Awww man, this statement bugs me:
MCAS was also driven by the Boeing focus of type commonality, minimum differences training; thus a stick force tweak to achieve a 'NG like' feel (#10).
The MCAS implementation was not some gentle input to the existing column "feel". Good grief. It put in gobs of nose down trim and did it for "x" bumps and then did it again if the trigger parameters still existed. It was not well thought out and was poorly implemented, at that.
If the MCAS could make the Max "feel" like the NG, then I guess the STS in the NG is very harsh, as that system seems to be another kludge to make the pilot do something that should be part of basic trim action by the pilot as the plane increases or decreases speed. GASP!
We need to stop making excuses and simply admit the MCAS was a poor solution to an aero design that changed the stick force gradient so much that the jet would not meet the criteria.
Gums sends...
P.S. FBW computer solution is not the answer without a sh!!!tload of waivers from the certifying authorities. The 'bus is a very stable plane, as the AF crew demonstrated. They didn't even recognize that they were stalled! The military planes using FBW use it for variour reasons, and not all are to correct for a poor aerodynamic characteristic. As with the 'bus, FBW computer flight control systems can reduce workload and smooth things out (things we old farts did without HAL doing a lot except autopilot funtions when in level flight)