Comments by "GH1618" (@GH-oi2jf) on "NYT Mag reporter on Boeing: Accidents caused by crews in both cases" video.

  1. flightisallright — In the first place, he is not an “NYT author.” He is a freelance writer who sold an article to The NYT. I am engineer (retired) who read his entire article and my judgment is that he is very well-informed on the engineering aspects of the problem. As a pilot, he is also an expert on airmanship and on the particulars of flying the 737, which is the main thrust of his article. He does critique the design of MCAS, and his article is perhaps the most thorough and accurate discussion of MCAS that you will find in one place in mass media.
    3
  2. Manuel Ventura — All that is well known by now. I’ve read the article. He covers the MCAS thoroughly and is not letting Boeing off the hook. But the article is not primarily about Boeing and MCAS. It’s about the decline of airmanship due to the large growth of the airline industry worldwide, and particularly at budget airlines in developing nations.
    2
  3. Abe Martin — This not a Boeing PR piece. The author is an established writer who is a pilot and who writes on aviation issues from time to time. This article is just his own opinion and he sold it to The New York Times.
    2
  4. SouthwestMAGA — That article states that the Indian company (HCL) employees worked at Boeing Field in Seattle, and that they did not work on MCAS.
    2
  5. Mihaly Freeman — You obviously have not read the article in The NYT Magazine.
    2
  6. Dewey Watts — Crickets?
    1
  7. Dewey Watts — Crickets are actually pretty noisy.
    1
  8. Ferdinando Cortese — 1. Yes. The Indonesian aircraft which crashed had been reported for having problems by a previous crew. 2. Yes, MCAS was a secret. This writer (who is a pilot) takes the position that the MCAS failure, while manifesting itself in a somewhat new way, should have been recognized as a case of runaway trim very quickly, in which case it would have been relatively easy to handle. But the crews waited too long and made other errors, which led to loss of control. The writer discusses these questions in detail in his article. It is better to read the whole thing than to just rely on what he says in this video.
    1
  9. Ferdinando Cortese — I completely agree that Boeing’s sneaking this system in without telling the pilots was not acceptable. Boeing and the FAA have both suffered a loss of credibility for the way this has been handled.
    1
  10. Nautilus Shell — Why would he do that? We have free speech and press in this country. He is qualified to write this article.
    1
  11. Nautilus Shell — Mr. Langeweische does not say that the MCAS did not have a problem which needed to be fixed. That’s a given.
    1
  12. Sergio Joshua — Do you not see how arrogant it is to assume that someone who expresses an opinion contrary to your own must have been paid to take that opinion? He was paid by The New York Times for the article, because that’s how professional writers make a living, but the opinion is clearly his own.
    1
  13. arif jau — That’s baloney. Nobody who has flown the 737, such as the pilots who have YouTube channels, says that. It is just conspiracy nut stuff from anonymous critics.
    1
  14. Pablo Gonzalez — It isn’t one way or the other. The crashes resulted from a combination of a poor MCAS design and poor airmanship, which is made clear in his article.
    1
  15. gokhanpala90 — He was not paid by Boeing. He is an established writer who has worked for several respected publications writing in-depth articles on various subjects. This is what he does for a living. He was paid by The NYT. He is a pilot and once worked for Flying magazine. He is well-qualified to write this piece.
    1
  16. Vladimir Mesherin — In his article, he discusses that point in detail — how the pilots acted throughout leading up to the crash. Not just the switches, but the flaps, throttles, elevators — the whole thing.
    1
  17. Most disasters arise from a combination of factors. Poor performance by the pilots cannot make up for the fact that MCAS was incompetently designed. The flaws in the software design have been thoroughly documented by now, and corrected.
    1
  18. Lucky Me — In his article, he does find fault with Boeing.
    1
  19. oneofthemdeals — Can you provide a link to document the existence this alleged Indian Outsourcing company and the role they allegedly playedin MCAS?
    1
  20. oneofthemdeals — I found a Bloomberg article on the subject. It reported that the company (HCL) was not involved with MCAS.
    1
  21. flightisallright — He has written for several highly regarded publications, including Atlantic and Vanity Fair, so they must think he’s a good writer. In any case, it’s just his opinion. It would be better if you were to take issue with some particular statement he made in the article, and to explain why, rather than to just dismiss him because you don’t like his conclusions. I disagree with his statement in this video that the MCAS problem was not sufficient reason to ground the aircraft. MCAS should not able to put the aircraft into a death dive just because the pilots were not skilled at getting out of a runaway trim condition. I don’t write him off because of that disagreement however. What he wrote about the performance of the airlines and their pilots is alarming and worth reading.
    1
  22. MERCATO MERCATO — Boeing had nothing to do with this report. Shame on you for accusing CNBC of collusion. They are just doing their job of reporting on a newsworthy subject.
    1
  23. MERCATO MERCATO — No, I am not involved with anybody in this business. I am a retired software engineer with a graduate engineering degree. From time to time, I fly on both Boeingand Airbus planes. That is my only connection to the aircraft business. I just don’t like it when people say that if somebody disagrees with them they must have an ulterior motive or be on the take. Life is not like that. People have different opinions and not everything that happens must fit into your personal world view.
    1
  24. I have just read the entire NYT article in addition to listening to this video. It is not a puff piece for Boeing. In fact, it does point out the errors that Boeing made in implementing MCAS and it provides a thorough and accurate discussion of the reasons for MCAS and of how it works. But the main thrust of the article isn’t about Boeing and how they screwed up. It’s about how the huge growth of commercial airlines worldwide has led to a decline in the average level of airmanship, and how this has contributed to reducing airline safety. The author is a pilot and is clearly very well-informed on both the technical and operational aspects of the incidents that led to the crashes and the grounding of the MAX. It is a “must read” for anyone who wants to understand the affair. He did say one thing in this video with which I disagree. He said the 737 MAX did not need to be grounded. I think it should have been grounded after the Lion Air preliminary report came out, then fixed and returned to flight in a reasonable time. I’ve been saying for awhile now, long before this article came out, that the grounding has gone on well past what is reasonable.
    1