4 ms·

If we're discussing a failure of the FAA, that's the right context to bash regulation, not "self regulation".

wnevets 8y ago
That is misleading at best. The FAA was instructed to let the industry to regulate itself more, a typical republican/libertarian belief. Boeing being allowed to self regulated created this mess. https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/03/18/did-trump-executive-orders-further-weaken-faa-oversight/#7890990a3ca7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/03/18/did-tru... >Still, the US DOT mandated that the FAA begin the process of review to reduce regulations. The FAA assigned this task to ARAC, effectively putting the question of what rules to cut and which to eliminate before creating new ones in the hands of a body that includes representatives from manufacturers and airlines.
- MockObject 8y ago
  But an inherent bug of government regulation is that it's always vulnerable to lobbying like you cited. So it's still a failure of regulation, except one that is permanent and unsurprising.
  - wnevets 8y ago
    Are you arguing that it was a failure of the government regulation by allowing the self regulation that caused the mess?
    - MockObject 8y ago
      Yes. If a suspect nicely asks a police officer not to arrest them, and the officer complies, that's a failure of policing. The only difference here is that the vulnerability of regulatory bodies to asking nicely is so well-recognized that it has a fancy name ("Regulatory Capture"), and is backed by loads of published research, and quite frankly is probably the reason that the business class even submits to this sort of regulation at all.
      - wnevets 8y ago
        The industry didn't lobby the FAA to allow more self regulation, the POTUS demanded it. A more accurate analogy would be the police chief ordering the officer not to arrest the judge's son for drunk driving.
        MockObject 8y ago
        Yes, your analogy is fine. If the police chief was asked on a golf course not to arrest someone, but instead do "self policing", and he complied, it's still a failure in policing, and not any failure of whatever "self policing" is supposed to be. Maybe we need a regulation solution that doesn't involve handing over ultimate authority half the time to a party that is consistently on record as opposing regulation?
  - kevin_b_er 8y ago
    Our government is quite vulnerable to corruption by the rich and powerful. You will watch some propose that, since the rich have corrupted the governement's protections for the people, that those protections should be removed. But this is the original goal in the first place: Remove protection for the people against the abuse by the powerful.
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    >> That is misleading at best. The FAA was instructed to let the industry to regulate itself more, a typical republican/libertarian belief. Boeing being allowed to self regulated created this mess. > But an inherent bug of government regulation is that it's always vulnerable to lobbying like you cited. So it's still a failure of regulation, except one that is permanent and unsurprising. It's a failure of regulation that the regulated would lobby to weaken regulation?
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      Yes, among other aspects of regulatory capture.
      - CharlesColeman 8y ago
        Is the solution to eliminate regulation, so the regulated don't have to bother to "capture it" -- and just decide to live with all the problems regulation can solve or mitigate?
        MockObject 8y ago
        When someone reports a software bug to you, do you often ask them if the solution is to abandon the entire product? This doesn't seem like a productive methodology.
        CharlesColeman 8y ago
        No, that's why I phrased my comment as a question. When the implementation difficulties of regulation come up on libertarian-leaning forums, it often seems like it's really an indirect way of arguing against the whole concept and practice of regulation (e.g. like this comment describes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19424511 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19424511). I just wanted to see if that was the case here or not, hence the question.
        8y ago
- Rebelgecko 8y ago
  Not to diminish the role of the FAA in this, but do other nations not do their own certifications of new aircraft? Is it a nation of origin thing? e.g. Boeing is regulated by the FAA and everyone trusts the FAA, then Airbus gets regulated by EASA and everyone trusts EASA?
  - dingaling 8y ago
    That's basically how it works for complex aircraft. The 777 was the first airliner to receive automatic EASA approval after FAA acceptance. Smaller nations follow FAA or EASA. Russia and China have their own certification systems but defer largely to the Big Two for imports. However it is notable that the Chinese regulator took a long time and much persuading before they accepted the Max. Why it isn't done at an international level I don't know. Small aircraft could still be certificated nationally if they're not intended for export.
- lokicat 8y ago
  The industry has been trending this way for some time now. Pretending it's been a 'republican/libertarian' belief problem does no service to anyone. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faile...
cmurf 8y ago
FTA: The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes. Self-regulation as a consequence of the FAA getting insufficient funding is distinctly on-topic.

