3 ms·
De facto the FAA indeed does that very thing. First, any change in design (or in configuration, in the case of repairs) is backed by PEs or A&P mechanics who s
by AceyMan 8y ago
De facto the FAA indeed does that very thing.
First, any change in design (or in configuration, in the case of repairs) is backed by PEs or A&P mechanics who sign off on the changes. Their career rides on the validity of their analysis so that's a better guarantee than some commit message by a systems programmer.
Second, the FAA basically says "show us what you are changing" after which they will absolutely require physical tests (static or dynamic tests, test flights, etc., as appropriate to the scope of change).
And I'd say flying is so safe mainly from the blameless post-mortem policy that the American industry instantiated decades ago and which is constantly reinforced by the pros in the NTSB. It's a wonderful model for improvement.
- sokoloff 8y agoI think that the FAA's role is theoretically as you express, but in practice, there is significantly less oversight (especially direct oversight) than implied. As an example, the crash of N121JM on a rejected takeoff was due (only in part) to a defective throttle quadrant/gust lock design that went undetected during design and certification, in part because it was argued to be a continuation of a conformant and previously certificated design. (Which is relevant to the current discussion in that if you decide to make certification costly and time-consuming, there will be business and engineering pressure to continue using previously certificated parts, with only "insignificant changes".) https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140531-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140531-... PS: I 100% agree on the NTSB process' contribution to safety.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoThat's fascinating, it's kind of a collectivizing of the responsibility for safety.