But it wasnt a runaway stabiliser, It was a system that Boeing had not identified to operators and minimised its impact on operations to the regulator. If a sim session included multiple alerts, the check captain playing the part of an intrusive ATC and involved a system that the crew were not aware of then no, the crew would not be failed, as the session would involve a scenario above and beyond what a line crew would reasonably be expected to cope with.
In case you skipped this post have a read then explain what part of manfacturer negligence and moral bankruptcy you don't understand:
It seems strange that some are still defending Boeing and 737 MAX when Boeing and its lawyers have admitted criminal culpability and paid an (initial) fine of nearly $3 billion.
If you have not already done so, read Deferred Prosecution Agreement at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-re...51336/download and particularly Statement of Facts at Attachment A.
Inter alia Boeing admits at para. 46
“46. Because of Boeing’s intentional withholding of information from the FAA AEG (Aircraft Evaluation Group), the final version of the 737 MAX FSB (Standardization Board) Report lacked information about MCAS, and relevant portions of this 737 MAX FSB Report were materially false, inaccurate, and incomplete. In turn, airplane manuals and pilot-training materials for U.S.-based airlines lacked information about MCAS, and relevant portions of these manuals and materials were similarly materially false, inaccurate, and incomplete as a result.”
There’s much more along similar lines. All of which Boeing admits and agrees; for purposes of future criminal and civil litigation.