Originally Posted by
MechEngr
Quite a few of the astonishing items in that article are false. But it is written as a Gish Gallop, so an equally lengthy response is required to debunk them.
Example: That the 737 MAX was unstable and MCAS corrects that instability. So far, all facts point to False. The 737 Max is stable and MCAS is not needed to correct instability. There are many others, but since it starts off with misinformation, it is not a good sign.
I'm pretty sure that there are at least as many knowledgeable observers who suspect that MCAS
is a longitudinal-stability/anti-stall system as there are those who accept B's assurance that it is not. The stick-force gradient explanation definitely doesn't pass everyone's smell tests.
Edit: Oops. I should have read the other responses to MechEngr's post before typing this one -- I probably wouldn't have bothered. I think the point is made that the real purpose (and need for) MCAS remains an open question.