This has very little to do with the plane's ability to glide. (A 737 glides just fine, if a bit steep for my taste). In that particular emergency, the control

This has very little to do with the plane's ability to glide. (A 737 glides just fine, if a bit steep for my taste). In that particular emergency, the control surfaces prevent it from gliding. You can even have issues on a Cessna - loss of elevator is not fun.[1] It's not about "denying physics", it's about having insufficient redundancy[2] and improper amount of control from MCAS - 3 times more than the FAA approved: [3] No plane is 100% safe. Boeing made this one worse for the sake of saving money - the physics work out just fine, and gliding ability is not really impacted. (But I don't think it'd be a normal response - I can't imagine a pilot thinking "oh, I'm getting a stall warning with nose down at 4,000 feet, I know, I'll cut power and glide".) [1] https://airfactsjournal.com/2018/12/elevator-failure-at-4500-feet-in-a-cessna-150/ https://airfactsjournal.com/2018/12/elevator-failure-at-4500... [2] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lac... [3] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faile...