We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I'm not a pilot, but I've been following this story, which I believe begins with a change in Boeing's culture and decision to geographically separate their management from their engineering and production line. They then compounded it by going to work on their company culture in a way that re-purposed their primary focus - away from engineering and production, and toward other fashionable business culture distractions.
The fatal problems have all been encountered on foreign airliners with foreign pilots that are (according to the accounts) flying with lower training credentials and lesser experience levels, all within lower-quality flight management systems typically found in third world settings.
This is tragic but it's ultimately Boeing's failure to own and correct. They made a more complicated plane and failed to adequately inform the clients of the training required to safely keep them in the air. Boeing failed their mission by taking their business eye off the ball, away from their primary function. I'm not sure they can recover unless they re-commit to excellence in engineering and production as their primary purpose.
There's really not much wrong with the the plane. The last two accidents seem to be attributable to pilot error. Yes, the plane has a trim-tab controller which must be turned-on. That in itself indicates a design flaw, but really, it's just another cockpit activity. It should be no big deal.
I'm more concerned with the plane's poor fuel economy. It hardly gets better gas mileage than planes which were built forty years ago. So if I were going to start making changes, I would consider switching the plane to turboprops. The fuel economy target for a carbon fiber passenger plane should be around two hundred miles per seat per gallon.
keeping the low wing 737, and putting a huge efficient engine under the wing (had to be up and forward to keep it from the tarmac, thereby changing the lift dynamics of the wing and engine, necessitating nose down computer commands to counter engine thrust pitchup, and tying this to ONE, only one attitude sensor) Total FAIL for you Boeing management. You obviously overrode your engineers. paying now.
otherwise, a great plane.
no training required: that was a joke (are the guys that made that paying for it???)