We agree.
Of course, it
is possible to build a plane that is fully compliant with all FAR regulations, but doesn't fly like a 737. We also know that the MCAS was a late add to the MAX, designed to solve a problem. Thus, there are two options about what that late problem was:
- The pre-MCAS MAX was fully compliant with all regulations, but did not fly like other 737's. The MCAS was added to correct that.
- The pre-MCAS MAX was not compliant with the FAR's (which implies, as you write, also not consistent with previous 737's). The MCAS was added to correct that.
My belief is that it's the second scenario.
Juan Brown, in his latest clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB4lCbT5oX8&t=620, states
There are two flaws here. First, it's ambiguous when he uses the term "an inherently unstable aircraft". That term is not formally defined, and so I'm choosing to use a more precise term, "not compliant with the FAR regulations". Secondly, his argument is that because the MAX passed certification, therefore it's stable (compliant), and therefore MCAS was not required to provide that stability (compliance). The problem is that his argument does not prove the pre-MCAS aircraft was also stable (compliant). Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't ... but you can't use the fact that the post-MCAS aircraft passed certification, to prove that the pre-MCAS aircraft was inherently stable (compliant).
My reading of his words, makes it clear to me that he believes the MCAS system is not related to the 737 stability, and (by implication) the MCAS system is not related to compliance with the FARs. In other words, he's asserting that the first of my above options is the one that's true.
OK, but based on my understanding of the facts, I disagree; I think it's the second of my two options.