8 ms·

Well, then I'm irrational too, because I won't set foot in a 737 MAX after this shitfest. The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. The first

by 781 8y ago

Well, then I'm irrational too, because I won't set foot in a 737 MAX after this shitfest. The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. The first accident was maybe understandable. We all know that shit happens. But Boeing has zero excuses for not immediately grounding the whole fleet after, and for putting out that useless recovery procedure which didn't work in this case. They let a deadly plane fly for 5 months after they were aware of it, and after the second crash they were phoning Trump to keep it in the air.

pcurve 8y ago
I think lack or major crashes in recent years made them complacent and emboldened them to roll the dice. Then hit snake eyes. Then also may have looked down on the foreign pilots are the airline. Had this been a Southwest plane they may have grounded the plane.
- ams6110 8y ago
  I do think the complacency issue might be a component here. Humans tend to quickly accept recent history as "normal" and over time forget the lessons learned by past disasters. "Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it" It's been a couple of decades I think, maybe more, since an engineering screwup affected a passenger airliner like this. You could argue that the 787 LiIon battery thermal runaway thing was a red flag. That also resulted in an FAA grounding, but that was fairly easily remedied and nobody died.
cyberferret 8y ago
> The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. From documents I've seen (which I cannot find the links to now), it appears that the FAA let Boeing themselves do some of the certification work and sign offs. Putting the foxes in charge of the hen house, so to speak.
- nawtacawp 8y ago
  If I recall, this boiled down to the FAA not having engineers who could properly test these systems.
  - bonestamp2 8y ago
    And now whistleblowers have said that Boeing didn't have properly trained people to handle it either.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  It's called Regulatory Capture, and it happens to all regulatory agencies sooner or later. They become primarily concerned with the interests of the companies they're regulating, rather than the public interest they're in theory tasked with working for. Unfortunately, that is just how a regulated society works.
  - objektif 8y ago
    How do you arrive at such a conclusion? Have you researched regulatory agencies in EU? For example they just blocked a meeger between two massive train manufacturer. Your argument sounds like a weak libertarian talking point.
    - testpostpls 8y ago
      I owned a Volkswagen. Why wouldn’t regulatory capture be a thing everywhere?
      - objektif 8y ago
        Why is corruption in some countries is more than others? I dont know the answer but it is.
        SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        If anything corruption seems more common in countries with fewer regulations, if anything (not that I have any data to back this up).
        BurningFrog 8y ago
        Many - not all, but perhaps most - of those who get corrupted are regulators. So without regulations, there are fewer people to corrupt.
    - nikofeyn 8y ago
      regulatory capture is an event, threshold, inflection point, or whatever else you want to call it. it isn’t something that just poofs into existence as soon as a regulatory body is created. however, it does seem to be an end state or at least an evolutionary state of many agencies. for example, the faa in this case or the fcc. just because a regulatory agency did its job by protecting the pulic’s interest doesn’t mean it will always work that way. so your example doesn’t negate the existence of regulatory capture, which is an actual thing and not some political propaganda.
- mnm1 8y ago
  This is deregulation in action. This is what people clamor for when they say they want "small government." This is in no way a fringe position. It is deliberate and desired by an entire political party in the US. And it's hardly limited to the FAA. The meat and coal industries are just some other examples of this deregulation in action. People die and will die because of this philosophy. It may not be as dramatic in other industries as it is in aviation, but death is death. We should remember that when politicians and their supporters start throwing about phrases like "deregulation" and "small government." This kind of tragedy is what those phrases mean.
Stryder 8y ago
The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives. Realistically and pragmatically speaking, you only ever get to have just one single shot at establishing and maintaining that kind of life/death level of trust. Fuck it up, and you're gone- quite literally, mind you. This is some Challenger O-ring type of shitshow. Accidents are one thing; incompetency or, worse yet, callous indifference is absolutely unacceptable.
- drstewart 8y ago
  >The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives. That's just unrealistic. Unless you want plane and car rides to cost as much as a trip to space, after all, since everything would need to be engineered to that level of quality.
  - Stryder 8y ago
    Finish reading first, and then spend some time thinking before responding. I said: "Accidents are one thing; incompetency or, worse yet, callous indifference is absolutely unacceptable."
  - rmrfrmrf 8y ago
    I continue to be fascinated with consumers who assume the role of shareholder in times of crisis, even against their own interests.
    - traek 8y ago
      Affordable air travel is in most people's interests.
      - objektif 8y ago
        Safe travel surprasses affordable for ALL customers not most.
93s6oz 8y ago
>The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. I wonder if the European agency (don't remember the name) will stop trusting the FAA from now on and do their own tests. I'd thank them for that. (According to what I read here, the European agency doesn't do exhaustive tests because they mostly trust whatever the FAA says; maybe that's false)
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  According to what I read here, the European agency doesn't do exhaustive tests because they mostly trust whatever the FAA says That's true. The FAA had a stellar record as a certification agency, which, it can be argued, they fucked in three days (sure, the hole history of this sad debacle is more complex. But by keeping the plane in the air longer than any other certification body in order to not hurt their buddies at Boeing they completely ruined their reputation, which was built in decades of good work). I can't imagine that any responsible certification body anywhere trusts the FAA anymore without a complete and significant shakeup. It's a sad story, really.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Europe and the FAA have Cross-certification schemes. In reverse, Airbus is certified primarily in Europe. The same happens to varying degrees in medicines, appliances, etc. This is unlikely to change. It’s expected that some changes will occur at the FAA. Certifying an airliner is also a prohibitively expensive undertaking, which is part of the reason for this mess in the first place. It would take years even to train enough personnel to duplicate all those efforts.
  - FearNotDaniel 8y ago
    Agreed. But the EASA ought to be at least in a position to put pressure on FAA to put their house in order. You can add this to my very long list of reasons why the UK really ought to decide to remain in a position of influence within the EU instead of choosing to join the Trumpist libertarian shitshow those far-right loons are trying to push us into.
- FabHK 8y ago
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
The fact that the recovery procedure doesn't work proves that the FAA should pull the MAX8 type certificate. It isn't the same aircraft.
PopeDotNinja 8y ago
I will. I like flying places, and I'm not going to let some unfortunate hiccups get in the way of that. I trust Boeing and the people who work on airline safety a heck of a lot more than I trust ride share drivers who flip U-turns in the middle of the block, slam on the brakes, narrowly miss bicycle riders, etc. And I use the heck out of Lyft & Uber. I've got better things to worry about.
- icebraining 8y ago
  You write as if the 737 MAX was the only airplane in the world.
dojomouse 8y ago
I suspect we're going to end up seeing evidence that the first accident was also the result of known risks being down-played / swept under the rug in the name of profit. One perspective is that the first and second accidents happened because the band-aid fell off, and the first accident should have been the cue to use stickier bandaids. But it seems very unlikely that no engineer anywhere through the development said "This design is for shit and is WAY too dependent on a bandaid that can't realistically be adequate".

