3 ms·

Actually, this is a sauce effect of the complexity of modern systems: regulators have no choice but to trust companies and regulate the results of tests, with h

by asah 5y ago

Actually, this is a sauce effect of the complexity of modern systems: regulators have no choice but to trust companies and regulate the results of tests, with heavy penalties for cheating. Consider pharmaceutical trials: it's impractical for the FDA to check on each patient. Financial audits often assume the client isn't directly lying to the auditor, with criminal penalties as the disincentive. The alternative requires raising costs and slowing progress and innovation, which is a nonstart in a competitive environment such as Boeing vs Airbus.

OneTimePetes 5y ago
It can be done, it just costs money. It can not be done within the liberal frame of mind, were everything that costs money is tax and thus theft. So why not reformulate it correctly. In my ideology, it is not possible to solve this problem. If that ideology would be out of the way, it could actually be tested pretty good via unittest running a simulation. So once developed those tests would actually be pretty cheap to run. Its just this ideologic blindspot that prevents good safety.
- kiklion 5y ago
  > It can be done, it just costs money. Well money and time. You speak as if you think that if only the great billionaires accepted a little less money then we could have safety. How many lives are you willing to lose for a multi year delay to accommodate the FDA recreating every required test that the pharmaceutical company did? How many lives are currently lost because the current system doesn’t work? Your suggestion is akin to voter id’s as a requirement to prevent voter fraud. How many legitimate voters are going to be prevented from voting due to the new rules to stop how many prior confirmed cases of voter fraud? This isn’t a lack of resources. This is society deciding that the resources are better used elsewhere.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    > This is society* deciding that the resources are better used elsewhere * Actual decisions on resource allocation made by regulatory agencies, which have a close partnership and history of employment with the industry being regulated. It's different to say "society decided" vs 'a specialized subset of society, with tangled incentives, decided.' At the end of the day, it's a spectrum from (no oversight) to (full, independent validation). Boeing didn't want MCAS highlighted as a change, Boeing didn't want the FAA to independently discover it, and Boeing got all these things. Either by action on its part or by design of what the FAA did and did not independently verify. That's a strong indicator we should shift regulatory posture further towards (full, independent verification). And while it may be cost prohibitive to shift all the way there, that's doesn't mean we can't shift closer to it.
    - Randosaurus 5y ago
      This is the only real reasonable stance in light of what happened with the 737 MAX.
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    Did society decide this distribution of resources? Or was it lobbying?
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Our society, as presently organized, delegates that choice to lobbyists. That is one failing. The problem with the FAA vs Boeing is not that the system is designed around the (correct!) assumption that the public's and FAA's interests, on one hand, and Boeing's interests on the other are aligned. This failure cost Boeing enormously! What was not aligned were Boeing's interests and Boeing upper management interests. The pervasive failure of our society to force CxOs to align with the companies they run and with society at large is much bigger than just in aviation. That some pilot was indicted, but not the management he was responsive to, is a glaring indicator of this failing.
verve_rat 5y ago
But in the case of aircraft we pay for that innovation and "progress" with dead bodies. Maybe it is time to rethink the cost/benefit of how we enforce these regulations.
- AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
  We've always paid for innovation and progress with human lives. It's not as though that's a new phenomenon! To think we can get away with pushing forward the state of the art without a cost in blood is safetyism.
asah 5y ago
LOL speling: sauce effect => side effect!

by asah 5y ago

OneTimePetes 5y ago

It can be done, it just costs money. It can not be done within the liberal frame of mind, were everything that costs money is tax and thus theft. So why not reformulate it correctly. In my ideology, it is not possible to solve this problem. If that ideology would be out of the way, it could actually be tested pretty good via unittest running a simulation. So once developed those tests would actually be pretty cheap to run. Its just this ideologic blindspot that prevents good safety.

kiklion 5y ago
> It can be done, it just costs money. Well money and time. You speak as if you think that if only the great billionaires accepted a little less money then we could have safety. How many lives are you willing to lose for a multi year delay to accommodate the FDA recreating every required test that the pharmaceutical company did? How many lives are currently lost because the current system doesn’t work? Your suggestion is akin to voter id’s as a requirement to prevent voter fraud. How many legitimate voters are going to be prevented from voting due to the new rules to stop how many prior confirmed cases of voter fraud? This isn’t a lack of resources. This is society deciding that the resources are better used elsewhere.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > This is society* deciding that the resources are better used elsewhere * Actual decisions on resource allocation made by regulatory agencies, which have a close partnership and history of employment with the industry being regulated. It's different to say "society decided" vs 'a specialized subset of society, with tangled incentives, decided.' At the end of the day, it's a spectrum from (no oversight) to (full, independent validation). Boeing didn't want MCAS highlighted as a change, Boeing didn't want the FAA to independently discover it, and Boeing got all these things. Either by action on its part or by design of what the FAA did and did not independently verify. That's a strong indicator we should shift regulatory posture further towards (full, independent verification). And while it may be cost prohibitive to shift all the way there, that's doesn't mean we can't shift closer to it.
  - Randosaurus 5y ago
    This is the only real reasonable stance in light of what happened with the 737 MAX.
- verve_rat 5y ago
  Did society decide this distribution of resources? Or was it lobbying?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Our society, as presently organized, delegates that choice to lobbyists. That is one failing. The problem with the FAA vs Boeing is not that the system is designed around the (correct!) assumption that the public's and FAA's interests, on one hand, and Boeing's interests on the other are aligned. This failure cost Boeing enormously! What was not aligned were Boeing's interests and Boeing upper management interests. The pervasive failure of our society to force CxOs to align with the companies they run and with society at large is much bigger than just in aviation. That some pilot was indicted, but not the management he was responsive to, is a glaring indicator of this failing.

verve_rat 5y ago

But in the case of aircraft we pay for that innovation and "progress" with dead bodies. Maybe it is time to rethink the cost/benefit of how we enforce these regulations.

AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
We've always paid for innovation and progress with human lives. It's not as though that's a new phenomenon! To think we can get away with pushing forward the state of the art without a cost in blood is safetyism.

asah 5y ago

LOL speling: sauce effect => side effect!