The reason people don't want to give you and Morrisond (& co) this 'inch' is because you not only saying it was a small part of the crash, but the MAIN factor - when this is so obviously not the case and not even relevant to the discussion anymore.
The ONLY reason the plane crashed is the software and hardware design flaws that Boeing not only implemented, but lied about and hid from customers, airines and PILOTS. This is undeniable fact however you spin it.
Proof is in the extremely easy comparison to the similar NG aircraft: they are not crashing left and right like the MAX did - despite having THE SAME TRAINING AND PILOTS - it was the ENTIRE reason Boeing even designed the MAX with the flaws - so there would be no difference in practice.
I am not saying the main reason the plane's crashed is the Pilot's. Please stop trying to imply something I am not.
Previously I think said something along the lines that Lionair was 90% Boeing/Regulators (with the Majority being Boeing) and 10% Lionair Training/Pilots (if something tries to kill you 22 times maybe you should turn it off) whereas ET I put About 50% Boeing/Regulators and 40% ET Training/10% Pilots - with the big culprit ET's training system.
Pilot's can't learn what they aren't taught. From news articles it appears the extent of ET's training on MCAS procedures was sending the procedure to it's Pilot's in an email that did not even require a read receipt and only after multiple prompts from Boeing and some of it's own Pilot's who took the time to understand the problem.
If there is an issue with a plane in your fleet sending an email is not symptomatic of a good training system. At minimum this should have required a lot more than an email and should have required sign off from all of ET's pilots that it was fully understood - either through face to face discussions with the check pilots or a sim session to go through the procedure as well as they could of. Even though MCAS was not available in the sims they could have at least practised the procedure and put the plane out of trim auto throttle fully engaged and practised how to get out of that.
This was ET's responsibility to ensure that its pilots were sufficiently trained to deal with an MCAS emergency but no matter how bad ET's training was it does absolve Pilot's from knowing all they can about the Aircraft they are entrusted to fly and how to deal with any potential issues - especially when there has been recent fatalities. In the scale of emergency's it should not have been that big of a deal compared to something like an in-flight fire or explosive decompression.
NG's aren't crashing left and right because the Automation is working and rarely fails to expose the lack of skills. Boeing got the NG right but screwed up MCAS implementation.
Boeing's bad design is not the only reason ET crashed - but the vast Majority of why LionAir crashed.
How confident would you feel on a Flight in instrument conditions with a non-functioning Auto-pilot with a lot of pilots who have almost zero current experience with hand flying skills? Auto pilots do fail.
Manual flight skills need to be improved Worldwide and if that isn't a learning out of the grounding that is a real shame.
Perhaps a reminder of some of the responses last time you pushed your diatribe.
The JT pilots had no knowledge of MCAS and could obviously not diagnose what the problem was. It is just as likely as anything you can postulate that the Electric Manual Trim appeared to be the only thing that was keeping them in the air, in which case turning it off would not necessarily be seen as a good move.
Before we get into ET, it is necessary to remind you that the thing should have been grounded after JT when the Boeing/FAA review, according to reports, found the MCAS system to be "dangerous", of "high Risk" of recurrence, and in the FAAs own calculation the numbers could not be sustained for longer that "10 months". In your terms, Boeing/FAA are culpable to the highest degree.
The issued EAD does not mention MCAS or its function directly and Boeing only released a brief functional description some days later, under pressure from pilots and others. Boeing have not offered anything to anyone as far as I can see, throughout this whole saga, and I find no evidence that Boeing offered anything, or pressed Ethiopian, or their pilots to do anything, contrary to what you suggest. If you have a source for this please post it.
As you have been advised by posters knowledgeable in commercial airline operations, email notification of such things as EAD is normal practice. We have established that the EAD was correctly added to the ET FCOM in accordance with established practice, despite miss-information to the contrary.
Despite Ethiopian being one of very few who had possession of a MAX simulator (only becoming available late 2018/early 2019). It transpires it did not have the capability to simulate MCAS (not to mention trim wheel loads) even though MCAS has been fitted since EIS ~18 months earlier. The simulator training syllabus (including NG) did not include runaway stabiliser, even, until ~February 2019. Exclusion of this functionality is parked at Boeings doors I'm sad to say.
The pilot, who you malign, is characterised by people who new him as conscientious and thorough and would turn up much earlier that required for his rostered flights to ensure he picked up anything new and assure he was fully informed on the a/c before taking to the sky. Not quite what some would have us believe.
Have fun on the new thread. Bye.