Is crew training of a lesser standard overseas? Well, before the CEO of Boeign goes on record on that matter, was he aware that Boeing is or has been the training provider for Ethiopian???? Seems kind of odd to bitch about standards, when the legally responsible party to the standards is.... Boeing.
This is perhaps my biggest issue, Boeing simply cannot have it both ways and now say that the pilots
were not adequately trained for the MAX when they themselves said (quite loudly, and apparently betting $$$ on it) that the existing training that the pilots had
was adequate for flying it (with addition of one iPad session - and no one has yet stated that ET or Lion crews had not done this additional training).
With the existing training the NG has a fatal crash rate of 0.06 (per million flights), while the MAX is at 3 (50 times the NG rate), which would be top of the table if not for Concorde. Neither of the MAX crashes had any adverse assistance from weather or poor visibility or external factors (
PR-GTD), as several of the NG crashes have.
Take out the rhetoric and racism, and fix your plane guys. Suggest that you test your products with the intent of 25.255(a) not just the inadequate words that have so grossly failed us,
Looks like this
might have been happening, from e.g.
https://www.satcom.guru/2019/05/the-beat-goes-on.html quoting the hearings:
What is new is that MCAS stab authority will be limited based on available elevator pitch up authority - that the elevator will be able to apply 1.5g pitch up after one MCAS stabilizer trim command.
I don't think it is coincidence that the ability to apply 1.5g pitch up is one of the requirements of 25.255. Could be wrong though, the number may have come from somewhere else, and I don't suspect we'll ever see an admission that it wasn't in compliance before.