Originally Posted by
keesje
I think the distressingly simple answer to that it is the folk who are moving money around in stock markets are of an age and disposition where they can assimilate a short exchange of eMails or texts but they have no interest in reading and understanding a 51 page technical report, despite it being written in clear and comprehensible language.
What I have found hard to fathom is that no one seems to have latched on to the report's Recommendation R3.4: "The FAA should review the natural (bare airframe) stalling characteristics of the B737 MAX to determine if unsafe characteristics exist. If unsafe characteristics exist, the design of the speed trim system (STS)/MCAS/elevator feel shift (EFS) should be reviewed for acceptability."
MCAS was introduced to solve a high speed problem; it then was extended to solve a low speed problem. It's advertised (to those who had a manual where it did appear in the small print), as an augmentation system... so it's adding something to the existing system to make the manoeuvring characteristics better. I have a MCAS on my car; it's called power steering. The difference is that if the power steering on my car fails, the car doesn't suddenly take an unpredictable dive for the nearest ditch, the steering goes a bit heavy, particularly at lower speeds and I develop body-builder shoulder muscles if I have to parallel park in a small gap. But my car remains intrinsically safe.
Will the FAA and the other airworthiness authorities insist on flight tests that demonstrate the stalling and handling characteristic of the bare aeroplane? Or will it be shown that the aircraft design is essentially unstable, in which case it seems to me that it needs a full authority computerised system as is designed and developed for many modern military aircraft (e.g. the Typhoon), with all its built in redundancies and extensive flight testing and evaluation. And then grandfathering the certification of the 737 MAX looks more than a little suspect.