Originally Posted by
Notanatp
But Sullenberger is clearly advocating, not analyzing, when he effectively takes the position that recovery was not "possible." He says "The National Transportation Safety Board has found that Boeing made faulty assumptions both about the capability of the aircraft design to withstand damage or failure, and the level of human performance possible once the failures began to cascade."
If you're going to parse Sully's statements you should try to do a better job of it. To say that the NTSB pointed out faulty assumptions about possible levels of human performance is
not to say that the NTSB found any particular level of performance "not possible." Really. The English simply doesn't mean what you appear to want it to mean.
Here's the relevant NTSB document:
Assumptions Used in the Safety Assessment Process and the Effects of Multiple Alerts and Indications on Pilot Performance
Edit: It is certainly possible that Sullenberger will end up as an expert witness in litigation related to the MAX crashes. But it would be very surprising if he needed to "audition" for the role. The chances that he hasn't been heavily recruited by plaintiffs' counsel are almost certainly slim and none.