4 ms·

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).
      - cptskippy 7y ago
        I am genuinely confused though about how his remarks we're sarcastic.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        FabHK 7y ago
        I agree with you that the test pilot's remarks were not sarcastic. However, you write "he's saying a failed AOT sensor means a fatal crash regardless of whether you know why or not", and I disagree with that. He's saying a failed AoA sensor invoking MCAS can be fixed like any other Stab Trim Runaway, regardless of what you know about MCAS.
        salawat 7y ago
        Except that it doesn't manifest like a classic Stabilizer Trim Runaway. The classic Stabilizer Trim Runaway is a continuous uncommanded actuation of the trim mechanism on a particular direction. Catastrophic MCAS failure manifests as a series of discrete, amplifying activations, which are far easier for a pilot to dismiss as the normal operation of the Auto-Trim, and speed trim systems. The is is a manifestly different pattern to look for, and was only caught by one air crew (on the penultimate flight of the Lion Air aircraft) by the assistance of a third, uninvolved pilot along for the ride. I understand how one could see Boeing's internal test pilot as being reasonable, but keep in mind who signs his paycheck, and future prospects for him if the company gets found liable. Perspective, and understanding of what different parties have at stake is essential in evaluating what is actually being communicated, and why. Words have long tails in the aftermath of a crisis like this.

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).
    - cptskippy 7y ago
      I am genuinely confused though about how his remarks we're sarcastic.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - FabHK 7y ago
        I agree with you that the test pilot's remarks were not sarcastic. However, you write "he's saying a failed AOT sensor means a fatal crash regardless of whether you know why or not", and I disagree with that. He's saying a failed AoA sensor invoking MCAS can be fixed like any other Stab Trim Runaway, regardless of what you know about MCAS.
        salawat 7y ago
        Except that it doesn't manifest like a classic Stabilizer Trim Runaway. The classic Stabilizer Trim Runaway is a continuous uncommanded actuation of the trim mechanism on a particular direction. Catastrophic MCAS failure manifests as a series of discrete, amplifying activations, which are far easier for a pilot to dismiss as the normal operation of the Auto-Trim, and speed trim systems. The is is a manifestly different pattern to look for, and was only caught by one air crew (on the penultimate flight of the Lion Air aircraft) by the assistance of a third, uninvolved pilot along for the ride. I understand how one could see Boeing's internal test pilot as being reasonable, but keep in mind who signs his paycheck, and future prospects for him if the company gets found liable. Perspective, and understanding of what different parties have at stake is essential in evaluating what is actually being communicated, and why. Words have long tails in the aftermath of a crisis like this.