5 ms·

Most troubling to me is this: > AA technical and safety experts determined that certain Boeing design approaches on its transport category aircraft were potent

Most troubling to me is this: > AA technical and safety experts determined that certain Boeing design approaches on its transport category aircraft were potentially unsafe and failed to comply with FAA regulation, only to have FAA management overrule them and side with Boeing instead from the linked citation [0]: > In 2015, the FAA drafted an issue paper, finalized in 2016, that offered Boeing a chance to establish compliance without implementing a design change.4 At least six FAA specialists refused to concur >It is our understanding that non-concurrence by FAA technical specialists is fairly infrequent and not to be taken lightly. In addition, my staff has been told that it was virtually unprecedented for six or more FAA specialists to jointly non-concur on a single issue, highlighting the gravity of their concerns regarding the rudder cable issue. Despite all of this, in June 2017, the F AA's Transport Airplane Directorate upheld the controversial issue paper Someone needs to name names, and those people should be investigated for corruption. [0] https://transportation.house.gov/news/press-releases/amid-committees-ongoing-investigation-into-the-certification-of-the-737-max-chairs-defazio-and-larsen-raise-new-and-serious-concerns-to-faa-about-other-safety-related-issues- https://transportation.house.gov/news/press-releases/amid-co...

cptskippy 7y ago
Sounds like the FAA needs to do some house cleaning in there upper management because they're in bed with Boeing.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  It's the White House that is responsible for doing that "house cleaning" of the FAA's upper management, since those folks are political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the President. I don't know about you, but I don't see the current admin prioritizing the flushing out of regulators in bed with industry. That's why I say name some names.
  - nolok 7y ago
    Just a remainder: at the start of his presidency, Trump wanted to appoint his own personal pilot at the head of the FAA. So yes, don't expect too much from them in cleaning the upper levels.
    - briandear 7y ago
      Maybe appointing a pilot would be a good idea. Probably better than appointing someone who never flew an airplane. Obama’s appointee had zero aviation experience. He had transportation experience, but appointing a non-pilot to the head of the FAA is like appointing a non-doctor to be Surgeon General.
      - V_Terranova_Jr 7y ago
        More important is to appoint someone with the right motivations and with a technical background. A pilot with a good formal technical background might be a fine FAA leader, but so might someone with technical expertise in the operations of the national airspace, or a Chief Engineer type involved with aircraft certification. What's critical though is that they remember they are supposed to work on behalf of the people, not the short-term economic interests of the regulated, and not to see themselves as firstly serving political patrons.
      - nabla9 7y ago
        Trump's personal pilot nominee (John Dunkin) was not qualified. He was the man in charge of Trump's presidential campaign’s air fleet. There were multiple incidents. One of the pilots was convicted violent felon that had to be fired. The landings were constantly so horrible that press joked that nobody survives covering Mike Pence. It all ended with serious incident where one of the crews overshot the runway resulting shut down of Laguardia airport. Mike Pence was on board. I mean what it tells you about a man who can't even hire competent pilots in America.
        dieselerator 7y ago
        > It all ended with serious incident where one of the crews overshot the runway resulting shut down of Laguardia airport. Mike Pence was on board. The aircraft you are referring to was chartered from Eastern Airlines (since acquired by a different airline) and flown by Eastern Airline pilots. [1] [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_(2015)> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_(2015)>
  - jorblumesea 7y ago
