PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Aviation journalist
View Single Post
Old 17th Sep 2020, 13:50
  #29 (permalink)  
MickG0105
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,194
Received 218 Likes on 105 Posts
Originally Posted by 1A_Please
GT was spouting off again on Sky again today. I assume he must be cheap because he's brainless.

Today's wisdom was that the 737MAX was always safe because it took 5 years to develop and the crashes only occurred because of poorly trained foreign pilots. As for the report that went to US Congress about the MAX critical of FAA and Boeing, according to GT, it relied too much on uninformed journalists..... Irony is Dead!
If you want to insult your intelligence you can watch GT flub his way through the interview here.

According to GT 'many, many in the industry would argue that there was nothing actually wrong with the 737 Max in the first place'.

He shrugs off key findings raised in the report as being largely driven by 'lay media sources' which is complete and utter nonsense. Although it makes you wonder whether he considers himself a 'lay media source' or do the numerous scale models and replete bookshelves in view over his shoulder confer him with 'expert' status.

He makes no reference to the extensive written and oral testimony of numerous pilots, engineers and safety experts, many of them either current or former Boeing employees, that went into formulating the report.

He seems smugly pleased to be able to point out that Boeing took longer to develop the MAX than it did the 747. He is completely oblivious to the notions that (a) just because it took 5 years that doesn't mean that there weren't timeline pressures and (b) as time is money that extend development cycle necessarily generated cost pressures. On that last point, he made no mention of the following report finding, that

... in order to lower costs of the 737 MAX program, Boeing reduced the work hours involved in avionics regression testing on the 737 MAX by 2,000 hours. It also examined other reductions to save costs, including a reduction to flight test support by 3,000 hours and a reduction to the engineering flight deck simulator (E-CAB) by 8,000 hours.
Frankly, I very much doubt whether he's even read the entire report.
MickG0105 is online now