I'm still trying to get my head around how a certification fail of how the yoke feels, somehow led to a bodged computer controlling flight surfaces? Why not introduce a feel system to the yoke to pass certification? Scary how it morphed from one thing to another without a blink.
Please explain why the current solution should be seen as "bodged" when you already have a speed-trim system (isn't that an electronic 'bodge' too?) that this can ride off the back of, and why it would be 'better' (ie in your terminology somehow less bodged) to add a completely new artificial feel system - despite the fact that MCAS is just that anyway - artificial feel. On the KISS principle MCAS seems remarkably rational to me though as we now know with attendant and unforseen failure modes. I'm far from saying Boeing and the FAA (and by association every other authority that has the MAX on it's register) haven't made errors, but to suggest they are criminal, negligent, collusion or whatever is unfair and irrational without
evidence that they are more than mere honest errors.
Despite ample - frankly overwhelming evidence to demonstrate the pilots were guilty of 'bodges' galore no one here is using that sorrt of loaded, accusative and frankly rather hysterical terminology against them, despite their many failures to act correctly being the ultimate causes of the accidents? Rather they are rationally and logically discussing pilots' 'errors' and 'omissions'. It seems only when Boeing and the FAA are involved this hysteria ramps up and wild, totally unsubstantiable accusations of bodgery, incompetence, colliusion, criminal negligence, lethal design etc get flung around when the worst we can see they did from the info we have avaiable is underestimate a consequence, albeit one that imo they quite correctly and reasonably took to be a given as the entire industry always has done from day one. That is; design aircraft to be safe in the hands of - in your terminology, any non 'bodging' crew to sort out using existing procedures? Boeing quite reasonably believed that a trim runaway brought about by MCAS would be seen for what it is - a trim runaway and dealt with accordingly.
As, I submit, would 98% of commentators here had that proposition question been put to them before the accidents. I have no doubt they were as gobsmacked as the rest of us when that proved not to be the case. But then they didn't factor in what's beginning to look like sub-standard training and operating procesures and airlines that don't adhere to international standards of promulgating safety bulletins - and why should they have done?
It is abundantly clear that a lot of commentators here are neither pilots nor much related to the industry and clearly many are subject to a '100% of everything must always be 100% safe" delusion or of the muck-stirring 'always assume evil and corruption in business and politics' brigade but some of the shrill and baseless accusations made are nothing short of scurrilous, especially in view of the lack of evidence to support them. Despite the amount of unequivocal evidence of misdeeds by the pilots that could not unreasonaby be couched in that same shrill accusatory language they are notably much more understated and kept to facual levels as befits Professional Pilots discussing Professional matters. The input of conspiracy-theorey activists is most unwelcome and quite inappropriate in an accident investigation discussion, especially so when they continue to use inflammatory language and wild baseless accusations - it merely flags up their unpleasant agenda and irrational, random thought processes which advances our knowledge and understanding not one jot.
In other words, present evidence and discuss it rationally - please!
There are shades of grey, not everything is black or white.
Present, discuss, conclude, don't just shoot from the hip...