Originally Posted by
DieselOx
Why do you think that? I hear a lot of people speculating that's the case, but no one has has definitively proven that one way or the other, directly from any data so far publicly available.
Boeing's statement is basically MCAS is an augmentation to maintain proper stick force, but as far as I remember, reading everything here and everywhere else, they very carefully never say where they start from.
Someone fly the plane w/o MCAS and report back. Then I'll believe it.
I would agree that Sully should fly the plane without MCAS and report back. I'm sure the Boeing test pilots have been fitted with a chastity belt and you won't hear anything from them about their opinion about whether the airplane should not be flown without MCAS. I'm assuming that the "§25.175 Demonstration of static longitudinal stability." requirements of a "stable" (what most of us were calling linear) stick force curve were not met in flight test in rarely visited flight regimes and they thought they had to pencil whip that. I would have argued about what was a stable stick force curve if I thought the bare airframe would not give a normal pilot any trouble. They decided to pencil whip it rather than bite the bullet and are continuing to let the tail wag the dog. But I'm with you, we are babes in the woods until Boeing and FAA clear up some stuff.