Software Patches - Perfume for a Pig?

They all had two AOA sensors but only one was wired in to the MCAS! Which is puzzling becuse usually two systems are wired in order to preserve fail safe redundancy. I find it difficult to believe Boeing could not fathom a bird strike scenario to a sensor and the resultant MCAS activation. But let’s assume both sensors were wired in and both damaged activating the MCAS, Boeings answer was to turn of the Trim Cutout Switches and manually trim to fly the aircraft. Did Boeing forget to brief this in a variant conversion course.....maybe? Was there a reference to it in the Operating Manual....yes. Did the crews say, hey what’s this bloody MCAS reference....apparently not. Had any of the crews ever turned off these switches and flew the aircarft with manual trim only......never. Did Lion Air spec out these aircraft or did they come from a leasing company? Legacy airlines in Canada/USA ordered the aircraft equipped properly and have experienced zero incidents.

As a software designer myself, I agree that this patch appears to be an attempt to paper over a design flaw. What's particularly galling is that MCAS only takes input from one AOA sensor. So much for redundancy. I would never consider flying my Cessna 172 on only one magneto; why should the designers of the 737 MAX give up redundancy when the consequences are - as we have been graphically shown - so severe?

Why would anyone listen to a moron who calls the FDR a "black box" This reporter/moron does it 4 times

ZDNET readers - See what airline enthusiasts are saying about your article "Boeing 737 Max: Software patches can only do so much" Time to engage flyers with system design engineers"

The article clearly points out that the plane is safe as long as the proper training is received. Both US and European agencies said so. The issue appears to be Boeing not providing the training to the airlines (cost savings), not that the aircraft itself is flawed.

To date , i have read two different concerns , both regarding the weight ,size and positioning of these larger engines . In one comment it is said that the engines were moved closer to the wings leading edge with a shortened pylon , to reduce twisting and bouncing stresses on the pylons . This effectively moved the centre of balance backwards , which gives the aircraft a nasty habit of pitching up during the high angle of attack during the climb out . With the weight shift towards the back , it makes for the possibility of the nose to suddenly pitch rapidly up and above a safe climb angle . Hence ...MCAS . This is the scenario that i feel is correct .In the 2nd comment where the engines are moved up and forward , with all other things unchanged , this would cause the nose to have a natural tendency to want to drop ,and not suddenly pitch up . So i do not believe this scenario .In either case it is my belief that the Max-8 and -9 have a centre of balance problem , that Boeing has tried to solve with MCAS . It is my belief that no Program will solve the out of balance problem . That is my humble opinion . I'd love to hear from others ,about my comments , and thanks for letting me share my views .

on the oftchance MCAS is or has design flaws, Boeing may consider removing MCAS from all 737 max's, and making it optional, an extra cost item. Then objections would be removed and the company may resume deliveries and the airlines could put this plane back into revenue service.

was there anything else wrong with the jetliner?