[salawat]

This is incorrect. Fly-by-Wire makes minimal difference when the basic aerodynamics are flawed and non-compliant. Airframe certifiability is behavior based. You must meet a prescribed set of behaviors, while lacking any prescriptive misbehaviors. The idea is an airframe in it's minimally "assisted" state should demonstrate basic airworthy characteristics.

A plane should be airworthy even if the majority of it's automation has suffered a casualty.

[raverbashing]

> Fly-by-Wire makes minimal difference when the basic aerodynamics are flawed and non-compliant.

Yes, but you wouldn't need MCAS for maintaining longitudinal stability

> in it's (sic) minimally "assisted" state should demonstrate basic airworthy characteristics.

If that was the case the Max would not be certifiable, MCAS or not

[Aloha]

The 737MAX is airworthy without MCAS, it just flies differently than a 737 NG, hence why they added MCAS.

[msbarnett]

False. The MCAS exists to prevent stick forces from inverting as the nose pitches up towards the stall angle. If the stick forces invert, it becomes easier to continue into a stall angle than to move away from it. Commercial airframes are required to never exhibit this characteristic as a condition of certification.

MCAS was Boeing’s idea of a solution to this; command the stabilizers down to provide counter force against the stick, making it harder for the pilot to pull into the stall than pull away from it at every point.

Even if the 737NG had never existed and the 737MAX as it exists today were for some reason an all new design, it would need the MCAS counter-force to get certified as air worthy no matter how much new training pilots got. It (claims to) solve a fundamental airworthiness requirement; it is not a “737NG emulation feature” as some mistakenly believe.