The only reason the lack of StTim's quoted post is a legitimate complaint is if your post didn't stay consistent with its context. Deceived the FAA? And you complain about deleting context when making conclusions with Forkner's statements that have an unknown context? You know, you're actually degrading the FAA by saying Forkner was able to deceive the FAA. And yet now you appear to fully trust them. Makes no sense.
It says very little about Boeing. What you appear to be doing is conflating general global training/skill issues that are being uncovered with a specific MAX issue and blaming both on the manufacturer. There's a huge difference between desiring to limit additional training requirements with a new type (every manufacturer, airline, and regulator desires this, and it's the optimal result for society), and the regulators/airlines allowing a certain standard for global pilot performance. Boeing doesn't control the latter, and that's where the inadequacy is being uncovered. Emergencies, malfunctions, and checklists aren't limited to Boeing aircraft.
You seem to contradict yourself quit a bit. From what we have learnt from the various threads is that lot of FAA activity was delegated to Boeing, why ? Because U.S. Congress which should have made the funds available for the same hasn't done so. In fact, it has tightened the purse strings as well as Boeing lobbyists lobbying so the work was delegated Boeing. The two disasters are due to Boeing doing hasty work, not documenting things and not sharing the solutions as well (even today they are questions which we have seen plenty in this thread alone.) Questions, which boeing needs to answer but perhaps won't.
If the House Transportation Committee of the U.S. Govt. does call the new Boeing chief for questioning, he will fall back on ' I don't know' or ' I don't remember' which is the essentially the line of defence the last chief did.
Now coming to how much training should be given to pilots for a procedure is not only the regulator but also the manufacturer and more so when the manufacturer is overlooking some of the regulatory work (which is a conflict of interest, but for the moment let's keep that aside.)
I am genuinely non-plussed with your statement where you say less training is good for society while at the same time blaming pilots for not having enough skills. To know the skill-sets of U.S. pilots or lack of, shouldn't the results of the tests be made public. After all, these tests were made with taxpayer money. Having more documentation would also help other regulators to devise their own set of tests which would raise the bar as well. There is another thing, when a pilot or co-pilot shares that x or Y person has x numbers of flying hours, how do we know if that includes or excludes sim-training as well as how much of the landings and taking off were automated or auto-assisted and how many were manual. From what I know there doesn't seem to any disclosure norms to flying passengers, who have paid not just good money but also trusting their lives in the pilot's hand. This is of course a consumer protection question as well as something to be asked of both the regulators as well as manufacturers. Please let me know if somebody has filed RTI's or Freedom of Information Requests for the same under the U.S. law.
StTim actually makes a good point that I don't think was intended. If this says so much about Boeing, then what about the NG/MAX minus MCAS 1.0 that's contradicts the argument? The issues mentioned in the article aren't limited to the MAX, the 737, or even Boeing. Are we really going to blame Boeing for the inadequate skills of those that operate it? I guess some are. Are we going to hold the MAX to a higher pilot standard than other aircraft? I guess the industry is. Meanwhile we have planes in the air that could go down with a coffee spill. Common sense is departing this industry.
To me this is a strong sign that FAA sees no show stoppers on the tech side. Training, on the other hand....
Welcome to 2019. Not only is that not a strong sign, it isn't even a sign at all. The FAA is the boy who cried wolf. Their statements on the timeline own no credibility.
The fact of the matter is that the FAA isn't stating they are definitively closer to a cert flight than news reports said months ago. Clearly there has been at least one "showstopper" since last summer. The only question is if it's a reasonable one, of course that is a mystery. If all one reads is the latest news article, it's easy for the FAA to keep the charade going.[/quote]
If it's a charade happening why isn't Boeing through their fancy lawyers and lobbyists doing about it. Also would Boeing take the responsibility if a third one falls from the skies, just like the other two if something similar happens or would they continue to peddle that everybody else is bad, inept etc. except them. People would hold FAA responsible for for allowing an unsafe plane into the skies. As it is FAA has lost lot of trust of the public.