Still no sign of the CVR to my knowledge

Also

The most hyped features of the 737 MAX compared with its predecessor, the 737NG, are more fuel-efficient engines.

But as a result of the larger engines, which are placed higher and further forward of the wing, the jet’s balance changed. To address that, Boeing put in place more anti-stall protections, Leeham Co analyst Bjorn Fehrm said in an online post.

An automated protection system called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) kicks in when the angle of attack is too high, when the plane’s nose is too elevated, threatening a stall.

and

Pilots can stop the automated response by pressing two buttons if the system behaves unexpectedly, the FAA says.

That action is set out in a checklist used by Lion Air pilots for in-air troubleshooting, an instructor said. It is also required to be committed to memory by pilots.

Personally I do not see the stick pusher as a totally new feature on the MAX but Reuters and the Unions (3 to date) seems to say it is.

EDIT:

Suspecting that the false AoA indication triggered the stick pusher erratically it sounds then normal that the crew requested an RTB as soon as the problem was identified (plane unflyable with presumed chaos in cabin). We should then focus our attention on what was the decision process that led them to not pursue an immediate landing.

I am then very surprised that Unions and Experts does not raise this aspect of the story instead of targeting Boeing for something that does exist on one form or another since the 1950’s…

Source:
Reuters.com
FlightGlobal.com

no they buy less plane since a single plane can do way more. That’s why their operating cost per year will be only marginally superior (from 222 to 229M$/y – a ~3% and not 30% increase)

Regarding ALIS, once again, there is a 30 days buffer time before a mandatory connection.

Paperless !

Supreme court of India inquiry:

The information [Attorney General KK Venugopal said] can’t be disclosed even under the Right to Information Act. “The price (revealed in parliament) was not of loaded aircraft. Secrecy is on weapon and avionics. The Air Force feels if it is disclosed, our adversaries will take benefit,”

.

interesting.
I guess that someone in French parliament will raise the question….

Also:

[…] Dassault has not yet submitted details of its offset partner, the government told the Supreme Court.

“The vendor will inform the offset partner to us. So far there is no information on this,” said Additional Secretary Defence Apurva Chandra, to questions from the judges.

Source:
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/only…-court-1947308

Under the plan, Korea is expected to sell 30 KT-1 basic trainer jets and 20 T-50 advanced trainer jets, manufactured by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), to Spain. The European country also reportedly plans to sell four to six A400M Airbus transport planes to Korea as part of the aircraft exchange deal.

[…]
Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) denied the reported plan, saying “no discussion is underway” between Seoul and Madrid over the aircraft swap deal.

“Spanish military and government authorities have yet to contact us via official routes over the deal,” an official from DAPA said Sunday. After reports over the possible swap deal surfaced in recent weeks, the defense procurement agency has contacted Spain to confirm whether the country is considering the deal, but the Spanish government denied the rumor, according to the official.

The rumor came as a Spanish defense ministry reportedly plans to sell to other countries 13 of 27 A400M planes it has ordered from Airbus.

Doesn’t sound anywhere credible… And certainly won’t boost the Korean industry in any manner if 50 of their KAI jets aren’t worth the price of 4 to 6 of those poorly designed under-performing not fit for military hangar queens.

Amazing news today (reuters): Lion Air crash scenario wasn’t covered in Boeing 737 MAX manual, pilot unions say

Pilots of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft worldwide were not warned of a potentially dangerous feature suspected of playing a role in last month’s deadly Lion Air crash in Indonesia, investigators and pilots unions said.

Either I don’t have the full picture, either I don’t get it at all but stick pusher have been fielded on bombers and fighter jets since the early generation of jets (before finding their way in some airliners); most of them flown by 19 years old Joe’s. Does those pilot union implies that the idea of counter acting the stick pusher in case of a false system alarm have to be taught in school for anyone to understand that? Are ppl landing on water when GPS are down? Have we seen anyone opening the side windows in flight because of a faulty speed indicator?

I don’t get it.

Wiki:

Aircraft designers who install stick pushers recognize that there is the risk that a stick pusher may activate erroneously when not required to do so. The designer must make provision for the flight crew to deal with unwanted activation of a stick pusher. In some aircraft equipped with stick pushers, the stick pusher can be overpowered by the pilot. In other aircraft, the stick pusher system can be manually disabled by the pilot.

When a manual is not correctly printed (some of them are even subcontracted), Pilots (and the hundred of us in back cabin that do grant them for their professionalism) are gonna crash?

But let’s go back on Lion’s case:

Pilots could stop this automated response [(the stick pusher action)] by pressing two buttons if the system behaved unexpectedly, but questions have been raised about how well prepared they were for such an automatic reaction and how much time they had to respond.
Even though investigators say this problem was not covered in the operating manual, pilots did have access to a checklist designed to turn off errant systems when the plane started nosing downwards at the wrong time, said Soejono, a Lion Air instructor […].

If this is another cultural thing like AF447, the proof is there that we have a systemic failure… in our pilot selection process.

(you can read here for more)

One day, if all that goes on, all plane’s documentation will be amended like this:

*****************UNIVERSAL CHECK LIST ADD-ON PROCEDURE, YEAR 2057*************************

– open startup sequence checklist
– follow the procedure reading the list of actions line by line
– at the end paragraph before setting full automation with the appropriate described action, open cockpit door
– Yell for help (choose a sturdy and muscular passenger at your own convenience)
– With your PiC (Passenger in Charge) go to the cabin door, open it and make sure the PiC understand closing procedure
– go back in cockpit, press button firing-up full automation and wait for the bickering red light then turn back toward your selected passenger
– smile at him/her (or upon your preference repeat your company welcome sentence)
– Let him/her kick you out firmly of the plane
– During your flight time down the tarmac, please, invite him/her politely to not forget to close back the cabin door.

Enjoy your flight (the time it last).

The mtiple changes of the helmet, jitter, gree glow, weight etc.) and that is a strong proponent of poor management

It’s called an emerging technology. Without such “poor management” we will not even be flying braced wire fabrics covered airplane. The Wright brothers having been the first poor managers of aviation history.