by 781 8y ago

pcurve 8y ago

I think lack or major crashes in recent years made them complacent and emboldened them to roll the dice. Then hit snake eyes. Then also may have looked down on the foreign pilots are the airline. Had this been a Southwest plane they may have grounded the plane.

ams6110 8y ago
I do think the complacency issue might be a component here. Humans tend to quickly accept recent history as "normal" and over time forget the lessons learned by past disasters. "Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it" It's been a couple of decades I think, maybe more, since an engineering screwup affected a passenger airliner like this. You could argue that the 787 LiIon battery thermal runaway thing was a red flag. That also resulted in an FAA grounding, but that was fairly easily remedied and nobody died.

cyberferret 8y ago

> The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. From documents I've seen (which I cannot find the links to now), it appears that the FAA let Boeing themselves do some of the certification work and sign offs. Putting the foxes in charge of the hen house, so to speak.

nawtacawp 8y ago
If I recall, this boiled down to the FAA not having engineers who could properly test these systems.
- bonestamp2 8y ago
  And now whistleblowers have said that Boeing didn't have properly trained people to handle it either.
BurningFrog 8y ago
It's called Regulatory Capture, and it happens to all regulatory agencies sooner or later. They become primarily concerned with the interests of the companies they're regulating, rather than the public interest they're in theory tasked with working for. Unfortunately, that is just how a regulated society works.
- objektif 8y ago
  How do you arrive at such a conclusion? Have you researched regulatory agencies in EU? For example they just blocked a meeger between two massive train manufacturer. Your argument sounds like a weak libertarian talking point.
  - testpostpls 8y ago
    I owned a Volkswagen. Why wouldn’t regulatory capture be a thing everywhere?
    - objektif 8y ago
      Why is corruption in some countries is more than others? I dont know the answer but it is.
      - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        If anything corruption seems more common in countries with fewer regulations, if anything (not that I have any data to back this up).
        BurningFrog 8y ago
        Many - not all, but perhaps most - of those who get corrupted are regulators. So without regulations, there are fewer people to corrupt.
  - nikofeyn 8y ago
    regulatory capture is an event, threshold, inflection point, or whatever else you want to call it. it isn’t something that just poofs into existence as soon as a regulatory body is created. however, it does seem to be an end state or at least an evolutionary state of many agencies. for example, the faa in this case or the fcc. just because a regulatory agency did its job by protecting the pulic’s interest doesn’t mean it will always work that way. so your example doesn’t negate the existence of regulatory capture, which is an actual thing and not some political propaganda.
mnm1 8y ago
This is deregulation in action. This is what people clamor for when they say they want "small government." This is in no way a fringe position. It is deliberate and desired by an entire political party in the US. And it's hardly limited to the FAA. The meat and coal industries are just some other examples of this deregulation in action. People die and will die because of this philosophy. It may not be as dramatic in other industries as it is in aviation, but death is death. We should remember that when politicians and their supporters start throwing about phrases like "deregulation" and "small government." This kind of tragedy is what those phrases mean.

