Agreed. There are no facts yet from either crash to put the blame on Boeing. People just want to see Boeing hurt.
That's absolutely not true, not even close. There are a number of variables and factors at play, but we've seen the MCAS input graphs from Lion Air. Regardless of something possibly being mis-handled by the flight crew, that is a FACT and it's a system unique to the MAX, as are its handling characteristics. I think everyone would like to take a closer look at this point, without tens of thousands of human guinea pigs flying around.
The only fact here is that Lion Air deemed the plane as operational even after consecutive reports of something not working right.
Negligence on their part. Everything else is secondary.
You got that totally mixed up. The maintenance thing is the secondary part . . .
Yes, there were consecutive reports/flights with apparent stability/MCAS issues. Yes, perhaps maintenance did a poor job (*). But matter of fact is that the accident could just as well have happened on the FIRST flight/occurrence of the issue, BEFORE maintenance had a chance to look at the problem. Therefore maintenance is by definition secondary issue (**).
Maintenance might have provided a good opportunity to catch the issue before leading to a crash, but what if it really was flight crew fault (***), and the accident crew was on the first
occurrence flight, then maintenance would have never seen the issue. Again, maintenance was the secondary issue, just one the (many) layers in the Swiss cheese model (**).
* we don't even know that for a fact. For all we know, it could very well be that Lion Air maintenance exactly
followed published maintenance procedure per the AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual); perhaps they were even in deep contact with Boeing rep. or Boeing engineering, and they also did not understand the magnitude of the issue.
** unless, far-fetched, maintenance did introduce
- which is different to not finding/preventing - a flight safety issue, against or not following published AMM procedures, but at this stage we have no evidence of such.
*** Not claiming this was a flight crew issue; just presenting such option to demonstrate that maintenance cannot be considered the primary issue at hand here.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"