3 ms·

The Seattle Times article is more clear whats going on: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-engineers-objected-to-boeings-removal-of-some

by kayfox 7y ago

The Seattle Times article is more clear whats going on: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-engineers-objected-to-boeings-removal-of-some-787-lightning-protection-measures/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-e... After analysis of lightning strikes, it was determined that the probability of strikes in some areas of the wing were overestimated. The design of the aircraft was adjusted to reflect that and Boeing seeked approval from the FAA which wanted more analysis of the probability. It must be fun to be an statistician for these people, with all the second guessing going on.

erentz 7y ago
This is a much better article. > Facing the prospect of not being able to deliver those airplanes, Boeing immediately appealed. FAA managers reversed the ruling exactly a week later... That is an amazingly quick review of an appeal for something that is pretty complicated. It's amazing how much schedule is pushed over safety at Boeing. I believe this attitude only flies because if safety is compromised resulting in deaths, the executives pushing this know they will have have cashed out and won't face any consequences.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > That is an amazingly quick review of an appeal for something that is pretty complicated. In general the way large corporations have gotten so friendly with their regulatory oversight should be a cause of concern for everyone in every industry. The FAA and Boeing don't necessarily need to be at each other's throats, but I would argue that a professional-level adversarial relationship would be ideal. That's not what's happening here.
- kayfox 7y ago
  From the sound of things it may have been that the FAA was pressed for a decision before they had the time to analyze and approve the change and then later approved it. Or after reviewing evidence in the appeal, it was clear it could be approved. My impression with these processes is that there's sometimes a bit of back and fourth with denials and appeals before something is approved.

by kayfox 7y ago

erentz 7y ago

This is a much better article. > Facing the prospect of not being able to deliver those airplanes, Boeing immediately appealed. FAA managers reversed the ruling exactly a week later... That is an amazingly quick review of an appeal for something that is pretty complicated. It's amazing how much schedule is pushed over safety at Boeing. I believe this attitude only flies because if safety is compromised resulting in deaths, the executives pushing this know they will have have cashed out and won't face any consequences.

FussyZeus 7y ago
> That is an amazingly quick review of an appeal for something that is pretty complicated. In general the way large corporations have gotten so friendly with their regulatory oversight should be a cause of concern for everyone in every industry. The FAA and Boeing don't necessarily need to be at each other's throats, but I would argue that a professional-level adversarial relationship would be ideal. That's not what's happening here.
kayfox 7y ago
From the sound of things it may have been that the FAA was pressed for a decision before they had the time to analyze and approve the change and then later approved it. Or after reviewing evidence in the appeal, it was clear it could be approved. My impression with these processes is that there's sometimes a bit of back and fourth with denials and appeals before something is approved.