5 ms·

Ok. So who is inspecting the FAA ? That definitely needs done too.

Xunjin 3y ago
I'm sorry but what is your point? I'm not USA citizen and IANAL, but any federal investigation department has the power to do it, also a federal legislative, so the congress could do it too.
- ddlsmurf 3y ago
  My point is that it was their job to catch this before the plane was commercially used. While I expect no one to be perfect, I do expect some introspection as to why this went through the cracks. Why is this unreasonable ?
eganist 3y ago
This is one of those questions that reads as being in bad faith on its face, but it has a good answer to it. https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administration https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administrati... In the US, the major executive departments have Inspectors General who serve as a check on the department itself.* The Department of Transportation's OIG would be responsible for such an investigation of the FAA. It wouldn't surprise me if the FAA's handling around granting Boeing's self certification license to them is investigated. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_Act_of_1978 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_Act_of_1978
- ddlsmurf 3y ago
  Why does it read as bad faith ? All the problems were signed off, not further than November were they considering more exemptions...
  - eganist 3y ago
    Were they? I thought boeing was self certifying elements of the MAX like the door plugs, do you have something showing the FAA inspected the door plugs? Everything I'm reading says the FAA is moving to divorce the certification process from Boeing to a third party as a consequence of this event where Boeing demonstrated they couldn't even certify the little things. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224444590/boeing-faa-737-max-9-alaska-airlines-door-plug https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224444590/boeing-faa-737-max... And that's my point about your comment coming across like it's in bad faith. Usually people throw out questions with implied inflammatory answers as a lazy way to incite argument, and then those questions either continue or are seasoned with false information ("the problems were signed off") when someone takes the bait. Then the OP tends to write off the bad faith perception claiming they're trying to engage sincerely. There's a name for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning --- Given how the FAA responded so far, honestly it could go either way whether they're investigated for it by the DOT OIG. If there is an investigation, it'd likely just be around this self certification process, not necessarily the whole org. And it looks like the FAA is moving quickly to demonstrate that they're not asleep at the wheel.
    - ddlsmurf 3y ago
      You're making a distinction I'm not, whether they signed off on it directly or indirectly, thanks for pointing that out. I don't really see the difference as that important though, in the end it's their procedures that are meant to safeguard against this, and they failed. Believe it or not, I have no motivation to incite an argument or anything of the such, why not simply assume I'm mis-informed but in good faith, and correct me ? Anyway thank you for the details about the DOT etc, that's what I was asking for.
      - eganist 3y ago
        > why not simply assume I'm mis-informed but in good faith, and correct me ? In the absence of information I would've done just that, but I had a look at your comment history first before I replied. lol Happy to have been helpful. Cheers mate
ibejoeb 3y ago
Totally legitimate question. Boeing got let off the hook last time for egregious shit. They paid a fine and their fleet went back up.

I'm sorry but what is your point? I'm not USA citizen and IANAL, but any federal investigation department has the power to do it, also a federal legislative, so the congress could do it too.

ddlsmurf 3y ago
My point is that it was their job to catch this before the plane was commercially used. While I expect no one to be perfect, I do expect some introspection as to why this went through the cracks. Why is this unreasonable ?

eganist 3y ago

This is one of those questions that reads as being in bad faith on its face, but it has a good answer to it. https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administration https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administrati... In the US, the major executive departments have Inspectors General who serve as a check on the department itself.* The Department of Transportation's OIG would be responsible for such an investigation of the FAA. It wouldn't surprise me if the FAA's handling around granting Boeing's self certification license to them is investigated. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_Act_of_1978 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_Act_of_1978

ddlsmurf 3y ago
Why does it read as bad faith ? All the problems were signed off, not further than November were they considering more exemptions...
- eganist 3y ago
  Were they? I thought boeing was self certifying elements of the MAX like the door plugs, do you have something showing the FAA inspected the door plugs? Everything I'm reading says the FAA is moving to divorce the certification process from Boeing to a third party as a consequence of this event where Boeing demonstrated they couldn't even certify the little things. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224444590/boeing-faa-737-max-9-alaska-airlines-door-plug https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224444590/boeing-faa-737-max... And that's my point about your comment coming across like it's in bad faith. Usually people throw out questions with implied inflammatory answers as a lazy way to incite argument, and then those questions either continue or are seasoned with false information ("the problems were signed off") when someone takes the bait. Then the OP tends to write off the bad faith perception claiming they're trying to engage sincerely. There's a name for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning --- Given how the FAA responded so far, honestly it could go either way whether they're investigated for it by the DOT OIG. If there is an investigation, it'd likely just be around this self certification process, not necessarily the whole org. And it looks like the FAA is moving quickly to demonstrate that they're not asleep at the wheel.
  - ddlsmurf 3y ago
    You're making a distinction I'm not, whether they signed off on it directly or indirectly, thanks for pointing that out. I don't really see the difference as that important though, in the end it's their procedures that are meant to safeguard against this, and they failed. Believe it or not, I have no motivation to incite an argument or anything of the such, why not simply assume I'm mis-informed but in good faith, and correct me ? Anyway thank you for the details about the DOT etc, that's what I was asking for.
    - eganist 3y ago
      > why not simply assume I'm mis-informed but in good faith, and correct me ? In the absence of information I would've done just that, but I had a look at your comment history first before I replied. lol Happy to have been helpful. Cheers mate

ibejoeb 3y ago

Totally legitimate question. Boeing got let off the hook last time for egregious shit. They paid a fine and their fleet went back up.