> First, the engine placement means it has a non-linear control force curve, so it needs some system to compensate for that. Hence MCAS.
No. Boeing wanted it to share a type rating with the rest of the 737 family, hence MCAS. This plane would be perfectly safe to fly if it had no MCAS and required a new type rating. Consider the 767 which has a stronger pitch-up characteristic and operates just fine. This meme has been debunked several months ago but keeps getting repeated along with the more ignorant 'the plane is inherently unstable'.
> The force required is extreme, weaker pilots may not be capable of trimming the aircraft.
This is true in all planes. In certain conditions, aerodynamic loads exceed the pilot's or even the hydraulic system's ability to overcome. Pilots are trained for how to recover from these conditions and regain trim authority.
> Canada stated that they would certify the MAX without MCAS and with required pilot training, if its performance characteristics were acceptable. Boeing has made no attempt (AFAICT) to try this, which raises suspicion that MCAS is in fact required for certification
This claim contradicts your first claim, as the authority indicates they will accept the plane without MCAS. So clearly, MCAS is not critical to safe the operation of the plane in the eyes of this authority.
Without MCAS the MAX loses the 737 type rating and becomes a commercial failure. Of course Boeing isn't going to even humour that avenue of action except as a last resort.
Please stop spreading thoroughly debunked misinformation.
No. Boeing wanted it to share a type rating with the rest of the 737 family, hence MCAS. This plane would be perfectly safe to fly if it had no MCAS and required a new type rating. Consider the 767 which has a stronger pitch-up characteristic and operates just fine. This meme has been debunked several months ago but keeps getting repeated along with the more ignorant 'the plane is inherently unstable'.
> The force required is extreme, weaker pilots may not be capable of trimming the aircraft.
This is true in all planes. In certain conditions, aerodynamic loads exceed the pilot's or even the hydraulic system's ability to overcome. Pilots are trained for how to recover from these conditions and regain trim authority.
> Canada stated that they would certify the MAX without MCAS and with required pilot training, if its performance characteristics were acceptable. Boeing has made no attempt (AFAICT) to try this, which raises suspicion that MCAS is in fact required for certification
This claim contradicts your first claim, as the authority indicates they will accept the plane without MCAS. So clearly, MCAS is not critical to safe the operation of the plane in the eyes of this authority.
Without MCAS the MAX loses the 737 type rating and becomes a commercial failure. Of course Boeing isn't going to even humour that avenue of action except as a last resort.
Please stop spreading thoroughly debunked misinformation.