That is misleading at best. The FAA was instructed to let the industry to regulate itself more, a typical republican/libertarian belief. Boeing being allowed to self regulated created this mess. https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/03/18/did-trump-executive-orders-further-weaken-faa-oversight/#7890990a3ca7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/03/18/did-tru... >Still, the US DOT mandated that the FAA begin the process of review to reduce regulations. The FAA assigned this task to ARAC, effectively putting the question of what rules to cut and which to eliminate before creating new ones in the hands of a body that includes representatives from manufacturers and airlines.

MockObject 8y ago
But an inherent bug of government regulation is that it's always vulnerable to lobbying like you cited. So it's still a failure of regulation, except one that is permanent and unsurprising.
- wnevets 8y ago
  Are you arguing that it was a failure of the government regulation by allowing the self regulation that caused the mess?
  - MockObject 8y ago
    Yes. If a suspect nicely asks a police officer not to arrest them, and the officer complies, that's a failure of policing. The only difference here is that the vulnerability of regulatory bodies to asking nicely is so well-recognized that it has a fancy name ("Regulatory Capture"), and is backed by loads of published research, and quite frankly is probably the reason that the business class even submits to this sort of regulation at all.
    - wnevets 8y ago
      The industry didn't lobby the FAA to allow more self regulation, the POTUS demanded it. A more accurate analogy would be the police chief ordering the officer not to arrest the judge's son for drunk driving.
      - MockObject 8y ago
        Yes, your analogy is fine. If the police chief was asked on a golf course not to arrest someone, but instead do "self policing", and he complied, it's still a failure in policing, and not any failure of whatever "self policing" is supposed to be. Maybe we need a regulation solution that doesn't involve handing over ultimate authority half the time to a party that is consistently on record as opposing regulation?
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  Our government is quite vulnerable to corruption by the rich and powerful. You will watch some propose that, since the rich have corrupted the governement's protections for the people, that those protections should be removed. But this is the original goal in the first place: Remove protection for the people against the abuse by the powerful.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  >> That is misleading at best. The FAA was instructed to let the industry to regulate itself more, a typical republican/libertarian belief. Boeing being allowed to self regulated created this mess. > But an inherent bug of government regulation is that it's always vulnerable to lobbying like you cited. So it's still a failure of regulation, except one that is permanent and unsurprising. It's a failure of regulation that the regulated would lobby to weaken regulation?
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Yes, among other aspects of regulatory capture.
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      Is the solution to eliminate regulation, so the regulated don't have to bother to "capture it" -- and just decide to live with all the problems regulation can solve or mitigate?
      - MockObject 8y ago
        When someone reports a software bug to you, do you often ask them if the solution is to abandon the entire product? This doesn't seem like a productive methodology.
        CharlesColeman 8y ago
        No, that's why I phrased my comment as a question. When the implementation difficulties of regulation come up on libertarian-leaning forums, it often seems like it's really an indirect way of arguing against the whole concept and practice of regulation (e.g. like this comment describes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19424511 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19424511). I just wanted to see if that was the case here or not, hence the question.
        8y ago
Rebelgecko 8y ago
Not to diminish the role of the FAA in this, but do other nations not do their own certifications of new aircraft? Is it a nation of origin thing? e.g. Boeing is regulated by the FAA and everyone trusts the FAA, then Airbus gets regulated by EASA and everyone trusts EASA?
- dingaling 8y ago
  That's basically how it works for complex aircraft. The 777 was the first airliner to receive automatic EASA approval after FAA acceptance. Smaller nations follow FAA or EASA. Russia and China have their own certification systems but defer largely to the Big Two for imports. However it is notable that the Chinese regulator took a long time and much persuading before they accepted the Max. Why it isn't done at an international level I don't know. Small aircraft could still be certificated nationally if they're not intended for export.
lokicat 8y ago
The industry has been trending this way for some time now. Pretending it's been a 'republican/libertarian' belief problem does no service to anyone. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faile...

cmurf 8y ago

FTA: The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes. Self-regulation as a consequence of the FAA getting insufficient funding is distinctly on-topic.