Originally Posted by
A Squared
Not to say that you're wrong, that may well have been the thinking. But the objections to that rationale is that the MCAS does something pretty different than the STS (almost opposite) for different reasons and in a very different flight regime ,so saying that "it's just the same "system"" is a weak reason for not disclosing it.
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that I
agree with the rationale either, just speculating as to how it
could have come about, whilst also aware that I do so with the benefits of hindsight, and
without the pressure of needing to design a new plane because the 320neo is eating our lunch whilst not having the time or resources to actually design a new plane.
Sometimes (in any field) the answer to "how the
did we get so far of course?" is "one small step at a time, each step logical and justifiable considered in isolation".
New flight control system -->
New control system implemented "efficiently" by using existing system -->
Modification to existing system -->
Undocumented modification to existing system
Overall result: undocumented new flight control system. And crash, of course, or we wouldn't be here
.