Originally Posted by
IADFlyer123
don't you think if you weren't told about a critical system that has the potential to bring down an aircraft, you would feel the need to be trained properly on it?
As a 737 pilot, I have learned quite a lot about the MCAS system since the Lion Air accident. That information has proven very helpful to me in engaging in conversations about the airplane and the two accidents but it doesn't help me fly the airplane. It hasn't changed how I would fly the airplane. It doesn't change how I would respond to a similar failure. That is what, IMO, people are missing.
Originally Posted by
MSPeconomist
If we look at this logically, requiring/expecting all possible safety improvements on every aircraft makes no sense. There needs to be some cost/benefit analysis of potential options, and different carriers could well evaluate this differently or have different needs and different flying patterns as well as realistically different levels and types of pilot training/experience/judgment.
I believe that you are referring to the AoA indicators and AoA Disagree indication.
Some airlines have a heads-up display (HUD) in their 737s. They use them for lower-than-standard takeoffs and landings, i.e. CAT II/III landings. Those are the airlines that have the AoA indicators/disagree options. I
believe that the AoA indicators/disagree is REQUIRED in order to hand-fly CAT II/III landings with the HUD. (I'll update if I find out otherwise).
Other airlines use the autopilot's autoland function for CAT II/III landings. Those airlines do not have the AoA options because they don't conduct operations which require them.