3 ms·

Frankly, this is good IMO. It should also go in reverse. The FAA should have to independently certify Airbus/Embraer too.

by xxpor 7y ago

CaptainZapp 7y ago
I would argue this should be dependent on the level of self certification, which EASA allows Airbus. As this pustule of a scandal more and more pops out it turns out that Boeing essentially rubber stamped its own certificates. I'm not sure about the level Airbus is allowed to do that.
- jerven 7y ago
  EASA tended to certify on the same day as the FAA. FAA tended to certify a month or two after FAA. Now EASA no longer trusts FAA like FAA didn't quite trust EASA.
rurounijones 7y ago
You got downvoted heavily, I suspect, because you left out the reasoning behind your statement. Do you think it should be the other way around in tit-for-tat political reasons? Or because "Many eyes makes all bugs shallow" or some other reason?
- xxpor 7y ago
  Good point. Completely for many eyes reasons. Nearly everything in a plane has a backup. Why not do 2 independent analyses of the systems? The timeline for a new plane is already measured in years. Another 6 months can't be that bad, right?
rswail 7y ago
It should operate how the judicial systems operate in Anglo-related countries. The US SCOTUS has used legal rulings from the UK and vice versa as "guidance" to their own legal rulings, but not as authoritative. The FAA/EASA/ATSB/* should refer to each other. To quote Ronald Reagan, "Trust but Verify".
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  A nitpick: the usual term is "persuasive", as in "we find the argument of our brother court to be persuasive". This typically means that the foreign case does, in fact, become precedent by proxy. For example, as an Australian law student, I read Marbury v. Madison, which was held persuasive in Australia because of the direct influence between the US constitution and Australian constitution. Another case with enormous worldwide effect is Donoghue v Stevenson, which was the beginning of modern Torts law.
  - MaupitiBlue 7y ago
    In the US we read an Australian torts case involving ships burning in a harbor.

Frankly, this is good IMO. It should also go in reverse. The FAA should have to independently certify Airbus/Embraer too.

by xxpor 7y ago

Frankly, this is good IMO. It should also go in reverse. The FAA should have to independently certify Airbus/Embraer too.

CaptainZapp 7y ago

I would argue this should be dependent on the level of self certification, which EASA allows Airbus. As this pustule of a scandal more and more pops out it turns out that Boeing essentially rubber stamped its own certificates. I'm not sure about the level Airbus is allowed to do that.

jerven 7y ago
EASA tended to certify on the same day as the FAA. FAA tended to certify a month or two after FAA. Now EASA no longer trusts FAA like FAA didn't quite trust EASA.

rurounijones 7y ago

You got downvoted heavily, I suspect, because you left out the reasoning behind your statement. Do you think it should be the other way around in tit-for-tat political reasons? Or because "Many eyes makes all bugs shallow" or some other reason?

xxpor 7y ago
Good point. Completely for many eyes reasons. Nearly everything in a plane has a backup. Why not do 2 independent analyses of the systems? The timeline for a new plane is already measured in years. Another 6 months can't be that bad, right?

rswail 7y ago

It should operate how the judicial systems operate in Anglo-related countries. The US SCOTUS has used legal rulings from the UK and vice versa as "guidance" to their own legal rulings, but not as authoritative. The FAA/EASA/ATSB/* should refer to each other. To quote Ronald Reagan, "Trust but Verify".

jacques_chester 7y ago
A nitpick: the usual term is "persuasive", as in "we find the argument of our brother court to be persuasive". This typically means that the foreign case does, in fact, become precedent by proxy. For example, as an Australian law student, I read Marbury v. Madison, which was held persuasive in Australia because of the direct influence between the US constitution and Australian constitution. Another case with enormous worldwide effect is Donoghue v Stevenson, which was the beginning of modern Torts law.
- MaupitiBlue 7y ago
  In the US we read an Australian torts case involving ships burning in a harbor.