[QUOTE=Lost in Saigon;10443422]Just about everything you have read in the media is wrong. MCAS is not stall protection. MCAS does not counter the additional thrust of the more powerful engines. It is only there because the larger engine nacelles of the B737 MAX cause an aerodynamic pitch up moment at high angles of attack that did not meet FAA longitudinal stability and stick force certification standards.
The easiest fix was to automatically apply a little nose down trim at high angles of attack. (Quote)
I agree with all in the first paragraph but believe it needs to be expanded a little bit.
The B737 sat low on its undercarriage.For fuel efficiency the MAX was powered with much larger engines which had to be slung more forward than the old version. In addition the nose gear was raised by eight inches. This therefore meant that in order to satisfy the longitudinal stability requirements for certification, some fix was necessary. This then gave birth to MCAS. A quick fix through electronics control technology. The only point of its application naturally became the point of maximum effect, namely the horizontal stab. Accordingly the whole thing is one that addresses the original design concept, everything else would appear to be an attempt to overcome/control this in built longitudinal instability issue.
With it now comes an additional instrument, the AoA indicator wired into the whole system of automation. This piece of instrumentation did have its rightful place in the cockpit of a fighter jet, with its all moving horizontal stab, but does it really also have a place in a civil transport aircraft. Especially as a command function. After all to what is known so far about this particular event is that it was the stubborn stab that took the aircraft down despite all the crews efforts to encourage it away from its determined course.