So you and a few other folks thinks the cutout switch logic should be returned to the NG configuration. I agree! However, that change does absolutely no good unless you go back to something like the earlier procedure. By its very nature, that procedure had more steps (and thus was harder to memorize), potentially took longer to execute because of the extra steps, and required a greater degree of knowledge of what was going on with the system.
Since it appears that neither procedure has been trained, does it matter? Memorisation techniques?? Stick shaker and aural warnings...okay... why is the stick shaking....the stick is shaking for stall, but the trim wheels are spinning like crazy down?
Does it warn of MCAS ENGAGE? (in the 'software' fix, I see they has AOA DISAGREE, where does it say MCAS ENGAGE as a warn?)
So I hit the cut switches, and have to manual trim..but now, I am too fast to manual trim with the nose pointed down.....before I could flip elec on and try to elec trim....
MCAS is not trim runaway...so what memory procedure is to be used? This is letting the tail wag the dog on fixing the situation.
Would an MCAS ENGAGE warn, with associated procedure, trim the response time?
The logic of the situation, the immediate response, as well as a longer term solution in flight, appears to show that switch configuration of the NG was better, not necessarily the best, but a better solution that the all cutout solution in the MAX, especially with the known manual trim wheel issues.
Looking at the switch config only, the NG config at least allows for elec trim when shutting off the AP...that has more value that trying to turn the manual wheel with its respective limitations.