So... I said the design was bad and your saying I'm not harsh enough in that?

Are we trying to solve engineering problems by getting emotional about them or something?

This conversation isn’t really about solving engineering problems it’s about whether Boeing’s posture on the matter is in line with Engineering ethics. Many people believe there was one or more ethics breaches here.

Your position seems to be that it was a combination of innocent engineering mistakes and substandard behavior by the pilots.

Out of the six points you mentioned, you blamed everyone, blaming the pilots twice, and merely mentioned this against Boeing:

> The flight computer system and MCAS was implemented problematically, relying on one input because the expected control authority was very low, and then when that was not changed the system was not re-architected.

Do you have a personal stake in Boeing or something? Because you appear very biased indeed. There were several ethical breaches that resulted in these tragic catastrophes.

Every time we blame a crash on pilots, we are blaming it on training. Aside from some truly exceptional cases,* pilots who contribute to a crash are having issues because they have not been trained adequately in dealing with the situation. I believe that these two crashes indicate there is a need for reinforcement of the CRM training and also more training on unexpected situations.

We can try to blame Boeing for the lack of this training, but Boeing cant force airlines to do anything but the type specific training. They cant force airlines to do recurring training, they in-fact rely on the regulators to setup structures to make sure this all happens.

I don't have a personal stake in Boeing, I have a personal stake in not dying because someone decided breaking one link in the failure chain was adequate.

* These would be the cases where the pilot crashes the plane on purpose, for which some airlines have dealt with systematically and with associated training on prevention.

Who is "we"? People are blaming Boeing for trying to pass an airplane that's significantly different from a 737 as a 737. Pilots are rightly pissed off. MCAS is a completely new invention that's exclusive to 737 Max. Boeing was ethically in the wrong for passing the plane off as any old 737, because they wanted to save money due to re-certification costs. The flying characteristics of the 737 Max are different from 737, due to the bigger engines (another cost cutting measure as the engine efficiency is proportional to the size). They introduced dynamic instability, in that the airplane has a tendency to pitch up at an increasing rate when increasing power at take off. Boeing, rather than addressing this issue early on, created MCAS as a bandaid, another cost saving measure. The AoA sensor sampling wasn't redundant, a neglectful cost saving measure and oversight. The sensor disagreement light, a critical safety feature, was sold as an optional package.

My point is, there are a lot of technical and ethical oversights you are glossing over. There is a reason why all the 737 Max are grounded and have been grounded for months. These crashes weren't simply due to lack of pilot training. There were multiple ethical and technical oversights and negligence by Boeing that resulted in these tragedies.