Originally Posted by
L39 Guy
So what simulator exercises would you incorporate to reflect the differences in the MAX, specifically the MCAS? How about an uncommanded nose down trimming? That is already incorporated in a conventional stab trim runaway, a basic requirement of getting a type rating on any B737. Or how about an unreliable airspeed including stick shaker? An unreliable airspeed exercise is also part of a type rating on any B737. In other words, there is nothing so uniquely different with the MAX that justifies a new simulator let alone MAX (MCAS) specific training. And even if you were to provide this (redundant) training, there is no guarantee that the crews would do the drill anyways as we have tragically witnessed with these accidents.
Not having the exact simulator for training has loads and loads of precedents - I can guarantee that the simulator configurations at a non-airline specific training facility (Flight Safety, CAE, Boeing, Airbus) would be different than what one would find on the aircraft of a particular airline. And even airline specific training facilities often don't have simulators that match their fleet as the fleet may have many configurations. As an example, where I work we have B767-300's with GE and Pratt engines, those engines start and behave completely differently (GE uses N1 as the reference power, Pratt uses EPR). Or an A340 simulator that is used for both the -300 and -500 which have entirely different fuel systems, different engines (CFM vs Rolls Royce), B787 simulators where the -800 and -900 are different (the -900 has more flaps settings for example).
The point is is that is both impractical and unrealistic to have "perfect" simulators; instead one has relied upon professional and experienced pilots to deal with differences between the simulator and the aircraft and also deal with different aircraft within a fleet.
I'm sorry but this is genuinely disengenous.
You can't argue what about this, or that.
They didn't have this, or that.
They had all of it.
What you are arguing is that because individual elements of the failure were trained independently, that there was no combination of trained failures that could be expected to overcome the flight crew.
That no matter what the automation did and no matter how many failure modes were presented concurrently, that the flight crew should be expected to compensate regardless.
This just doesn't make sense.
The problem here is precisely that the combination of so many individually trained and for that matter untrained failures was too numerous to encourage and support successful and timely diagnosis by a typical crew.