4 ms·

The FAA suffered a major loss of credibility in their handling of the first round of testing/accreditation of the MAX. The FAA can't afford another stuff up thi

The FAA suffered a major loss of credibility in their handling of the first round of testing/accreditation of the MAX. The FAA can't afford another stuff up this second time... Because I'll just check with the next air transit regulatory body right?

chrisbolt 7y ago
Like the European Aviation Safety Agency?
- jbigelow76 7y ago
  So the FAA says "this is fucked" and and the EASA says "they're all good bro"[1], who do you side with? [1] feel free to flip flop regulatory agencies if you so desire.
  - chrisbolt 7y ago
    The fact that they disagree is what is notable. The FAA lost credibility by being the last to ground the MAX. You side with the one that has a history of not being wrong.
    - navigatesol 7y ago
      >You side with the one that has a history of not being wrong. A question for the arm-chair analysts in this thread: which one has a better history of not being wrong, excluding this data point?
      - throwanem 7y ago
        I don't know the history, but considering the incentives, I'd look first to EASA for Boeing, and first to FAA for Airbus.
  - aivisol 7y ago
    It is like with two AoA sensors: if they disagree, there is the problem.
    - grenoire 7y ago
      Too soon...
  - jobigoud 7y ago
    You side with the most conservative obviously. Your life is at stake. Only when there is a total consensus of safety you can feel confident.
  - nemetroid 7y ago
    Depends on where you want to fly.
nemetroid 7y ago
The FAA and EASA have an agreement of trust regarding type certificates issued by the other party[0] (i.e., if the FAA certifies an aircraft, EASA will allow that aircraft to fly in Europe without performing its own technical certification process). This agreement only works as long as both parties trust each other's certification process. 0: https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/bilateral-agreements/eu-usa https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/bilateral-agreem...

chrisbolt 7y ago

Like the European Aviation Safety Agency?

jbigelow76 7y ago
So the FAA says "this is fucked" and and the EASA says "they're all good bro"[1], who do you side with? [1] feel free to flip flop regulatory agencies if you so desire.
- chrisbolt 7y ago
  The fact that they disagree is what is notable. The FAA lost credibility by being the last to ground the MAX. You side with the one that has a history of not being wrong.
  - navigatesol 7y ago
    >You side with the one that has a history of not being wrong. A question for the arm-chair analysts in this thread: which one has a better history of not being wrong, excluding this data point?
    - throwanem 7y ago
      I don't know the history, but considering the incentives, I'd look first to EASA for Boeing, and first to FAA for Airbus.
- aivisol 7y ago
  It is like with two AoA sensors: if they disagree, there is the problem.
  - grenoire 7y ago
    Too soon...
- jobigoud 7y ago
  You side with the most conservative obviously. Your life is at stake. Only when there is a total consensus of safety you can feel confident.
- nemetroid 7y ago
  Depends on where you want to fly.

nemetroid 7y ago

The FAA and EASA have an agreement of trust regarding type certificates issued by the other party[0] (i.e., if the FAA certifies an aircraft, EASA will allow that aircraft to fly in Europe without performing its own technical certification process). This agreement only works as long as both parties trust each other's certification process. 0: https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/bilateral-agreements/eu-usa https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/bilateral-agreem...