> A non-Max 737 doesn't need MCAS because it already behaves like a 737. If I read this correctly you're implying a 737 Max doesn't behave, aerodynamically, as

> A non-Max 737 doesn't need MCAS because it already behaves like a 737. If I read this correctly you're implying a 737 Max doesn't behave, aerodynamically, as that a non-Max 737 does? And if we follow that line of thinking since non-Max 737 don't require MCAS to behave appropriately then the 737 Max is not a 737 airframe and it should be recertified as something else, no? I'm in no way "shocked" computers fly and/or help fly airplanes. I am shocked so many comments defend the gross negligence by Boeing, however. Remember that in all of the needless death the 737 Max is attributed with absolutely zero deaths were because of a flight computer. The real root cause of the 737 Max crashes are Boeing executives and FAA personnel making cognizant choices to allow process to be skipped in the vain of profits and loss avoidance. I believe we'll see this, at some point, no different than the commonly referenced Challenger failure [0]. [0] https://www.breakingthewheel.com/root-cause-analysis-five-whys/ https://www.breakingthewheel.com/root-cause-analysis-five-wh...