Originally Posted by
GordonR_Cape
I understand that, and cannot find an official Boeing source. But think about this scenario for one minute:
An "undocumented" maneuver augmentation system that leaves the nose trim 2.5 degrees lower than when it started.
Do you think Boeing would ever release that?
Do you think the FAA would ever certify that?
Logic dictates that your version makes no sense, for a feature which everyone agrees is not an anti-stall system.
I’m not trying to argue logic or whatever Boeing and FAA should have done. Obviously, the MCAS design was flawed. I am simply reporting what has been officially stated about how this system actually works.
For non-pilots, it may be difficult to relate to the dynamic environment of an approach to stall and recovery maneuver. The going in assumption is that the pilots would not intentionally place the aircraft close to the stall. When an approach to stall is detected, various aircraft systems kick in to both provide warning and assistance. However, it is also assumed that once alerted to the stall, the pilots will disengage the automation and hand-fly the aircraft back to a safe airspeed and altitude. This maneuver involves the same things I keep referring to - pitch, power, and trim. I can only speak for the aircraft I have flown, and not a single one of them was designed for the automation to execute the stall recovery. Assist, yes. Execute, no.