> Every single piece of reporting I've seen on the matter refers to MCAS as an anti-stall device. Assuming you are a developer, have you ever seen some reporti

> Every single piece of reporting I've seen on the matter refers to MCAS as an anti-stall device. Assuming you are a developer, have you ever seen some reporting of something technical in the news? Does it not make you cringe? > Pilots of 737 who have talked to reporters refer to it as an anti-stall device. Even Boeing themselves do; so who can blame them. The reason that the certification item exists is to prevent certification of aircraft which demonstrate increasingly lighter control forces as the aircraft approaches a stall. The reason being that it makes it easier for an inattentive pilot to accidentally fly the aircraft into a stall. So if you want to shorten that to anti-stall then I'm fine with that. What I don't really like is the retoric about how these aircraft would fall out of the sky without MCAS "controlling" the plane. It isn't a closed loop control system implementing PID control to account for some crazy instability in the aircraft.