5 ms·

Interesting point, but what would be the alternative? Are you really suggesting that pilots should be able to switch from e.g. the 737 to the A320 without any k

• loeg 7y ago
  Type certificates are not about pilots; they're about airframes. Maybe skim the link? > A type certificate signifies the airworthiness of a particular category of aircraft, according to its manufacturing design (‘type’). It confirms that the aircraft is manufactured according to an approved design, and that the design ensures compliance with airworthiness requirements. And to be clear, since it seems my comment was also not totally clear: I'm not saying aircraft regulation / Type Certification is bad in general. Just that this particular implementation currently has unintended perverse incentives which lead to the 737 MAX.
  • diminoten 7y ago
    I'm generally blown away at the audacity people have to suggest casually changing any FAA regulation, considering how good they are at their jobs...
    • Twixes 7y ago
      Well, clearly they didn't do their job that well in this case
      • diminoten 7y ago
        Boeing fucked up, not the FAA. The FAA is the one preventing Boeing from flying these planes because they're not safe!
        • berkut 7y ago
          Erm, it's pretty obvious something was wrong at the FAA, in that it seems fairly clear they let Boeing dictate terms to them on multiple occasions, and effectively overrule them. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/new-questions-raised-on-safety-of-both-737-max-and-787-dreamliner/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/new-q... Also, the FAA were the last aviation regulator to ground the MAX.
          • diminoten 7y ago
            The FAA's goal is to prevent aircraft related accidents. While you may not agree about the sharpness of their pencils or the color of their uniforms or some other tangential nonsense, flying is insanely safe in America because of them. They're so good at their jobs, you should be asking what they know that you don't when they make decisions, not trying to correct them.
            • berkut 7y ago
              Historically, yes. There was a reason previously the CAA and EASA were historically happy accept the FAA's certification for new aircraft, on the assumption the FAA were very good at its job. That no longer seems to be the case (given the fact that EASA now want to have their pilots fly the MAX before it returns to service), and there's well documented evidence (many news articles over the past few months talk about this) showing that over the past 10 years, the FAA's budget was drastically cut, forcing them to effectively outsource certification in part to Boeing to "self-certify".
              • diminoten 7y ago
                So there have been fatal airline accidents in the past 10 years? Interesting, I guess you're also going to claim they've been hidden and only you have the secret knowledge.
                • kalleboo 7y ago
                  Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopia Airlines Flight 302 were caused by the FAAs failure to adequately regulate the safety of the airplane type.
        • philwelch 7y ago
          The problem is that the 737-MAX behaves so differently from the base 737 that it shouldn’t be regulated as the same plane. Definitely a regulatory gap that can and should be addressed. Boeing built an unsafe plane and definitely exploited the issue, but the whole point of regulations is to stop a company like Boeing from shipping an unsafe plane.
        • ken 7y ago
          Weren't they just as unsafe before the FAA grounded them? The FAA are the agency that originally certified them to fly. The FAA was actually one of the last regulators in the world to ground the 737-MAX [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings#Regulators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings#Regu...
    • loeg 7y ago
      I don't see how you parse that out of my comment without some extremely uncharitable interpretation. I haven't suggested any particular change, nor that any particular change be carried out "casually," without due consideration.
      • diminoten 7y ago
        You were being uncharitable, why are you surprised it was interpreted that way?
        • loeg 7y ago
          Do two wrongs make a right? Please keep an open mind going forward.
          • diminoten 7y ago
            Please don't tell me how to behave going forward, and if this is your way of admitting you did something wrong, you've really got to work on that.
  • anticensor 7y ago
    Pilots are trained to operate particular models too.
  • cjbprime 7y ago
    A pilot is qualified ("type rated") to fly planes of a given type certificate, so it's not helpful to say that type certificates are not about pilots. Having that belief causes you to miss out on fully understanding the situation. I wouldn't call this a perverse or unexpected incentive either. It's very straightforward: there is regulation saying you can't keep the same type certificate if the plane flies differently enough to demand pilot retraining. The regulation is good and the consequences of following the regulation correctly are good, unlike in actual perverse incentive situations. Boeing didn't want to comply with the regulation so they lied about how the plane worked and then hundreds of people died. That's not an example of a perverse incentive of regulation: it's an example of dishonestly evading regulation, hopefully criminally so.
    • loeg 7y ago
      > A pilot is qualified ("type rated") to fly planes of a given type certificate, so it's not helpful to say that type certificates are not about pilots. Eh. The relationship here is between the manufacturer and the FAA. That the regulation is tangentially related to pilots is moot to the point. > It's very straightforward: there is regulation saying you can't keep the same type certificate if the plane flies differently enough to demand pilot retraining. The regulation is good I agree! > and the consequences of following the regulation correctly are good Mostly true! > Boeing didn't want to comply with the regulation This was (arguably) an outcome, but I don't believe it was the goal. I.e., Boeing would love to comply with this regulation in the magical hypothetical where it cost them nothing to do so. They're not comical villains. The problem with this simplistic summary you've provided is that qualifying a new type certificate is extremely costly. Convincing the FAA your new aircraft is actually just a modified version of an existing type certificate (whether or not that is true) is much less costly (and given how much of the 1960s airframe is still being used in the MAX to keep that type certificate, it's even plausibly reasonable to consider it like earlier extensions to the cert). So, long story short, there is a direct financial motivation for Boeing to skirt the rules and pretend new products are just another modified 737. That is exactly the perverse incentive I am highlighting. > That's not an example of a perverse incentive of regulation: it's an example of dishonestly evading regulation, hopefully criminally so. I think you mostly missed the point. Regulations with mostly good consequences can still create perverse incentives in some areas and positive incentives in others.
• paulmd 7y ago
  The alternative is that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to impose new underlying systems to manage undesirable flight handling characteristics without briefing pilots about them and without breaking type certification. the default should be that if the flight handling characteristics of the airframe itself inherently are not the same then it doesn't get type certification, and you should have to prove why your tweaks make it OK.