It looks as though the 737 Max had 2 optional safety "extras" that might have helped:
Quote:
That software system takes readings from two vanelike devices called angle of attack sensors that determine how much the plane’s nose is pointing up or down relative to oncoming air. When MCAS detects that the plane is pointing up at a dangerous angle, it can automatically push down the nose of the plane in an effort to prevent the plane from stalling.
Boeing’s optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another.
[...]
For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customized add-ons.
Sometimes these optional features involve aesthetics or comfort, like premium seating, fancy lighting or extra bathrooms. But other features involve communication, navigation or safety systems, and are more fundamental to the plane’s operations.
Many airlines, especially low-cost carriers like Indonesia’s Lion Air, have opted not to buy them — and regulators don’t require them.
Now, in the wake of the two deadly crashes involving the same jet model, Boeing will make one of those safety features standard as part of a fix to get the planes in the air again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/b...es-charge.html
I get that cars also come with safety features that cost extra, but it seems strange that a purchase of this size and cost, that is used to fly commercial passengers, would not include any available safety features standard.
I am not sure if the disagree light would necessarily have helped because (afaik) we do not yet know if the 2 sensors were disagreeing with each other. It is possible they both had faulty readings due to a software problem.
I guess, also, there could be some degree of pilot error? (In other words pilots were at too steep of a nose angle on takeoff and that triggered a sensor reading of a potential stall?) I am not a pilot so I have zero idea if this could happen...just wondering if it is possible that the MCAS system actually triggered on as it was designed to do (in other words not a sensor error at all), but then a software glitch prevented the nose from going back up as designed?