Very strange how the NY Times "Times Pick" comment (in the middle of the article) literally makes claims that the article itself contradicts:

> If the Boeing emergency manual dictates that there are cut off switches to disable the system and return to manual control, it would be a training issue with the flight crew. Boeing obviously added this flight characteristic to the planes for a specific reason and also documented how and what it could do after their own test flights. Wondering how many airlines are not going through the entire aircraft's training publication to understand this system.

Which is a little odd as the article itself said that Boeing's new M.C.A.S. system was not in the manual and or training documentation. Boeing's very carefully worded statement is a deflection, they're essentially arguing that even though they added a new undocumented system, that existing protocols for other problems (runaway stabilizer trim) could be used to resolve this one.

How do the NY Times pick the "Times Pick" comment? Is reading the article you're commenting on not a prerequisite?