Originally Posted by
LowObservable
What's missing from both public accounts of the Seattle show: an explanation of the second, more dangerous stage of the MCAS development, when its authority was considerably increased. Why was that thought to be needed at the time? Why is it now OK for MCAS to be less tenacious?
Just a thought but....it is supposed to address an issue in wings level, low mach, high AoA conditions. Could this be a concern that Boeing raised internally in relation to Go Around (and GA-like) events where the existing pitch-up tendency of the airframe would be exacerbated by the aero of the new engines? You can imagine engineers looking at the FZ981 incident and imagining how it would have gone with a MAX