    Agreed, as much as the current administration has pledged to "drain the swamp" the hill is looking just as corrupt as ever, if not more so. Instead of corrupt industry insiders and lobbyists, we just have corrupt industry outsiders or those who will immediately bow to the administration.
  - drevil-v2 7y ago
    I'd like to point out that vast majority of this lax enforcement of FAA oversight of the Boeing 737 Max certification happened during the Obama Administration by political appointees of Barrack Obama and the Democratic Party. I am centre-left political (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) and It really really bothers me to see the double standards. Once you start to notice the pattern of one-sided appropriation of blame in pretty much every fking scenario, you end up discounting any criticism of republicans as bias.
    - stevehawk 7y ago
      It's really disappointing to see this comment downvoted. Apparently we're all fine with blaming the current administration for not firing them but we're not ok with blaming a previous administration for hiring them? We've also had countless posts talking negatively on the very merger that lead this iteration of Boeing (McDonnel-Douglas) with no regard for the administration that basically encouraged the merger. It's okay to admit it guys: both parties suck and are corporate shills.
      - unlinked_dll 7y ago
        > Apparently we're all fine with blaming the current administration for not firing them but we're not ok with blaming a previous administration for hiring them One of these two parties has the ability to affect change. It's not the latter.
        kovac 7y ago
        The official report just came out. On what grounds would the existing administration just fire upper level management at an early stage? The appropriate response would be to force FAA to ground the planes (if and which FAA did not do themselves), and wait for the official report and then open an investigation in to Boeing and FAA. Time is a factor to take into account.
      - 1shooner 7y ago
        Appointing someone that ends up breaking the law vs. keeping someone that is known to have. These are not the same thing.
  - pyrosome 7y ago
    More effective would be to put in place a lengthy blackout period (years) for aviation industry employees before allowing them to join the FAA and vice versa. The point being to significantly degrade the influence and political utility of "revolving door" hires.
    - jakoblorz 7y ago
      Why would anybody then switch from industry to the FAA? No industry related pay until hired by the FAA - thats a bold transition
    - mobilefriendly 7y ago
      I'm a former Congressional staffer -- these types of blanket restrictions on employment are thought to be unconstitutional (like a blanket noncompete). People have a right to careers. Plus the FAA needs industry expertise. Need a different solution.
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    Why wouldn't Trump want to fire someone at the FAA? He fires staff constantly. Would be a strong publicity stunt to make it seem like he's delivering on draining the swamp.
- V_Terranova_Jr 7y ago
  FAA acquiescence to Industry, especially these days, is probably not much worse than a lot of other Government regulatory agencies. As much as the current administration has zealously populated high-level leadership roles with people whose ideology tends toward "what's good for the short-term economic interests of the large enterprises we regulate is good for the people", the corrosion and inadequate response to Industry pressures has been going on a long time. 737 Max, for example, was mostly developed in the Obama era. I do have strong views about which US administration and present-day political party has been worse for the people in terms of quality of regulation, but rather than go down that road, we may be able to make progress if we can seek explicit agreement that "what's good for the short-term economic interests of the large enterprises we regulate is good for the people" cannot be the philosophy underlying regulation and public policy.
- OscarTheGrinch 7y ago
  ..and the irony is that Boeing would be better served by a truly indipendant FAA: finding fault before planes start falling out of the sky.

