> This plane would be perfectly safe to fly if it had no MCAS and required a new type rating.
GP didn't claim otherwise. GP claimed:
>> [...] so it needs some system to compensate for that.
And it does need that system - whether for safety is debatable, but it needs it for certification (not within the 737 family certification, but for certification full stop), because the FAA requires basically a linear control force curve.
>> weaker pilots may not be capable of trimming the aircraft.
> This is true in all planes.
Source? I'd assume, in fact, that in most planes that is not the case - superhuman strength is not required to trim.
> 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.
No, it doesn't. There are three possibilities:
1. Without MACS, the plane is safe and certifiable, but not similar enough to be certified with the 737 family.
2. Without MACS, the plane is reasonably safe, but not certifiable under the specific FAA rule requiring linear control forces (though possibly under more lenient, eg Canadian rules).
3. Without MACS, the plane is not safe and not certifiable.
I think 2 is the case. 1 has been debunked, and you argue that 3 is false, too.
GP didn't claim otherwise. GP claimed:
>> [...] so it needs some system to compensate for that.
And it does need that system - whether for safety is debatable, but it needs it for certification (not within the 737 family certification, but for certification full stop), because the FAA requires basically a linear control force curve.
>> weaker pilots may not be capable of trimming the aircraft. > This is true in all planes.
Source? I'd assume, in fact, that in most planes that is not the case - superhuman strength is not required to trim.
> 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.
No, it doesn't. There are three possibilities:
1. Without MACS, the plane is safe and certifiable, but not similar enough to be certified with the 737 family.
2. Without MACS, the plane is reasonably safe, but not certifiable under the specific FAA rule requiring linear control forces (though possibly under more lenient, eg Canadian rules).
3. Without MACS, the plane is not safe and not certifiable.
I think 2 is the case. 1 has been debunked, and you argue that 3 is false, too.