> "The implementation of it, however, wasn't very good" It was purposefully deceptive -- Boeing management actively decided to hide its existence from pilots.

> "The implementation of it, however, wasn't very good" It was purposefully deceptive -- Boeing management actively decided to hide its existence from pilots. The narrative that the pilots were at fault was Boeing leadership covering their ass. The MCAS symptoms did not match runaway trim. It's not continuous. It stops and starts. MCAS would also re-activate with a five second delay, just long enough to confuse pilots. More importantly, deactivating the electrical trim system would make it all too easy to enter a regime where the pilots couldn't physically recover the plane. This is a Catch-22 scenario: Activate the electrics and be killed by MCAS, or deactivate the electrics and be killed by physics. I could go through each of your comments in this thread and point out how NTSB crash investigators proved that Boeing was directly or indirectly at fault in almost every aspect, but I don't want to write out ten pages. Others have done so already, more eloquently, and often with more colourful language. Most professional pilots were rightly furious with Boeing. Boeing's arguments have been mutually exclusive with each other: "Just remember how to operate MCAS... which we hid from you!" and "Just disable the electric trim... which will pit you against forces you can't overcome"... "Which is not a problem because you can turn electric trim back one... but then MCAS will try to kill you again"... "It won't do that because it is dual redundant... an option... that nobody purchased... and we didn't even tell most customers about." I expect this kind of self-contradictory "logic" from narcissists and sociopaths -- I know one of each and I'm now intimately familiar with the self serving arguments that make no sense, especially in combination.