cptskippy 7y ago

Sounds like the FAA needs to do some house cleaning in there upper management because they're in bed with Boeing.

unlinked_dll 7y ago
It's the White House that is responsible for doing that "house cleaning" of the FAA's upper management, since those folks are political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the President. I don't know about you, but I don't see the current admin prioritizing the flushing out of regulators in bed with industry. That's why I say name some names.
- nolok 7y ago
  Just a remainder: at the start of his presidency, Trump wanted to appoint his own personal pilot at the head of the FAA. So yes, don't expect too much from them in cleaning the upper levels.
  - briandear 7y ago
    Maybe appointing a pilot would be a good idea. Probably better than appointing someone who never flew an airplane. Obama’s appointee had zero aviation experience. He had transportation experience, but appointing a non-pilot to the head of the FAA is like appointing a non-doctor to be Surgeon General.
    - V_Terranova_Jr 7y ago
      More important is to appoint someone with the right motivations and with a technical background. A pilot with a good formal technical background might be a fine FAA leader, but so might someone with technical expertise in the operations of the national airspace, or a Chief Engineer type involved with aircraft certification. What's critical though is that they remember they are supposed to work on behalf of the people, not the short-term economic interests of the regulated, and not to see themselves as firstly serving political patrons.
    - nabla9 7y ago
      Trump's personal pilot nominee (John Dunkin) was not qualified. He was the man in charge of Trump's presidential campaign’s air fleet. There were multiple incidents. One of the pilots was convicted violent felon that had to be fired. The landings were constantly so horrible that press joked that nobody survives covering Mike Pence. It all ended with serious incident where one of the crews overshot the runway resulting shut down of Laguardia airport. Mike Pence was on board. I mean what it tells you about a man who can't even hire competent pilots in America.
      - dieselerator 7y ago
        > It all ended with serious incident where one of the crews overshot the runway resulting shut down of Laguardia airport. Mike Pence was on board. The aircraft you are referring to was chartered from Eastern Airlines (since acquired by a different airline) and flown by Eastern Airline pilots. [1] [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_(2015)> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_(2015)>
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  Agreed, as much as the current administration has pledged to "drain the swamp" the hill is looking just as corrupt as ever, if not more so. Instead of corrupt industry insiders and lobbyists, we just have corrupt industry outsiders or those who will immediately bow to the administration.
- drevil-v2 7y ago
  I'd like to point out that vast majority of this lax enforcement of FAA oversight of the Boeing 737 Max certification happened during the Obama Administration by political appointees of Barrack Obama and the Democratic Party. I am centre-left political (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) and It really really bothers me to see the double standards. Once you start to notice the pattern of one-sided appropriation of blame in pretty much every fking scenario, you end up discounting any criticism of republicans as bias.
  - stevehawk 7y ago
    It's really disappointing to see this comment downvoted. Apparently we're all fine with blaming the current administration for not firing them but we're not ok with blaming a previous administration for hiring them? We've also had countless posts talking negatively on the very merger that lead this iteration of Boeing (McDonnel-Douglas) with no regard for the administration that basically encouraged the merger. It's okay to admit it guys: both parties suck and are corporate shills.
    - unlinked_dll 7y ago
      > Apparently we're all fine with blaming the current administration for not firing them but we're not ok with blaming a previous administration for hiring them One of these two parties has the ability to affect change. It's not the latter.
      - kovac 7y ago
        The official report just came out. On what grounds would the existing administration just fire upper level management at an early stage? The appropriate response would be to force FAA to ground the planes (if and which FAA did not do themselves), and wait for the official report and then open an investigation in to Boeing and FAA. Time is a factor to take into account.
    - 1shooner 7y ago
      Appointing someone that ends up breaking the law vs. keeping someone that is known to have. These are not the same thing.
- pyrosome 7y ago
  More effective would be to put in place a lengthy blackout period (years) for aviation industry employees before allowing them to join the FAA and vice versa. The point being to significantly degrade the influence and political utility of "revolving door" hires.
  - jakoblorz 7y ago
    Why would anybody then switch from industry to the FAA? No industry related pay until hired by the FAA - thats a bold transition
  - mobilefriendly 7y ago
    I'm a former Congressional staffer -- these types of blanket restrictions on employment are thought to be unconstitutional (like a blanket noncompete). People have a right to careers. Plus the FAA needs industry expertise. Need a different solution.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  Why wouldn't Trump want to fire someone at the FAA? He fires staff constantly. Would be a strong publicity stunt to make it seem like he's delivering on draining the swamp.
V_Terranova_Jr 7y ago
FAA acquiescence to Industry, especially these days, is probably not much worse than a lot of other Government regulatory agencies. As much as the current administration has zealously populated high-level leadership roles with people whose ideology tends toward "what's good for the short-term economic interests of the large enterprises we regulate is good for the people", the corrosion and inadequate response to Industry pressures has been going on a long time. 737 Max, for example, was mostly developed in the Obama era. I do have strong views about which US administration and present-day political party has been worse for the people in terms of quality of regulation, but rather than go down that road, we may be able to make progress if we can seek explicit agreement that "what's good for the short-term economic interests of the large enterprises we regulate is good for the people" cannot be the philosophy underlying regulation and public policy.
OscarTheGrinch 7y ago
..and the irony is that Boeing would be better served by a truly indipendant FAA: finding fault before planes start falling out of the sky.