perhaps more throttle and earlier would be a better way to treat stalls.

OTOH if the system auto kicks in and flips the elevator to give a nose down one could presume the pilots had already crashed the plane and the result was unavoidable.

Unless the sensors are faulty.

I think that is a real issue, and likely compounded by the current pilot shortage.
Also, with English being the official/universal language in aviation, it would seem the language barrier alone can be a problem for many.

Yep. Think I mentioned the same in the Lion Air thread: If the MCAS (AOA nanny) goes haywire, it's the same procedure as runaway trim (which should be second-nature for any 737 driver).
There are two stab. trim cut-out toggles right below the flaps lever. Been there for several generations now. The elec. trim switches on the yoke are supposed to override the MCAS as well.

Still, if it is an abrupt-enough problem with little time/altitude to deal with it, I can definitely see where it could lead to a "recovery not probable" scenario.

To add more speculation (sorry Paul), there is another aspect of the MCAS system that I can see compounding the problem, especially under stress. That is the yoke break-away. Typically, one could simply apply enough force on the yoke in the opposite direction to disengage the AP/electric trim commands. On the MCAS-equipped Max, pulling back on the control column will not disengage stab. trim if the problem was caused by faulty AOA sensor. Yikes...

I have spoken English all my life and I can’t understand half of what ATC says on the radio. And that’s in the US, if you listen to what goes on overseas, they may as well be speaking Swahili, for all I know.

I doubt it was a problem in this case, but language may be an effective barrier to training.

The weird thing about the radar data is that it seems they were picking up airspeed but not a whole lot of altitude.

Could be. Also, attitude. I have a friend who was a USAF instructor, training Saudi pilots back in the day. Said they thought they were royalty, didn't like getting instruction from infidels. He told me this when predicting a short first gulf war because of our superior air power.

Yea, listen to ATC in a busy area. The controllers talk really fast. It is almost funny to hear ATC rattle off instructions with a LOT of acronyms in use, and hear a long drawn out reply in an southern drawl. The controllers have to be pulling hair.

No issues at all. I am learning a lot about the MCAS system.

I have, since I am a bit under the weather, been in touch with a bunch of commercial pilot friends of mine, still current.

All good.

ATC is advisory, btw. The PIC of the aircraft has the final say.

My neighbor flies 737"s. We talked when the Lion Air plane crashed. He said that he went on a training course a week after the Lion Air crash. He was also given a bulletin from his airline regarding a procedure with the plane.

People on the ground are saying that the plane was billowing smoke and flames from the rear. Bomb??

Pivoting to the cold topic of the impact on Boeing's business.

Even "supposing" the common cause turns out to be the antistall system, I don't see why this will have any large or lasting effect on Boeing. They'll change the software, pilots will get retrained, some compensation will be paid. If a US, European, Chinese 737 goes down, that'll be a lot worse. But haven't similar things happened with other planes, both Boeing and Airbus? Did it really affect either company much?

+1

I ran this scenario in my MBA ethics classes tonight. Told them to imagine they were the CEO of a small startup airline that operated this airplane, and they had to make the decision on whether to fly them or ground the fleet. This was a classic business ethics dilemma, with a choice between two equally unattractive courses of action: fly and take the risk, or ground the planes and lose a ton of money. And the decision had to be made immediately and without full information, which is also another common problem with these types of ethical dilemmas.

In the first class, the students voted overwhelmingly to ground the fleet. The second class voted the exact opposite.

it is a bit strong to talk about "3:rd worlds pilots" causing this, considering that Boeing hung large engines on airframe made for 60's turbojets and had to move them forward/up (as landing gear is too short). But this caused pitch-up issues at hi AoA (nacelles acting as lift bodies), they tacked on stick-pusher ... but did not told the pilots. How is that for ethics?

Mind you, A320 stall protection has three AoA sensors that are voted. MCAS seems to use one. So if sensor fails and A/C starts nosing over , it is up to pilot to troubleshoot it as runaway trim and pull correct breaker...rather tall order on climb out.

I agree with kach.

It was pilot error or a mechanical problem.

I saw this today. Can one of you pilots discuss this issue with the larger engines mounting in a different location than the original 737 design?

Interesting. The anti-stall system is not likely to cause smoke and flames in the rear of the aircraft.

Or it could be a phenomenon, too early to rule that out.

Really? I didn't know that. It makes sense when I think about Sully deciding to splash his aircraft. But if the Pilot ignores Control and bad stuff happens it's all on the pilot...yes?