Originally Posted by
Bend alot
Is that a obviously yes or a obviously no answer Capn Bloggs?
Keeping in mind, no other breed of the 737 would have put a nose down input to the stabiliser.
As a side, a run away stabiliser you would expect after a input was made and a stop of input expected, but did not happen. That is not what happened in these two cases as no nose down input should have happened (it was not an over run, but more like a 1958 red Plymouth Fury event)
Your aside is very interesting and highlights a training issue. What you are saying is that
in all your training, 'runaway stabilizer' is triggered by an input; consequently you believe that any
other uncommanded running of the stabilizer
should not be met with the runaway stabilizer NNC. Generalized, this becomes a requirement for every possible failure to be given its own NNC and trained specifically in the simulator which is obviously not sensible.
This highlights a problem in training which is almost certain with the limitations on time spent and a tick box approach. It would seem that there is a requirement for complex failures that do not fit in simple '
trigger an NNC' by rote responses, but which require some thought and it should be the analytical approach to some failures that is taught rather than only a limited set of [ -simple failure- -> by-rote-unthinking-response] exercises that require no understanding of what is being done.