Originally Posted by
RickNRoll
The certification requires MCAS.
True. The MMEL does not provide any relief for a MCAS system. The MMEL does however provide relief for the MLA system, which is curiously a factor itself in reduced longitudinal stability. Accepting the operational constraints of the MLA system inop would remove to an extent the necessity for MCAS.
A couple of aerodynamic effectors can be applied to alter downwash at the tail plane, one of which we trialled in 2015 on a B737. It had been trialled years back on a B742 with similar outcomes. The downside of the aero effectors is that altering the downwash is going to be undesirable from a load alleviation standpoint, and is like eating your own tail, unless sufficient increase in downwash is obtained in the near wake to reduce the downwash affecting the tailplane.
Control system counter weights exist to an extent at every bell crank, and that is the simplest means to alter control response during manoeuver.
Any control system or aerodynamic alteration would be a major PITA for alteration of the product, whereas taking MLA out of he equation may remove the necessity for the MCAS to a great extent and remove the issue until resolved.
ET's loss has too many similarities to 610's to be discounted as a system-crew problem.
[Note: AOT is an acronym most famous for the Apollo Lunar Lander's Alignment Optical Telescope... the CM also had one, but it was known as a sextant and part of the PGNCS.
]