[manigandham]

That's incorrect. All planes have a relationship with thrust and pitch based on multiple factors (size, weight, speed, wing configuration, altitude, etc). The aircraft was perfectly sound.

The problem was software designed to alter the flight profile automatically to minimize the differences and new training required (and was allowed to override manual inputs). Any pilot with full training of this specific plane without MCAS would have no problem flying it.

The planes didn't crash because they pitched up but because bad software mistakenly, and forcibly, pitched them down.

[salawat]

What the poster was more likely referring to was the uncertifiable behavior that would occur without MCAS during a wind-up turm or during descent whereby stick control forces would slacken on the way to stall instead of requiring steadily increasing pressure on the control column to bring the plane to a stall due to extra lift from the forward nacelles. While technically a pilot could deal with it, aircraft that demonstrate said behavior cannot be certified as civil transport aircraft without appropriate mitigations.

[cratermoon]

It seems to me that the folks here arguing that the 737 Max is safe have a definition of "safe" that would satisfy a military test pilot. I'm sure that even without MCAS a top-notch pilot could fly the Max without incident, but when it comes to passenger aircraft safety, the bar is considerably higher.

[avereveard]

Both incorrect. The stability system to correct pitch to avoid training is only one side of the story. The other side is there wasn't a linear relationship between pitch, aoa and stick forces, and that would not have passed the faa certification.