Originally Posted by
tdracer
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?
I think, that highly depends on their nerves. When a crew does realize, the indications are wrong and just keep flying the airplane, all will be well. IF the crew starts to panic and act on invalid indications, "everything" can happen.
Originally Posted by
tdracer
Remember one crew was able to diagnose and account for improper MCAS
The issue with the MCAS was, that it actively screwed up the aircraft flyability.
Originally Posted by
tdracer
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).
Even when using 2 or 3 sigma, you still have -by definition- the situation that half of the crews are below average. Increase the crew capabilities and the average goes up, and still half will be below average.
Originally Posted by
tdracer
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).
Personally, I think, the A320 series suffers much more from a "lower than average" crew performance, the aircraft is sold as "crew-proof", IE resilient against mistreatment and as such, more suitable for environments, where crews are acquired from a more primitive living environment. Which does seem to match the distribution of A320 series over the world, compared with basic wealth and overall quality of life / freedom in those areas.
Originally Posted by
tdracer
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.
I don't think, the B737 flight deck is that bad, provided you have sufficiently trained and on the dot crews, implying, the B737 is less suitable for those "below the average". Add to that, that improving the flight deck environment (also the noise levels) can improve the "quality of life" for those spending a lot of time there, at the same time decreasing the body wear&tear, IE, lowering the fatigue levels.
The issue with the B737 is more the ancient -no longer certifiable- mechanical and electrical constructions. Perfect according to historical standards, though it is no longer acceptable, that (for example) the fuselage does break up along its joints, or the cockpit overhead panels land on the crews heads, when more than a hard-landing is surprising the crew. Or the outright confusingly designed RA sensor - control units matching, which was the fundamental issue with the Turkish B737 before reaching AMS.