alf5071h . . . yes.
IIRC the Federal Air Regs or one of the related although less authoritative other types of FAA regulatory items referred to "the average pilot". I don't recall whether that regulatory item, in turn, defined the reaction time as 4 seconds. Regardless, what you describe about what Boeing people knew and when they knew it, and to what extent the corporate entity is legally accountable for the acts and omissions of its people, does provide a basis for liability actions in my view. I've avoided commenting here on the main liability lawsuits against Boeing brought on behalf of the surviving family members or other representatives of the individuals who died in the two crashes, for reasons .... for lawyer-type reasons. But it could very well be the case that in those lawsuits, the very point you raise is receiving major play. (I know, were I involved as attorney of record for those people in those kinds of actions, I would certainly have a modest regiment of attorneys getting ready to present, in terms a jury will understand, the flight testing process, the role of the two technical pilots whose conduct led to the DPA, and much more.)
To 568, I am very apologetic for continuing to give offense. It was in no sense the intent. If it is possible to tolerate one further comment, though....
The defense motion to transfer a case from a court in the U.S. where juries are likely to award large damages amount, to a court in a different country, is indeed a very cynical move when viewed from many perspectives. Yet it is stock in trade for the defense bar, which -- I agree -- is a reflection on the sad state of much of the legal profession.
One last point I'd suggest for your consideration, is that there isn't any other forum where lawyers interact with professional aviators. In fact the state of legal education in the field of public and private international air law is in many senses anemic, quite ineffective, and overall proceeding with barely more modernity than tail fins on large Caddys from 1965. And in the world of practice, well, it's all about the equivalent of Show Me The Money, as you know.
But the issues presented by the 737 MAX debacle aren't going to be addressed successfully without participation by attorneys. The Inspector General of the Dep't of Transportation is an attorney; that report was a major positive factor in the DOJ reaching the Deferred Prosecution Agreement - yes with largely unsatisfactory penalties but with significant binding admissions of very, very damaging facts by Boeing. Same with the attorneys who staff the House and Senate Committees whose reports have done a lot to advance the reining in of a degenerated Boeing corporate entity. And a similar case can be made about a large portion, maybe a majority, of the contemporary issues in civil aviation. The courtroom system is flawed but until there is a better system ready to launch, is there an alternative? I don't think you would say the lawsuits against Boeing should just be dropped because one lawyer on some internet site offended one pilot.
It's fine (not that anyone needs permission in a free speech environment) to loathe the status of the legal system, attorneys in general, and particular individual legal counsel. The question becomes, however, what will improve the situation? That's the only reason this post and the rest I've posted exist here at all.