Originally Posted by
FlightlessParrot
May I ask if you have any idea why the FAA were slow? It could be that all bureaucrats are incompetent and feckless (a right-wing answer), or it could be that the FAA was under-resourced (a left-wing answer).
One problem could be that regulators have taken closer look the actual implementation rather than definitions in the paper work. MCAS is clearly more AoA (stall prevention ) related feature than maneuvering characteristics related feature. It might be that the regulator expects that it is certified as such.
The MCAS measures the AoA and so it tries to control AoA due the feedback measurement it uses. As far as I have understand, the stall depends mostly on AoA and less on Reynolds and even less other factors (in a specific plane). The “stick force augmentation” is only a side effect of MCAS control law. The system dynamics and fluid mechanics are not interested in the political naming convictions and they don't care economical consequences. They follow their own laws and don't care of our opinions. So, also we should care of the namings.If the aim really have been to emulate the “grandfather feeling”, the main feedback would have been the stick force (not AoA). The set point to the sick force would been calculated from AoA and other factors.
That kind of control law (with stick force limits) should have not force (with reasonable force limits) the plane ground even if the actuator were the stabilizer. I hope, the shortcuts are not allowed this time.