Boeing's MCAS on the 737 MAX may not have been needed at all

Good! Take it out please! And if you’re at it, Boeing, take that most annoying Speed trim system on the NG series out as well please. I Don’t need any help when flying manual; you can have the trim when in autopilot, when it’s off, it’s mine thank you very much.

As I got to the end of the article, something popped out at me. FAA Administrator Steve Dickson wondered why Boeing didn't simply ask the FAA for a waiver similar to the situation between the flight characteristics between the 757 and 767. The article said that with those two planes, one handles like an "overpowered hotrod" and the other handles like a "whale". My thought was that Boeing would first have to spell out in detail the handling differences between the 737 NG and the MAX with the result being the possible denial of the waiver. Boeing never wanted to take that chance, and decided to move forward with the secretive MCAS.

Then, the FAA weighed in after the article's publication and stated that the handling characteristics of the non-MCAS MAX would not have been compliant.

My question is this: Is the handling difference between the 737 NG and the MCAS disabled 373 MAX more pronounced than the handling characteristic differences between the 757 and 767? Is the FAA throwing a bone to Boeing's investors by saying that the MCAS wasn't a waste of time?

Observations:
1. Marketing can kill
2. MBA's can kill
3. Customer demands can kill
4. Boeing should have invested in a new design much earlier rather than hording money and trying to cut corners playing catchup.

Finally an article explaining the stall characteristics always mentioned regarding MCAS but never elaborated on. And MCAS wasn't even needed? Wow. Dear Boeing, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott

The pilot has final authority as to how the airplane should fly, not a computer designed by engineers, most of whom don't even have a pilot's license. For decades the pilot was the anti-stall system For decades the pilot (navigator) found his/her way around the world without a computer. For decades the pilot calculated how much fuel to put on board. Next thing you know a computer hooked to a light sensor will decide how to set the cockpit lighting for you.

There’s always a tipping point. By going overboard on tech, Boeing arrogance voided the principle that’s ruled Aviation since the Wright Brothers...PIC has sole Responsibility for any final decision. MCAS overrode that premise.

An iconic American company nearly got ruined by bad training at two Asian airlines.

No real surprise... the only 2 that needed it were the ones that only had 1 AOA vane, and the crews apparently were not properly trained on how to handle it.... It apparently happened before to the crew who flew the 2nd plane in and wrote it up. Maintenance did a repair, signed it off and the repair was a no fix... and that crew did not recognize that it was a system failure.

Seems to illustrate systematic short-term focus by the company. There is only so long that one can kick the can down the road with product innovation.

Please someone answer me one simple question.. Could Sully have landed a 737 MAX on the Hudson with sudden loss of power? If not, the MAX doesn’t pass the “Pub” Test and should not be certified.