4 ms·

This sounds a lot like a political deflection rather than a hammer. The wording suggests an angle towards foreign "international" standards rather than just do

• sokoloff 7y ago
  There’s a non-zero amount of blame that properly lands on the pilots and their training, IMO. Failing to acknowledge that would be passing up an additional improvement to safety in the system.
  • AWildC182 7y ago
    It does, but it's not at all related to what they're talking about here, at least as far as the text describes. The issue is that large aircraft require an aircraft model specific training program called a type rating which is rather involved and expensive. Both Boeing and Airbus have common type ratings across multiple aircraft models and sub-models to save on training costs for airlines. To do this, they need to maintain a high degree of controls and systems commonality between the types and in this case, they fudged these limitations by adding a system which was a significant departure from the older 737 type and type rating training programs without requiring additional training on the MAX sub-model.
  • salawat 7y ago
    Indeed. Even if we accept that Boeing's malfeasance was the primary issue, we might as well audit the process around how the training material is actually determined, as that is where the biggest, most glaring failure seems to exist. The FAA claimed they didn't know/weren't told that MCAS was as major as it was. This should help figure what led to the outcome through which their attention was directed away from asking the question that should have been asked.