Stryder 8y ago

The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives. Realistically and pragmatically speaking, you only ever get to have just one single shot at establishing and maintaining that kind of life/death level of trust. Fuck it up, and you're gone- quite literally, mind you. This is some Challenger O-ring type of shitshow. Accidents are one thing; incompetency or, worse yet, callous indifference is absolutely unacceptable.

drstewart 8y ago
>The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives. That's just unrealistic. Unless you want plane and car rides to cost as much as a trip to space, after all, since everything would need to be engineered to that level of quality.
- Stryder 8y ago
  Finish reading first, and then spend some time thinking before responding. I said: "Accidents are one thing; incompetency or, worse yet, callous indifference is absolutely unacceptable."
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago
  I continue to be fascinated with consumers who assume the role of shareholder in times of crisis, even against their own interests.
  - traek 8y ago
    Affordable air travel is in most people's interests.
    - objektif 8y ago
      Safe travel surprasses affordable for ALL customers not most.

93s6oz 8y ago

>The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. I wonder if the European agency (don't remember the name) will stop trusting the FAA from now on and do their own tests. I'd thank them for that. (According to what I read here, the European agency doesn't do exhaustive tests because they mostly trust whatever the FAA says; maybe that's false)

CaptainZapp 8y ago
According to what I read here, the European agency doesn't do exhaustive tests because they mostly trust whatever the FAA says That's true. The FAA had a stellar record as a certification agency, which, it can be argued, they fucked in three days (sure, the hole history of this sad debacle is more complex. But by keeping the plane in the air longer than any other certification body in order to not hurt their buddies at Boeing they completely ruined their reputation, which was built in decades of good work). I can't imagine that any responsible certification body anywhere trusts the FAA anymore without a complete and significant shakeup. It's a sad story, really.
matt4077 8y ago
Europe and the FAA have Cross-certification schemes. In reverse, Airbus is certified primarily in Europe. The same happens to varying degrees in medicines, appliances, etc. This is unlikely to change. It’s expected that some changes will occur at the FAA. Certifying an airliner is also a prohibitively expensive undertaking, which is part of the reason for this mess in the first place. It would take years even to train enough personnel to duplicate all those efforts.
- FearNotDaniel 8y ago
  Agreed. But the EASA ought to be at least in a position to put pressure on FAA to put their house in order. You can add this to my very long list of reasons why the UK really ought to decide to remain in a position of influence within the EU instead of choosing to join the Trumpist libertarian shitshow those far-right loons are trying to push us into.
FabHK 8y ago

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

The fact that the recovery procedure doesn't work proves that the FAA should pull the MAX8 type certificate. It isn't the same aircraft.

PopeDotNinja 8y ago

I will. I like flying places, and I'm not going to let some unfortunate hiccups get in the way of that. I trust Boeing and the people who work on airline safety a heck of a lot more than I trust ride share drivers who flip U-turns in the middle of the block, slam on the brakes, narrowly miss bicycle riders, etc. And I use the heck out of Lyft & Uber. I've got better things to worry about.

icebraining 8y ago
You write as if the 737 MAX was the only airplane in the world.

dojomouse 8y ago

I suspect we're going to end up seeing evidence that the first accident was also the result of known risks being down-played / swept under the rug in the name of profit. One perspective is that the first and second accidents happened because the band-aid fell off, and the first accident should have been the cue to use stickier bandaids. But it seems very unlikely that no engineer anywhere through the development said "This design is for shit and is WAY too dependent on a bandaid that can't realistically be adequate".