4 ms·

Did they take the ongoing multi-faceted bribes by incompetence, with no malice involved ? Hanlon's Razor is useful in some scopes, but imagine applying it to b

by hrktb 7y ago

Did they take the ongoing multi-faceted bribes by incompetence, with no malice involved ? Hanlon's Razor is useful in some scopes, but imagine applying it to banking, politics, corporate regulation or law enforcement. Depending on your position, not doing due diligent and acting ethically is malice.

bumby 7y ago
Not doubting you, but has there been evidence of bribes in the case of the 737-MAX? I'm genuinely curious. It may be mismanagement or incompetence, but I don't know if it gets to the degree of malice. Here's how I see it working: FAA is obligated to provide oversight. FAA is also not given resources to do due diligence themselves (e.g., one inspector may be responsible for multiple airframes, meaning there is no possible way to know the systems in intimate detail to catch everything). To mitigate the lack of resources, they contractually obligate or delegate the oversight to the manufacturer who (presumably) does have that system knowledge. However, it's still the FAA's job to ensure the manufacturer is doing due diligence on oversight. This can easily become a catch-22...without resources to catch the manufacturer errors (e.g., FAA was apparently unaware of software configuration changes), it makes it tough to throw the red flag when everyone is clamoring to keep the schedule moving. They have to defer to the system "experts". The above is not based on personal experience with this particular case and I'm not saying the FAA is not culpable. I just don't think it's due to deliberate malice. It's the same issue all over the government in terms of oversight. Oversight functions are often the easiest to scale back during budget crunches which, over time, will increase the risk of bad events. Then there is an uproar, the pendulum swings the other way, people want to fund oversight functions until they are once again lulled into complacency by the lack of bad events (which is actually an indication that the oversight is working). There is likely some degree of bribes in most government organizations. It's a cancer that needs to be removed, but the real question is whether it's at a level that makes true governance infeasible. I would love to see the government acting as a proper and impartial oversight role. But are taxpayers willing to pay for it? Sure, we can make a case for increased funding to support the FAA after 737-MAX, but what about what about when things seem to be going smoothly? And this is just one sector...would taxpayers be willing to provide the same resources to the FDA, EPA, OSHA, and all the other stretched-too-thin organizations?
- hrktb 7y ago
  I am far less knowledgeble on the subject than you I think, but the FAA just not having resources should end in them not accepting any new missions and keeping a backlog of pending investigations for the next centuries. The reason it doesn’t work like that is because of pressure on them to keep up wih the requests, and keep the businesses running. That pressure can’t be just their professional guilt, there is I think enough ways the industry affects them so they can’t just refuse to lower standards or accept to delegate part of their work. That pressure, is what I call bribes. Be it preferencial treatment, exchange of favors, or straight up money going to decision makers to make sure the FAA doesn’t hurt plane makers.
  - bumby 7y ago
    I think you're right. The lack of resources is a leadership issue. The system is likely biased toward people who don't stop work. Any single decision may have a low probability of catastrophe but if you roll the dice enough times it'll catch up to you. But until it does, those types of managers will get promoted because they "get things done" (i.e. they don't stop for due diligence)

by hrktb 7y ago

bumby 7y ago

Not doubting you, but has there been evidence of bribes in the case of the 737-MAX? I'm genuinely curious. It may be mismanagement or incompetence, but I don't know if it gets to the degree of malice. Here's how I see it working: FAA is obligated to provide oversight. FAA is also not given resources to do due diligence themselves (e.g., one inspector may be responsible for multiple airframes, meaning there is no possible way to know the systems in intimate detail to catch everything). To mitigate the lack of resources, they contractually obligate or delegate the oversight to the manufacturer who (presumably) does have that system knowledge. However, it's still the FAA's job to ensure the manufacturer is doing due diligence on oversight. This can easily become a catch-22...without resources to catch the manufacturer errors (e.g., FAA was apparently unaware of software configuration changes), it makes it tough to throw the red flag when everyone is clamoring to keep the schedule moving. They have to defer to the system "experts". The above is not based on personal experience with this particular case and I'm not saying the FAA is not culpable. I just don't think it's due to deliberate malice. It's the same issue all over the government in terms of oversight. Oversight functions are often the easiest to scale back during budget crunches which, over time, will increase the risk of bad events. Then there is an uproar, the pendulum swings the other way, people want to fund oversight functions until they are once again lulled into complacency by the lack of bad events (which is actually an indication that the oversight is working). There is likely some degree of bribes in most government organizations. It's a cancer that needs to be removed, but the real question is whether it's at a level that makes true governance infeasible. I would love to see the government acting as a proper and impartial oversight role. But are taxpayers willing to pay for it? Sure, we can make a case for increased funding to support the FAA after 737-MAX, but what about what about when things seem to be going smoothly? And this is just one sector...would taxpayers be willing to provide the same resources to the FDA, EPA, OSHA, and all the other stretched-too-thin organizations?

hrktb 7y ago
I am far less knowledgeble on the subject than you I think, but the FAA just not having resources should end in them not accepting any new missions and keeping a backlog of pending investigations for the next centuries. The reason it doesn’t work like that is because of pressure on them to keep up wih the requests, and keep the businesses running. That pressure can’t be just their professional guilt, there is I think enough ways the industry affects them so they can’t just refuse to lower standards or accept to delegate part of their work. That pressure, is what I call bribes. Be it preferencial treatment, exchange of favors, or straight up money going to decision makers to make sure the FAA doesn’t hurt plane makers.
- bumby 7y ago
  I think you're right. The lack of resources is a leadership issue. The system is likely biased toward people who don't stop work. Any single decision may have a low probability of catastrophe but if you roll the dice enough times it'll catch up to you. But until it does, those types of managers will get promoted because they "get things done" (i.e. they don't stop for due diligence)