4 ms·
Their report merely states that a simulator was available, and that the crew did not train it it. It even includes the fact that Boeing did not consider such tr
by matt4077 8y ago
Their report merely states that a simulator was available, and that the crew did not train it it. It even includes the fact that Boeing did not consider such training necessary.
How is it untrustworthy to report these uncontested facts? You are drawing a conclusion that the article does not make, namely that the lack of simulator use was the singular cause of the accident.
It takes some gall to accuse the Times of a false conclusion that happens entirely in your head.
- CaptainZapp 8y agoMy bad. It was me drawing the conclusion. And granted: That was mainly from the headlines, which were also picked up by other publications. I would remove my comment, but that kills the flow of the thread so I let it stand and apologise for my making the unfounded comment. I was under the impression (probably not unreasonable if you look at Boeing's reaction in the last few weeks) that the company was actively smearing the pilots and using their press connections to actively do that. Mea culpa!
- matt4077 8y agoThanks for having the grace of changing your mind. And you weren’t entirely incorrect: my assertion in the top post in is thread that Boeing was working on blaming the pilots was based on something I remember reading in either the NYT or Atlantic. But that article was very explicitly saying that it was narrative being pushed by Boeing.