4 ms·

You're upset with the FAA for the Boeing fiasco, but simultaneously upset that they are going to be more strict with certifying a new class of aircraft?

hammock 4y ago
Regulation is not just on a spectrum with not enough on one end and too much on the other end. There is an orthogonal dimension that comprises the quality of regulation (good and poor). Would that more understand this idea.
pmichaud 4y ago
Why not? One of the main failure modes of bureaucracy is escalating attempts to deflect blame for both individuals and the organization as a whole, where all that leads to a nightmare of red tape that pulls against the original intent of the organization. So you have a bunch of rules and strictness plus a bunch of snafus. “Be indiscriminately more strict” obviously isn’t the thing to do. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that a federal oversight organization be actually-effective at overseeing the industry it’s tasked with overseeing. Be strict enough in smart ways to catch real problems before they happen, might be one way to think of the ideal mandate.
- droopyEyelids 4y ago
  If I had my way, organizations like the FAA would do a good job, they'd do it efficiently, and they wouldn't be subject to compromising incentives. I think this is basically what you're saying, too
dylan604 4y ago
The FAA allowed Boeing to self certify, so they have blame in that. Strict regulations are not necessarily a bad thing if they are actually needed, but regulations for regulation's sake to keep the agency with a purpose is definitely bad. At some point the bueracracy takes over, and it's hard to avoid the useless regulations that make it look like things are being done but ignore the true things needing regulation.
londons_explore 4y ago
They're taking the wrong approach to safety... The correct approach is to reward new things, reward changes and innovation, and punish massively anything that causes an accident putting lives at risk. For example, make a fund that any aircraft manufacturer pays fines into. Fines for engine failures. Fines for oxygen mask deployments. Fines for crash landings. Massive fines for deaths. Aim to fine about 50% of the value of all aircraft sold. Then give the pot of those fines back to aircraft designers and operators per passenger mile safely flown. Overall, the industry gets the same amount of cash. But manufacturers and operators who manage to do it more safely will end up more profitable. You also need a system of watchdogs who try to find 'coverups' - ie. times where a safety procedure is skipped to avoid the fine. A combination of whistleblower rewards and automatic data reporting from the plane should help with that issue.
- db65edfc7996 4y ago
  That sounds a lot like testing in production. Move fast and break things when the stake are human life. I will accept a slower pace of aircraft development, thank you.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    We could move fast and quickly figure out a new lead free fuel... Or we could keep using our reliable leaded fuel that kills hundreds of people annually. Sometimes, 'move fast and break things' actually saves lives. Especially when you're moving fast on the development of new safety systems.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  As a pilot, I can't see any reason to fine for an oxygen mask deployment at all and very little reason to fine for an engine failure resulting a safe landing (which is the incredibly overwhelming majority of them in airline transport category aircraft). That would be like fining a driver for a hard braking incident or triggering their ABS. Not everything needs to have an economy created out of it.
  - 4y ago

hammock 4y ago

Regulation is not just on a spectrum with not enough on one end and too much on the other end. There is an orthogonal dimension that comprises the quality of regulation (good and poor). Would that more understand this idea.

pmichaud 4y ago

Why not? One of the main failure modes of bureaucracy is escalating attempts to deflect blame for both individuals and the organization as a whole, where all that leads to a nightmare of red tape that pulls against the original intent of the organization. So you have a bunch of rules and strictness plus a bunch of snafus. “Be indiscriminately more strict” obviously isn’t the thing to do. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that a federal oversight organization be actually-effective at overseeing the industry it’s tasked with overseeing. Be strict enough in smart ways to catch real problems before they happen, might be one way to think of the ideal mandate.

droopyEyelids 4y ago
If I had my way, organizations like the FAA would do a good job, they'd do it efficiently, and they wouldn't be subject to compromising incentives. I think this is basically what you're saying, too

dylan604 4y ago

The FAA allowed Boeing to self certify, so they have blame in that. Strict regulations are not necessarily a bad thing if they are actually needed, but regulations for regulation's sake to keep the agency with a purpose is definitely bad. At some point the bueracracy takes over, and it's hard to avoid the useless regulations that make it look like things are being done but ignore the true things needing regulation.

londons_explore 4y ago

They're taking the wrong approach to safety... The correct approach is to reward new things, reward changes and innovation, and punish massively anything that causes an accident putting lives at risk. For example, make a fund that any aircraft manufacturer pays fines into. Fines for engine failures. Fines for oxygen mask deployments. Fines for crash landings. Massive fines for deaths. Aim to fine about 50% of the value of all aircraft sold. Then give the pot of those fines back to aircraft designers and operators per passenger mile safely flown. Overall, the industry gets the same amount of cash. But manufacturers and operators who manage to do it more safely will end up more profitable. You also need a system of watchdogs who try to find 'coverups' - ie. times where a safety procedure is skipped to avoid the fine. A combination of whistleblower rewards and automatic data reporting from the plane should help with that issue.

db65edfc7996 4y ago
That sounds a lot like testing in production. Move fast and break things when the stake are human life. I will accept a slower pace of aircraft development, thank you.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  We could move fast and quickly figure out a new lead free fuel... Or we could keep using our reliable leaded fuel that kills hundreds of people annually. Sometimes, 'move fast and break things' actually saves lives. Especially when you're moving fast on the development of new safety systems.
sokoloff 4y ago
As a pilot, I can't see any reason to fine for an oxygen mask deployment at all and very little reason to fine for an engine failure resulting a safe landing (which is the incredibly overwhelming majority of them in airline transport category aircraft). That would be like fining a driver for a hard braking incident or triggering their ABS. Not everything needs to have an economy created out of it.
- 4y ago