4 ms·

FAA engineers objected to removal of 787 lightning protection measures (2019)

78 points by gmac 7y ago

djohnston 7y ago
"Boeing rejected the opinion of the FAA technical specialists and persuaded FAA management that it was still in compliance with safety regulations." basically says it all
cft 7y ago
The idea of regulating Boeing into making safer aircraft is inferior to Boeing making safer aircraft under domestic competitive pressure. In the 60s, there were three domestic competitors: Douglas, Lockheed and Convair. With the acquisition of the last domestic competitor McDonnell Douglas in the 90s, the the decision between Boeing and Airbus is more often based on politics than on the product. Where was FTC when they allowed that acquisition happen?
- jsjohnst 7y ago
  > With the acquisition of the last domestic competitor McDonnell Douglas in the 90s Many would argue it’s more like MD acquired Boeing and kept the Boeing name “in practice”. Boeing very distinctly changed following the merger in, what most would argue, a very negative way.
- AmVess 7y ago
  I should think it is much easier to fix the FAA than it is to start a new aircraft company.
  - skissane 7y ago
    Even if the FAA isn't fixed, foreign agencies such as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) are going to be much less trusting of the FAA from now on. They will want to check things themselves rather than just trusting the FAA on it. Of course, anything EASA does to Boeing, the FAA could do to Airbus. But, is it possible that Airbus as a company might handle stricter regulations better than Boeing could? (EU companies tend to have more experience operating in a higher-regulation environment than American companies do.) In which case, EASA could tighten the screws on both, but that might end up in practice favouring one more than the other.
    - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
      It's a losing fight because Boeing aircraft crashed and started this whole mess. Sure, politics are at play. But Delta doesn't want to buy defective planes. Neither does United.
- fgonzag 7y ago
  McDonnell Douglas was dead. It was either closing or being acquired. Being a very important military contractor, it's easy to see why it merged with another similar company.
ehvatum 7y ago
“In the system that measures how much fuel is in the tank, Boeing dropped a feature designed to prevent wires rubbing together. It removed sealant from certain areas judged to no longer be vulnerable to sparking. It removed clamps designed to ensure hydraulic tubing didn’t come loose inside the tank.” “Most of the design changes reduce complexity, cost and weight. Boeing has steadily reduced the cost of building the 787, a vital part of its drive to recoup the $22 billion in still-outstanding 787 production costs deferred into the future.” The rot is far worse than I suspected. Unbelievable.
pcurve 7y ago
"even before the FAA’s approval of the design change was reviewed, Boeing had produced 40 Dreamliners with the change implemented." Says a lot about how Boeing views FAA.

78 points by gmac 7y ago

"Boeing rejected the opinion of the FAA technical specialists and persuaded FAA management that it was still in compliance with safety regulations." basically says it all

cft 7y ago

The idea of regulating Boeing into making safer aircraft is inferior to Boeing making safer aircraft under domestic competitive pressure. In the 60s, there were three domestic competitors: Douglas, Lockheed and Convair. With the acquisition of the last domestic competitor McDonnell Douglas in the 90s, the the decision between Boeing and Airbus is more often based on politics than on the product. Where was FTC when they allowed that acquisition happen?

jsjohnst 7y ago
> With the acquisition of the last domestic competitor McDonnell Douglas in the 90s Many would argue it’s more like MD acquired Boeing and kept the Boeing name “in practice”. Boeing very distinctly changed following the merger in, what most would argue, a very negative way.
AmVess 7y ago
I should think it is much easier to fix the FAA than it is to start a new aircraft company.
- skissane 7y ago
  Even if the FAA isn't fixed, foreign agencies such as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) are going to be much less trusting of the FAA from now on. They will want to check things themselves rather than just trusting the FAA on it. Of course, anything EASA does to Boeing, the FAA could do to Airbus. But, is it possible that Airbus as a company might handle stricter regulations better than Boeing could? (EU companies tend to have more experience operating in a higher-regulation environment than American companies do.) In which case, EASA could tighten the screws on both, but that might end up in practice favouring one more than the other.
  - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
    It's a losing fight because Boeing aircraft crashed and started this whole mess. Sure, politics are at play. But Delta doesn't want to buy defective planes. Neither does United.
fgonzag 7y ago
McDonnell Douglas was dead. It was either closing or being acquired. Being a very important military contractor, it's easy to see why it merged with another similar company.

ehvatum 7y ago

“In the system that measures how much fuel is in the tank, Boeing dropped a feature designed to prevent wires rubbing together. It removed sealant from certain areas judged to no longer be vulnerable to sparking. It removed clamps designed to ensure hydraulic tubing didn’t come loose inside the tank.” “Most of the design changes reduce complexity, cost and weight. Boeing has steadily reduced the cost of building the 787, a vital part of its drive to recoup the $22 billion in still-outstanding 787 production costs deferred into the future.” The rot is far worse than I suspected. Unbelievable.

pcurve 7y ago

"even before the FAA’s approval of the design change was reviewed, Boeing had produced 40 Dreamliners with the change implemented." Says a lot about how Boeing views FAA.