2 ms·

I think it all comes down to certifying bodies other than the FAA. FAA seems happy to go along with whatever Boeing wants (as evidenced by the 'self certificat

I think it all comes down to certifying bodies other than the FAA. FAA seems happy to go along with whatever Boeing wants (as evidenced by the 'self certification' efforts of the agency); it remains to be seen if the EU or another major market airspace will capitulate.

macspoofing 7y ago
>FAA seems happy to go along with whatever Boeing wants (as evidenced by the 'self certification' efforts of the agency) I strongly suspect this is way overstated. I think there's a misinformed view of what a regulator is and the role they play. Regulations and regulators don't work within a system where there's a preponderance of cheating. This is why you can't go do a corrupt country and simply legislate corruption away (all corrupt countries have very good laws on the books). Regulators necessarily exist within a largely honest system. The FAA, and FDA and other regulatory agencies do not go around testing every claim made by every manufacturer - though they reserve the right to. If that was the case the economy would grind to a halt and no product would be released. This would be akin to the IRS auditing every tax return every year. The second point about regulations is that like security or marketing, there is no end-game. You can always have more regulations, just as you can invest in more security and more marketing - but at some point, you will have diminishing resulting leading to negative outcomes. In the specific case, Boeing put themselves under a certification process meant for certifying non-trivial but also non-major incremental upgrades (i.e. no fuselage and wing redesigns). The process is less onerous because the aircraft upgrades don't introduce new significant risks. This process does not apply to the 737Max8. Boeing was wrong to put the plane in that category and they will pay dearly for this and will serve as a cautionary tale moving forward, but let's not throw out the regulatory regime that resulted in making the airline industry incredibly safe, and the safest it has ever been in history.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  > This process does not apply to the 737Max8. Boeing was wrong to put the plane in that category... If you, the layperson, can make this statement, then why wouldn't the regulators make this obvious determination? Regulators should have said "No, Boeing, you're not eligble for this process because of XYZ" So, if they can't make such a high-level determination, what exactly are they doing? Not much, it seems.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >If you, the layperson, can make this statement, then why wouldn't the regulators make this obvious determination? No doubt FAA will re-evaluate their process moving forward, but it depends on what Boeing wrote in their submission. If they didn't put in pertinent details for the FAA to make this determination, then it would only get caught if the FAA did a deeper audit (which they reserve the right to but it may not be something that happens with every submission of this type). On the other hand, it may have been the case that Boeing did put in the pertinent details and FAA was negligent. So neither FAA nor Boeing are in the clear. Boeing is in trouble no matter what - they fucked up real good and they are ultimately responsible for the safety of their airplanes - but it remains to be seen how negligent the FAA is. I don't have experience with aviation and the FAA, but I do work on a regulated product and deal with the FDA quite a bit.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  I strongly suspect this is way overstated. I don't. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/engineers-say-boeing-pushed-to-limit-safety-testing-in-race-to-certify-planes-including-737-max/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/engin...

macspoofing 7y ago

>FAA seems happy to go along with whatever Boeing wants (as evidenced by the 'self certification' efforts of the agency) I strongly suspect this is way overstated. I think there's a misinformed view of what a regulator is and the role they play. Regulations and regulators don't work within a system where there's a preponderance of cheating. This is why you can't go do a corrupt country and simply legislate corruption away (all corrupt countries have very good laws on the books). Regulators necessarily exist within a largely honest system. The FAA, and FDA and other regulatory agencies do not go around testing every claim made by every manufacturer - though they reserve the right to. If that was the case the economy would grind to a halt and no product would be released. This would be akin to the IRS auditing every tax return every year. The second point about regulations is that like security or marketing, there is no end-game. You can always have more regulations, just as you can invest in more security and more marketing - but at some point, you will have diminishing resulting leading to negative outcomes. In the specific case, Boeing put themselves under a certification process meant for certifying non-trivial but also non-major incremental upgrades (i.e. no fuselage and wing redesigns). The process is less onerous because the aircraft upgrades don't introduce new significant risks. This process does not apply to the 737Max8. Boeing was wrong to put the plane in that category and they will pay dearly for this and will serve as a cautionary tale moving forward, but let's not throw out the regulatory regime that resulted in making the airline industry incredibly safe, and the safest it has ever been in history.

linuxftw 7y ago
> This process does not apply to the 737Max8. Boeing was wrong to put the plane in that category... If you, the layperson, can make this statement, then why wouldn't the regulators make this obvious determination? Regulators should have said "No, Boeing, you're not eligble for this process because of XYZ" So, if they can't make such a high-level determination, what exactly are they doing? Not much, it seems.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >If you, the layperson, can make this statement, then why wouldn't the regulators make this obvious determination? No doubt FAA will re-evaluate their process moving forward, but it depends on what Boeing wrote in their submission. If they didn't put in pertinent details for the FAA to make this determination, then it would only get caught if the FAA did a deeper audit (which they reserve the right to but it may not be something that happens with every submission of this type). On the other hand, it may have been the case that Boeing did put in the pertinent details and FAA was negligent. So neither FAA nor Boeing are in the clear. Boeing is in trouble no matter what - they fucked up real good and they are ultimately responsible for the safety of their airplanes - but it remains to be seen how negligent the FAA is. I don't have experience with aviation and the FAA, but I do work on a regulated product and deal with the FDA quite a bit.
inferiorhuman 7y ago
I strongly suspect this is way overstated. I don't. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/engineers-say-boeing-pushed-to-limit-safety-testing-in-race-to-certify-planes-including-737-max/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/engin...