Re: The reason that the Max series need MCAS
@PhilipN,
Sully flew an Airbus (US1549). Which is, if you were to believe some in this thread, "fully automatic and the pilot can't do *anything*". The fact that Captain Sullenberger was able to put the A320 down on the Hudson well enough to not only keep the hull intact, but have everyone onboard survive the incident (albeit with injuries), should be enough proof that the whole "Airbus is crap because automation" narrative is crap.
Incidentally, the Atlas (Prime Air) 767 freighter that went down in Texas recently did so after turbulence and 'stick input'... it appears it pitched up (in turbulence) and the pilot then pushed the control column forward to bring the nose down. It then stayed down until it impacted. The stick shaker that *should* activate in that instance apparently didn't. So... Boeing with its "the pilot is always in control" policy clearly is not infallible either (and the 767 has a shedload less automation than the 787 or the new MAX has).
Go figure.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
