5 ms·

The EASA says there is “still no appropriate response to Angle of Attack integrity issues.” I can’t believe they haven’t got a plan yet!

dvdbloc 7y ago
I wish we had a graph of their attrition rate since the incidents occurred
- appleflaxen 7y ago
  Whose attrition rate? The EASA? Boeing?
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    Boeing I guess, maybe FAA. Why would ESA loose people from this?
    - Retric 7y ago
      EASA rubber stamping the FAA’s rubber stamping of Boeing is still EASA making a mistake just as much as it’s the FAA’s mistake. This has become a major public issue, bet the problems started when the aircraft entered service.
      - throwaway5752 7y ago
        It's nowhere near as big of a mistake on the EASA's part. You don't understand how international regulatory and standards bodies interact with each other. There are explicit agreements between the EASA and FAA in order to reduce duplicated work (https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88965 https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88965) This is extremely bad. It it will be bad for any US regulated product used in EU markets like food, medical devices and equipment, pharmaceuticals, among others.
        Retric 7y ago
        These agreements don’t require EASA to accept everything FAA does. From your link: each entity performs a “validation” of certification activities.
        throwaway5752 7y ago
        Do you know what validation means in that context? Not to be glib, but "validation" and "verification" and "certification" are not common language in those contexts and have fairly precise meanings. It does not mean they will perform the test again, and in practice probably means they will review the activities in the certification with the assumption that "qualified persons" planned and conducted it. Essentially, an agreement that the FAA was competent and trustworthy with minimal checks to ensure that was the case. That has actually been historically very reasonable and sensible, and this is a rebuke to the FAA from the EASA. It will raise costs and time for US airframes to get to EU markets, which essentially means globally. edit: not precisely my area of expertise, so corrections welcomed
fmajid 7y ago
Or to the Boeing and FAA integrity issues, for that matter.

dvdbloc 7y ago

I wish we had a graph of their attrition rate since the incidents occurred

appleflaxen 7y ago
Whose attrition rate? The EASA? Boeing?
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Boeing I guess, maybe FAA. Why would ESA loose people from this?
  - Retric 7y ago
    EASA rubber stamping the FAA’s rubber stamping of Boeing is still EASA making a mistake just as much as it’s the FAA’s mistake. This has become a major public issue, bet the problems started when the aircraft entered service.
    - throwaway5752 7y ago
      It's nowhere near as big of a mistake on the EASA's part. You don't understand how international regulatory and standards bodies interact with each other. There are explicit agreements between the EASA and FAA in order to reduce duplicated work (https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88965 https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88965) This is extremely bad. It it will be bad for any US regulated product used in EU markets like food, medical devices and equipment, pharmaceuticals, among others.
      - Retric 7y ago
        These agreements don’t require EASA to accept everything FAA does. From your link: each entity performs a “validation” of certification activities.
        throwaway5752 7y ago
        Do you know what validation means in that context? Not to be glib, but "validation" and "verification" and "certification" are not common language in those contexts and have fairly precise meanings. It does not mean they will perform the test again, and in practice probably means they will review the activities in the certification with the assumption that "qualified persons" planned and conducted it. Essentially, an agreement that the FAA was competent and trustworthy with minimal checks to ensure that was the case. That has actually been historically very reasonable and sensible, and this is a rebuke to the FAA from the EASA. It will raise costs and time for US airframes to get to EU markets, which essentially means globally. edit: not precisely my area of expertise, so corrections welcomed

fmajid 7y ago

Or to the Boeing and FAA integrity issues, for that matter.