At Boeing, the backup system runs on a different CPU architecture, with a different program design, a different programming language, and a different team that isn't allowed to talk with the team on the other path.
Yeah that's not restoring.
The mistake the pilots made was not then turning off the trim system (which also overrides MCAS).
The first MCAS incident ended with the pilots restoring trim to normal with the thumb switches a couple times, then turning off the stab trim system, then continuing on and safely arriving at their destination. The media never mentions this.
Inventing your own meanings for words in order to advance an argument is a waste of time for you and me.
> You're trying to tell me a system that brought down 2 airliners isn't that bad because it didn't bring down others.
I'm saying that pilot error was a contributing cause to the two crashes, and the media narrative that the pilots could not have saved the situation is incorrect. Boeing even sent out an Emergency Airworthiness Directive to all MAX pilots after the first crash, detailing the two step recovery procedure (restore normal trim with the thumb switches, then turn it off). The EA pilots did not do that.
There were numerous causes of the accident that all had to combine to result in the crash. One of the causes was the single path design of the MCAS system.
All of the causes needed to be addressed.
> Finding nuance to defend the corporate player that killed hundreds of innocents is disgusting.
I did not defend Boeing. Besides, do you want airliners to be safe or not? If you want to fly safely, you've got to address all factors in a crash, including pilot error.
Cute false dichotomy tho.