Originally Posted by
SystemsNerd
Thus, when asking "why didn't they just fly the plane?", one possible answer is undoubtedly some variant on "they were incompetent". But another possible answer is "they were put into a scenario in which any human being would consistently fail to solve the problem, regardless of competence". Probably the truth is somewhere between those two points.
*See Wikipedia article "Human factors and ergonomics"
Thank you for breaking this down into such understandable terms. When I posted a number of days ago my own experience (extremely experienced pilot with proper training, well-rested and otherwise not prone to panic or loss of functionality) I was sharing this exact point: Despite the firm assurances of many here there are circumstances you can be placed into wherein you will cease to function effectively. No machismo or mantra is going to change your basic incapacitation and the time it takes for you to return to a quasi-functional human being. From the outcome of the two MAX flights it is abundantly clear that the crews were partially incapacitated and overwhelmed. Given that 6 out of 6 pilots who were in this situation (The earliest incident went on for six minutes until the GIB piped up and suggested the cutout the trim. That flight was also on the brink of total loss...) a 100 percent incapacitation rate argues fairly forcefully (and empirically) against the hero-pilot who will just FTFA.
Warm Regards,
dce