[dghlsakjg]

That particular failure mode would have been impossible in most other planes including all Boeings. 1. Pretty much only Airbus doesn’t have linked controls 2. Pretty much just airbus changes what the controls allow you to do (the “law” as they call it) without input from the pilot.

No other airliner make on earth could have suffered that accident. It would have been extremely obvious what the issue was, and how to solve it on any other aircraft I can think of. This was like a car crash caused by the computer changing how the steering wheel worked mid drive.

I still have no idea how Airbus didn’t catch more flack for that design.

[SR2Z]

Because the vast majority of the time, that design stops pilots from stalling the aircraft and makes maintenance easier.

Flying airplanes is not a natural fit for the human brain. It's very helpful to have a computer mediating inputs to keep the aircraft stable.

[dghlsakjg]

And yet, that design did not stop the pilot from stalling the plane as that was the cause of the crash, the design actually helped the pilot stall the plane without even knowing it. The argument isn't that computers shouldn't play a role in flight controls (indeed some military aircraft are unflyable without a computer in the loop), its that the interface - which is completely unique among all other airliners and commercial passenger planes - is so non-intuitive that it allowed something to happen that would not have been possible.

If you go full stick back in any other airliner, the other pilot will know it immediately, and can physically correct the input. Other planes have stall prevention and awareness in the form of stick shakers and stick pushers that give the pilot physical feedback, and in the case of a pusher makes the pilot physically fight against the safe action (in the case of the MAX, trim adjustment - a roundabout way of stick pushing - was implemented in an exceptionally stupid way that made it overpower the pilots)