Originally Posted by
FullWings
No, of course not - that was part ironic, part humorous (maybe?) What it has exposed is that for Boeing, DAL C might as well be DAL K, for Kwality. What is even more ironic is that if EICAS (DAL A) failed completely, the aeroplane would carry on flying and most critical fault diagnosis and remedy would still be available; with an MCAS (DAL C) fault, the aeroplane can crash out-of-control almost immediately, as proven on two separate occasions. Just sayin’...
But you're missing the point. Another 'quick and dirty' MCAS style implementation of EICAS could
easily turn into another disaster. Sure, the aircraft will continue to fly, but will a crew - given dangerously misleading engine indications, false or misleading warnings or lack or real warnings - be able to fly and land it? Remember one crew was able to diagnose and account for improper MCAS and land the aircraft at its intended destination - problem is not the good crews, it's the 'below average' pilots (especially those on the 2 or 3 sigma below average).
The current flight deck on the 737NG and MAX may not be perfect, but it's perfectly adequate (as demonstrated by the virtually identical hull loss rates between the NG and the A320 series).
You're basically arguing that a 737 EICAS doesn't have to be perfect, while at the same time arguing that the current flight deck - with hundreds of millions of hours of safe operation - is somehow unsafe.