A troubling and quite confusingly written story. Some questions...
nytimes.com/2019/10/18/bus…
nytimes.com/2019/10/18/bus…
Mark Forkner is described as a "Boeing pilot working on the 737 Max" and "the chief technical pilot for the plane." Those are ambiguous descriptions. What exactly was his relationship to both Boeing and the Max project?
Here are clearer descriptions: "Mark Forkner, the Max’s chief technical pilot"; "As the chief technical pilot he was the primary liaison with the FAA on training and worked on the pilot’s manual." irishtimes.com/business/manuf…
The headline says Forkner "Lied to F.A.A. About 737 Problems." But the evidence of this is a text where Forkner says "I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly)." What does lying unknowingly mean? The article doesn't address this question.
It seems that what Forkner meant was that he gave info to the FAA (by requesting that MCAS not be mentioned in the pilot manual) that he only months later found to be wrong ("It’s running rampant in the sim"). So by the info in the article, there is no lie.
Okay, so (1) Did Forkner then go on to share this newly discovered information with the FAA? Presumably not, but this is the crucial question, and the article doesn't ask or answer it.
And (2) Do we know more about Forkner's relationship with the FAA that could make sense of the claim that he lied? Again, context from the IT article: "Forkner and Boeing never mentioned to [FAA] that MCAS was in the midst of an overhaul, according to the three FAA officials."
! Okay, that IT article is actually a reposting of an NYT article by two of the same reporters as the new article, so I've been chastising the authors with their own earlier work. Sorry! Here's the earlier piece again as useful context for the new report: nytimes.com/2019/06/01/bus…
I maintain the point that, as written, this article doesn't support the headline claim that Forkner lied, even if he said he did "(unknowingly)." That's a pretty heavy claim.
They just changed it.
My gripes about the headline and lingering questions aside, this a damning story for Boeing and the FAA. Linger for a moment on each part of this: "Granted, I suck at flying, but even this was egregious."
My gripes about the headline and lingering questions aside, this a damning story for Boeing and the FAA. Linger for a moment on each part of this: "Granted, I suck at flying, but even this was egregious."
The full exchange is here. Another nugget: "I'd ask for a job in sales where I can just get paid to drink with customers and lie about how awesome our airplanes are."
seattletimes.com/business/boein…
seattletimes.com/business/boein…
One question re the article is how much regular flying time a "chief technical pilot" is supposed to put in — whether that's more akin to a top-dog test pilot or to a high-level managerial role. One commenter on the Times article says the latter: 
