I did not defend the MCAS software design. Not once. Quite the opposite.
> the very least we all can do is to be open and honest about errors in the system and the actions taken to prevent the same accident from happening twice.
I totally agree with that. That also means being open and honest about all contributing factors to these crashes.
1. In a safety critical system design, any change that results in fallible humans being more likely to crash their plane into the sea means the fault lies with the system, not the individuals.
2. I think people are (rightfully IMO) so angry with Boeing because so many of their actions look like they were cost-saving measures. If the system worked exactly as it did, but Boeing had been very clear about the difference in handling MCAS caused, which would likely have required recertification and additional retraining of pilots, I think people would have at least been somewhat more sympathetic. But it looks like so many of the MAX design constraints were driven by the bean-counter directive of "don't do anything that would require recertification", and that's why people are pissed.
I believe these two statements are contradictory. The pilots were a contributing factor to the crashes. This needs to be investigated to determine why they did not respond appropriately, and corrective action taken. In addition to Boeing correcting the MCAS system, and the maintenance issues.
All contributing factors must be accounted for.
> I think people are (rightfully IMO) so angry with Boeing because so many of their actions look like they were cost-saving measures.
Some of this anger seems to stem from inaccurate, incomplete, and sensationalist reporting, such as the cost saving one. The problems with MCAS were in the software requirements for it. Not bugs in the software, not outsourcing the programming, not in the design of the airframe, etc. The fix is in the software, too. Using the correct software rules in the first place would have cost the same amount of money. Having the MCAS software compare the two independent AOA sensor readings would not have cost more money.
I haven't heard it characterized as an instability by any reputable source. Just that the behavior in certain unusual circumstances did not match the earlier 737 behavior.
And generally on engineering. If a system, regardless of the application, fails I consider it bad engineer behavior to single out the user. Systems, especially in aerospace, include everything from design over manufacturing, software, the parts to maintenance, logistics and ultimately training. Failure in any single one of these means failure of the system. Which directly implies all entities involved in development and certification. Failure in more than one is catastrophic. Defending it is bad engineering. Just my 5 cents.
EDIT: MCAS relied on a single AoA sensor. Non-redundant safety critical systems in an aircraft? Seriously?