Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As we have now learned, switching to the manual control is useless when the aircraft is in this condition (high speed, stab down, elevator up). That wasn't the position the Lion Air flight was in. I don't think there is much debate that the Lion Air flight was recoverable since the pilots on the previous flight recovered from the same issue: >As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing Co. 737 Max 8,…
It was recoverable in a similar situation. That does not mean it was recoverable in both situations. Any incident like this is a chain of events (which in this case started back with the original design decisions). Many links in that chain aren't obvious, and no two chains are identical. Just because the chain was broken in one case doesn't mean it was reasonable to expect it to be broken in all of them.
Similarly, because it was unrecoverable in one situation [based solely on speculation at this point] doesn't mean it was unrecoverable in another.
>Any incident like this is a chain of events (which in this case started back with the original design decisions). Many links in that chain aren't obvious, and no two chains are identical. Just because the chain was broken in one case doesn't mean it was reasonable to expect it to be broken in all of them.
I'll note here that you have at best addressed one of my three points. To add color:
>Airline mechanics tried four times to fix related issues on the plane starting Oct. 26, according to the Indonesia preliminary report.
Do you think that's ok?
>However, the pilots on the harrowing Oct. 28 flight [the flight before the crash] from Bali to Jakarta didn’t mention key issues with the flight after they landed, according to the report.
Do you think that's ok?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/how-an-ex...