Originally Posted by
yoko1
So when a poorly designed aircraft intersects with a poorly prepared crew, why should we be surprised that the result is tragedy?.
That's apparently very reasonable, and to some extent I agree. However, I also find it subtly loaded because it hints at a parallel or symmetry that isn't so. A proper design or fix will work for all subsequently produced items, whereas where humans are concerned there will always be greater deviation. Particularly when we are talking multiple levels of indirection from international bodies to local airlines.
That makes even more important getting right what can be got right, and that's why I find the above argument not that pertinent in the context of MCAS. The unsuitability of the MCAS is clear (or so it seems with the disclosed info). That it could have been contained by pilots trained to a higher standard takes a back seat, because on another day there will be another crew, perhaps less rested, or experienced, or whatever.
Or, in terms I've learned here: there is a hole in the cheese that should not have been there to begin with but that was carved out due to cost cutting, and another one that can never be completely removed because of the human factor. To me, these are not the same.
And, anticipating those that will argue that "you cannot have a perfect plane that never fails"... That's not what I'm saying.
Now, you could tell me that the human hole has become so big that even minuscule holes in the machine will result in crashes. That, if true, is truly worrying but would be an orthogonal issue that does not change my opinion of MCAS (although perhaps it would change the one about the industry).