5 ms·

The article implies that this is the Chinese government's way of signalling itself as a separate world aviation safety authority besides the FAA. Morbid as it i

The article implies that this is the Chinese government's way of signalling itself as a separate world aviation safety authority besides the FAA. Morbid as it is to think about, they're now postured in a position to benefit if another 737 Max goes down anywhere in the world.

Ultramanoid 8y ago
Indeed, a shrewd political move.
Tyrek 8y ago
Good political move, but that doesn't preclude it from being a smart move - as far as I've read so far, the conditions (weather, airline quality, etc) make this completely unexpected. Is implausible to believe that the FAA may be leaned on to suppress news that may damage Boeing, especially with the current administration, and the current slate of news coming out of Canada's shenanigans with the SNC?
- inferiorhuman 8y ago
  The FAA doesn't operate on altruism. They were quite happy to take money from and do work for Southwest during Trump's last shutdown. And regarding the MAX, the FAA happily buried any mention of MCAS (while the Brazilian authorities wisely thought it was significant enough to document in the differences training).
ejstronge 8y ago
Perhaps the underlying motivation is that China is a major purchaser of the 737 Max. Indeed, Boeing built a 737 'completion' facility to improve the rate of deliveries to Chinese clients.
asdfadsfgfdda 8y ago
The Chinese government is also a competitor to Boeing (Comac and AVIC). Seems difficult to believe China can provide truly independent oversight over certifying airplane or engine products designed by their own government.
- ei8htyfi5e 8y ago
  Sure but let's flip this. If the US started using China's first exported passenger plane and it went down twice in six months in similar circumstances, we would absolutely be doing the same thing.
  - zavi 8y ago
    How do you know that? Are you a person at FAA responsible for these decisions and protocols?
  - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
    I think we should change that scenario a bit. If China was our major supplier for Aircraft with a good record for reliability, but their latest model went down twice in six months in similar circumstances, would we ground that model? Perhaps. I don't know, but I don't think your comparison is the correct one.
- steve19 8y ago
  I am quite sure that if the FAA banned Chinese, or European, aircraft the same accusations would apply.
  - ralfn 8y ago
    That assumes Europeans or Chinese would have the same issue where nationalism constantly blinds their judgement.
    - drbytes 8y ago
      Haha +1
- inferiorhuman 8y ago
  The Chinese government is also a competitor to Boeing (Comac and AVIC) Competitor is a bit strong given that even the Chinese airlines don't want to fly the domestically designed planes.
est 8y ago
If any other country ground 737s it's better for safety concerns. But if it's China, it must be political motivated.
- s17n 8y ago
  China is a one party state which explicitly doesn't permit any organization, much less a government agency, to operate without political interference.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrischen 8y ago
    America is a two party state... so what? My point is if your mind is closed to looking at their actions at an objective level, there is no point arguing against your position, since it is that China is inherently evil, and is incapable of good actions. Question is, what if you’re wrong? What if one party is better than two, or four, or 8? And if you can’t consider that possibility, are you any more open than China’s politically oppressive one-party system?
    - refurb 8y ago
      There is massive gorge between a one party state and a two party state. Stop trying Arthur they are the same.
      - chrischen 8y ago
        As I’m sure there is a massive difference between a two party state and a n-party state (or even senate/house). We all think our own systems are the best...
    - anticensor 8y ago
      > America is a two party state. US are a multi-party state with two dominant parties. There are many unrepresented legal political parties.
pedrosorio 8y ago
> The article implies that this is the Chinese government's way of signalling itself as a separate world aviation safety authority besides the FAA Are you implying that before this "signalling" the FAA was a "world aviation safety authority" and furthermore the only one?
- United857 8y ago
  Of course, it's not the only one. But in practice, the FAA (along with its European equivalent, the EASA) are widely "trusted" by the rest of the world, meaning other countries will usually adapt their directives -- especially where safety is concerned.

Ultramanoid 8y ago

Indeed, a shrewd political move.

Tyrek 8y ago

Good political move, but that doesn't preclude it from being a smart move - as far as I've read so far, the conditions (weather, airline quality, etc) make this completely unexpected. Is implausible to believe that the FAA may be leaned on to suppress news that may damage Boeing, especially with the current administration, and the current slate of news coming out of Canada's shenanigans with the SNC?

inferiorhuman 8y ago
The FAA doesn't operate on altruism. They were quite happy to take money from and do work for Southwest during Trump's last shutdown. And regarding the MAX, the FAA happily buried any mention of MCAS (while the Brazilian authorities wisely thought it was significant enough to document in the differences training).

ejstronge 8y ago

Perhaps the underlying motivation is that China is a major purchaser of the 737 Max. Indeed, Boeing built a 737 'completion' facility to improve the rate of deliveries to Chinese clients.

asdfadsfgfdda 8y ago

The Chinese government is also a competitor to Boeing (Comac and AVIC). Seems difficult to believe China can provide truly independent oversight over certifying airplane or engine products designed by their own government.

ei8htyfi5e 8y ago
Sure but let's flip this. If the US started using China's first exported passenger plane and it went down twice in six months in similar circumstances, we would absolutely be doing the same thing.
- zavi 8y ago
  How do you know that? Are you a person at FAA responsible for these decisions and protocols?
- JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
  I think we should change that scenario a bit. If China was our major supplier for Aircraft with a good record for reliability, but their latest model went down twice in six months in similar circumstances, would we ground that model? Perhaps. I don't know, but I don't think your comparison is the correct one.
steve19 8y ago
I am quite sure that if the FAA banned Chinese, or European, aircraft the same accusations would apply.
- ralfn 8y ago
  That assumes Europeans or Chinese would have the same issue where nationalism constantly blinds their judgement.
  - drbytes 8y ago
    Haha +1
inferiorhuman 8y ago
The Chinese government is also a competitor to Boeing (Comac and AVIC) Competitor is a bit strong given that even the Chinese airlines don't want to fly the domestically designed planes.

est 8y ago

If any other country ground 737s it's better for safety concerns. But if it's China, it must be political motivated.

s17n 8y ago
China is a one party state which explicitly doesn't permit any organization, much less a government agency, to operate without political interference.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chrischen 8y ago
  America is a two party state... so what? My point is if your mind is closed to looking at their actions at an objective level, there is no point arguing against your position, since it is that China is inherently evil, and is incapable of good actions. Question is, what if you’re wrong? What if one party is better than two, or four, or 8? And if you can’t consider that possibility, are you any more open than China’s politically oppressive one-party system?
  - refurb 8y ago
    There is massive gorge between a one party state and a two party state. Stop trying Arthur they are the same.
    - chrischen 8y ago
      As I’m sure there is a massive difference between a two party state and a n-party state (or even senate/house). We all think our own systems are the best...
  - anticensor 8y ago
    > America is a two party state. US are a multi-party state with two dominant parties. There are many unrepresented legal political parties.

pedrosorio 8y ago

> The article implies that this is the Chinese government's way of signalling itself as a separate world aviation safety authority besides the FAA Are you implying that before this "signalling" the FAA was a "world aviation safety authority" and furthermore the only one?

United857 8y ago
Of course, it's not the only one. But in practice, the FAA (along with its European equivalent, the EASA) are widely "trusted" by the rest of the world, meaning other countries will usually adapt their directives -- especially where safety is concerned.