3 ms·
> The FAA is not a global organization, they don’t have oversight over any of the crashed aircraft. The FAA has bilateral agreements with other countries and t
by trimbo 8y ago
> The FAA is not a global organization, they don’t have oversight over any of the crashed aircraft.
The FAA has bilateral agreements with other countries and the EU for certification[1]. I read recently but can't quickly find in this that the FAA trusts EASA's certs for Airbus flying in the US.
The Ethiopian agency also trusts the FAA and EASA for this information[2]
So, it's not really tricky here, we can blame the FAA for the crash of a US manufactured plane in a foreign land (if the problem was the FAA's certification process).
[1] - https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/baa_basa_listing/ https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilatera...
[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20180215175924/http://www.ecaa.gov.et/Directorate.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20180215175924/http://www.ecaa.g...
- Retric 8y agoEdit: The entire point around these regulations is managing trust. Aircraft manufacturers are trying to build safe aircraft, the question is how much oversight is nessisary. EASA largely trusted the FAA and the FAA largely trusted Boing which they need to do. EASA can’t verify every bolt, they need to trust the manufacturer’s process to some degree. So, EASA can’t really abandon blame as easily as they abandon responsibility. If they allow a flawed process to continue then that’s on them. However, in this case these agreements still give EASA veto authority about what aircraft are allowed. Which is why EASA was able to ground these airplanes before the FAA did.