the type.