I did not mean to create a debate about specific paragraphs of Part X versus Part Y of the codes/laws/rules etc.
I read the Part 25 stuff and other cert requirements way back when the MCAS debacle started. It seemed to me that the problem that MCAS addressed was due to reduced "back stick force" required as the AoA increased in certain parts of the envelope, but primarily related to AoA and not Q or gee, but maybe mach. So let's get the vocanulary standard, huh? Mods have not allowed us to move the technical and engineering stuff to the Tech Log, so guess we can duke it out here with all the political, legal and social stuff.
Due to my background, I use "stick force" referring to a control mechanism pilots use demanding nose up or nose down or roll commands. In some planes, the "stick" does not provide a lotta feedback if any, as in the Airbus or the Viper ( Concorde pilots here that actually flew the thing can contribute). In four planes I flew there was zero roll feedback, just springs!
So if we assert "the only feedback is due to x system", then that dog won't hunt. My concept of "feel" or feedback, is what the plane is telling you! Shake, rattle and roll. Maybe increased pressure or less pressure on your butt when in coordinated flight. I am not disputing basic instrument flying rule number one, and in the only seat that had flight controls for a coupla thousand hours in bad weather, I stand as a survivor.
So my beef with the rationale for MCAS implementation to meet Part 25 or whatever was not to satisfy "dangerous" or unsafe flight characteristics, but to stay on one side or the other of some curve depicted in the cert paragraph. I even found that on a technical web site blog and am too lazy now to find it and show. It was over at the Tech Log that the mods locked.
That being said, I stand by my feeling that training could have helped a lot versus an unknown system that:
1) The pilots didn't know about
2) Was poorly implemented for a host of reasons ( my systems engineering background with armament systems)