7 ms·

No he is agreeing that the pilots were as well equipped as they could have been, because he believes understanding the system wouldn't have made a difference an

No he is agreeing that the pilots were as well equipped as they could have been, because he believes understanding the system wouldn't have made a difference anyways.

FabHK 7y ago
Hmm, I see. So the Boeing VP was claiming that a pilot following procedures properly would've saved the plane, and (at that time, after the first crash) the test pilot (also from Boeing) agreed. Makes sense now, thanks.
- UnoriginalGuy 7y ago
  And then a second crash occurred where they followed Boeing's procedure, it didn't work, were forced to diverge and then crashed. Boeing's procedure only works if you catch it quickly. If you let MCAS trim the aircraft too much it is difficult to recover, particularly at low altitude.
  - chaboud 7y ago
    That's how it seems. 1. Both stab trim cut switches now cut electronic horizontal stabilizer trim control and automated control together. 2. And manual control does not function at high airspeeds. 3. So... A planeload of people is screwed... That seems like a really risky set of design choices.
droithomme 7y ago
Ok, so you believe it was a sarcastic response. Very interesting take. You might be correct.
- ehWhatever 7y ago
  There's audio of the exchange, so you don't need to inject your assumption of tone or inflection into how the statements might be read. Words in print are a distortion of the timing and manner of speech, so whatever your remark is, it's just speculation and conjecture.
- FabHK 7y ago
  I don't think it was a sarcastic response, and I don't think GP meant it that way, either. Remember, Boeing at the time had not disclosed MCAS to the pilot community. Both speakers are from Boeing, and the first one says that the accident pilots, even though they did not manage to fix the problem, were well equipped (by standard Boeing procedures for stab trim runaway) to do so. The second speaker agrees, saying that knowing about MCAS would not have made any difference.
  - droithomme 7y ago
    > The second speaker agrees, saying that knowing about MCAS would not have made any difference. The article directly quotes him as saying, "I don’t know that understanding the system would have changed the outcome of this." The "this" refers to a deadly crash in which everyone died. He is saying that if a pilot knew about MCAS, the plane still would have crashed. He said this in response to a claim that pilots didn't need to know about MCAS. That is disagreeing by using sarcasm. The Times interprets it though as agreeing and doesn't see the sarcasm. To summarize: Claim: Pilots don't need to know about MCAS. Response: Correct, even if they knew, given the system's flawed design, everyone still would have died in this case, so, technically, knowing about it wouldn't have helped. Now maybe that's not what he meant. But it looks like he did. I don't believe that the context of the conversation supports an interpretation that he was agreeing that sufficiently skilled pilots would not have crashed whether or not they knew about MCAS given that he refers to "the outcome of this" not changing, the "outcome of this" being the crash.
    - cptskippy 7y ago
      What part if that is sarcasm? If anything he's saying a failed AOT sensor means a fatal crash regardless of whether you know why or not. Which is alarming and terrifying.
      - FabHK 7y ago
        Given that he's a Boeing test pilot (and in the context of agreeing with the VP), his take would probably be that pilots should have followed the good old Stab Trim Runaway checklist, and all would've been fine (whether or not you know about MCAS).

No he is agreeing that the pilots were as well equipped as they could have been, because he believes understanding the system wouldn't have made a difference anyways.

FabHK 7y ago

Hmm, I see. So the Boeing VP was claiming that a pilot following procedures properly would've saved the plane, and (at that time, after the first crash) the test pilot (also from Boeing) agreed. Makes sense now, thanks.

UnoriginalGuy 7y ago
And then a second crash occurred where they followed Boeing's procedure, it didn't work, were forced to diverge and then crashed. Boeing's procedure only works if you catch it quickly. If you let MCAS trim the aircraft too much it is difficult to recover, particularly at low altitude.
- chaboud 7y ago
  That's how it seems. 1. Both stab trim cut switches now cut electronic horizontal stabilizer trim control and automated control together. 2. And manual control does not function at high airspeeds. 3. So... A planeload of people is screwed... That seems like a really risky set of design choices.

droithomme 7y ago

Ok, so you believe it was a sarcastic response. Very interesting take. You might be correct.

ehWhatever 7y ago
There's audio of the exchange, so you don't need to inject your assumption of tone or inflection into how the statements might be read. Words in print are a distortion of the timing and manner of speech, so whatever your remark is, it's just speculation and conjecture.
FabHK 7y ago
I don't think it was a sarcastic response, and I don't think GP meant it that way, either. Remember, Boeing at the time had not disclosed MCAS to the pilot community. Both speakers are from Boeing, and the first one says that the accident pilots, even though they did not manage to fix the problem, were well equipped (by standard Boeing procedures for stab trim runaway) to do so. The second speaker agrees, saying that knowing about MCAS would not have made any difference.
- droithomme 7y ago
  > The second speaker agrees, saying that knowing about MCAS would not have made any difference. The article directly quotes him as saying, "I don’t know that understanding the system would have changed the outcome of this." The "this" refers to a deadly crash in which everyone died. He is saying that if a pilot knew about MCAS, the plane still would have crashed. He said this in response to a claim that pilots didn't need to know about MCAS. That is disagreeing by using sarcasm. The Times interprets it though as agreeing and doesn't see the sarcasm. To summarize: Claim: Pilots don't need to know about MCAS. Response: Correct, even if they knew, given the system's flawed design, everyone still would have died in this case, so, technically, knowing about it wouldn't have helped. Now maybe that's not what he meant. But it looks like he did. I don't believe that the context of the conversation supports an interpretation that he was agreeing that sufficiently skilled pilots would not have crashed whether or not they knew about MCAS given that he refers to "the outcome of this" not changing, the "outcome of this" being the crash.
  - cptskippy 7y ago
    What part if that is sarcasm? If anything he's saying a failed AOT sensor means a fatal crash regardless of whether you know why or not. Which is alarming and terrifying.
    - FabHK 7y ago
      Given that he's a Boeing test pilot (and in the context of agreeing with the VP), his take would probably be that pilots should have followed the good old Stab Trim Runaway checklist, and all would've been fine (whether or not you know about MCAS).