3 ms·
I am not aircraft specialist, but I have seen similar things in IT/telecommunication. I think this is competence issue. F.A.A don't have people and tech to real
by ZWoz 8y ago
I am not aircraft specialist, but I have seen similar things in IT/telecommunication.
I think this is competence issue. F.A.A don't have people and tech to really understand/analyse anything that is going on with modern plane.
More broadly USA specifically likes usage of contractors, some other countries at least try do have technical competence in govermental agency.
So that is mostly question, why F.A.A don't have third party, like Lockheed Martin, to audit Boeing, but that is probably against Boeing (and reverse situation Lockheed Martin) commercial interest (like trade secrets).
- 2T1Qka0rEiPr 8y agoWhen I read it I was reminded of a report I heard in the Private Eye (UK magazine), in which they mentioned that large firms were both managing the accounts of Russian companies suspected of wrong-doing and auditing them. (edit): Podcast link if of interest - http://www.private-eye.co.uk/eyeplayer/play-350 http://www.private-eye.co.uk/eyeplayer/play-350
- SiempreViernes 8y agoThe Seattle times report[0] that the delegation was largely politically motivated in an effort to save time on the certification so that Boeing would not be left behind with respect to Airbus. So it is not a competency issue, so at best it was mostly capacity related: the FAA didn't have enough resources to certify at the speed Boeing needed. Of course, the fact that you are certifying yourself might also speed things up for other reasons than purely your willingness to allocate more resources. [0]: 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...