You do know that training manuals are covered by certification procedures, right? It's not a canard, it's a fact.
Re:The Case Against Boeing
by atdrummond on Saturday November 16, 2019 @01:09PM
(#21554008)
Yes. That's orthogonal to whether or not the manual defeciency should have stopped pilots from following the checklist they should have down to rote memory.
(Hint: it shouldn't.)
Re:The Case Against Boeing
by tempguy9999 on Saturday November 16, 2019 @01:06PM
(#21553985)
This yet again pushes the issue onto just the pilots. Anything but the planemaker. I agree with the GP, there's far too much apologism for boeing here.
Re:The Case Against Boeing
by atdrummond on Saturday November 16, 2019 @01:10PM
(#21554013)
I'm not an apologist for Boeing and that's a mischaracterization of what I'm saying (and I'd argue Walter as well.)
Especially as my field of commercial aerospace was vendor agnostic.
The directive issued is literally just reminding pilots of a procedure they should already know - reset the trim to stabilize the plane and throw the cutout switch. The issue with MCAS changing how the plane performed was remediated by skills pilots should have irrespective of feature descriptions in a manual.