Isn't that exactly what an effective shill would say? It could even be true. "Shill" and "spokesman" are not synonyms.
FWIW, I went back and re-read some of your comments in other branches of this thread and it's really hard for me to figure out what your position actually is. For example:
> It's true that if the MCAS software requirements weren't inadequate, the accidents would not have happened.
Apart from being a nearly-impossible-to-parse triple negative, it's just absurd on its face. No requirements can ever prevent an accident. I can write down as a requirement: "MCAS software must never cause the plane to crash." But obviously the planes did not crash because someone failed to write down that requirement.
If you're really a flight controls engineer then you obviously meant something else. But have no idea what that something else could possibly be.
> But I don't see why the shortcomings in the MCAS software design requirements were the result of cost savings.
Again, it is hard for me to wring any plausible interpretation out of this sentence under the assumption that you are well informed. It is well known that the reason MCAS exists at all is because Boeing attempted to make a radical change to an existing airframe design without getting it re-certitifed, and the reason for doing that was cost savings, both for Boeing and its customers. What other underlying reason could there possibly be for MCAS to exist at all?
> I did not defend Boeing's MCAS design.
OK, but do you see how someone could come away with that impression?
Of course. There's no telling how deep this conspiracy to point out publicly available facts goes :-)
> No requirements can ever prevent an accident.
That's not what I meant by requirements. Boeing came up with a set of rules for what the software must do in each situation. This is called the requirements specification for the software.
Anybody who contracts with someone to write some software comes up with such a specification.
> What other underlying reason could there possibly be for MCAS to exist at all?
There's nothing at all wrong with the concept of MCAS. There's a long history of flight control augmentation in jet airliners to make them behave better. In fact, you cannot control a jetliner at all without augmentation, it's too fast and heavy. It's the implementation that was faulty.
The B-17 was perhaps the largest successful airplane with no augmentation, and a strong man could barely handle it (source - my dad was a B-17 pilot).
The 757, which I worked on, has fully powered controls. The control column just opens and closes valves. In order to prevent the pilot from inadvertently making violent maneuvers a hydraulic "feel computer" was added to push back on the stick to fake the behavior of a manually controlled system. The forces it imparted had to be dialed back to accommodate the advent of female pilots, which caused some worry that the men would overcontrol the airplane. Fortunately, that turned out to not be a problem.
> OK, but do you see how someone could come away with that impression?
I not only never defended MCAS' design, I wrote that it was faulty several times. You should ask the someone why they conclude the opposite.
A fair question. I left Boeing's employ (as a flight controls engineer) in 1982. I am not a spokesman for Boeing, paid or otherwise. The facts I've presented here are all public information (though routinely omitted from sensationalist articles about it). My interpretation of those facts is mine alone.
We'll see what the final NTSB report says. They have earned a reputation for going where ever the facts lead them, regardless of political pressure. I sincerely hope they continue with this tradition, as it is the only way to make airline travel safe.
This highly political case will surely test the NTSB's commitment to dispassionate examination of the facts. We shall see.