Boeing built an inherently unstable aircraft in multiple regimes in a rush to compete with airbus. They started out thinking there was one regime, and discovered (like we always joked about the Beech 1900 guy that came back in saying we need more fins) that it was way worse than anticipated.

It was not fly by wire to make it stable, but instead a hacked analog patch with a single point of failure for an aggressive correction for said instabilities.

What did you think would happen???

This is the problem with the design, but again, this does not excuse the crew for failing to control the aircraft. I agree the design was poorly executed, but the "stability" issue is no different than other aircraft which have unique handling characteristics with patches to make them less unique.

If this was a runaway trim due to faulty circuitry instead of faulty code nobody would be trying to give this excuse.

The 737-800 Max is not an unstable platform.

The MCAS was a certification compliance measure.

Stability has never been the issue.

Well, crap. Someone should have told Boeing.

MCAS was designed and installed as an means of compliance for 14 CFR 25.203(a), for the purposes of certification.

You are so far out of your league in this back and forth that it's almost painful. You can't even quote him correctly.

Your reading skills need to seriously improve if you want to tangle with this kind of animal. He deserves an immense amount of credit for not insulting you more.

He keeps hitting the nail on the head with a hammer, while you keep hitting the nail on the side with your screwdriver.

You see, hammers were made to hammer nails. Pilots were made to fly airplanes.

You aren't hammering the nail with a hammer, much like these pilots didn't fly the airplane.

Good luck with your screwdriver.

To the man with the hammer, everything is a nail. If your side of the story was accepted by the rest of the world, the plane wouldn’t have been grounded. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed to do the right thing.

Inside baseball now says December for re-certification. FAA says officially "no timetable".

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKCN1TD1VW

I don't have a "side to the story". I have a clear understanding of the actual story. See the difference?

Funny you feel able to speak for the "rest of the world" when you have trouble simply speaking for yourself.

"Cooler heads" would not have flown this airplane into the ground at T/O power past VMO/MMO while trying to repeatedly activate the autopilot and ignoring the trained procedure by reactivating the trim system.

So clearly your last sentence doesn't apply here either.

The problem with the Titanic was the crew scraped the ice burg. It was in compliance with all safety regulations at the time and actually had 2 more lifeboats then what was required.
The shipbuilders had no reason to build passenger ships safer after learning about the subpar rivets, the metal that got weaker in colder waters etc etc....
They could have just said “Don’t hit anything” to the crews.
The point is is, yes the crew was at fault, but that was no justification not to make future ships safer.
Oh and the Captain of that ship was not a “low time” guy.
He was a little full of himself though in my opinion.