5 ms·

As I wrote elsewhere, under EASA rules high ranking people at an organization holding design and / or production organisation approvals, are personally responsi

by hef19898 3y ago

As I wrote elsewhere, under EASA rules high ranking people at an organization holding design and / or production organisation approvals, are personally responsible, and liable incl. criminal liability, to make sure their organisation works properly. I forget the exact term for this role so. Not sure about FAA rules, but I assume they are somewhat similar. So at the very least, those individuals, at Boeing and Spirit Aerospace, should be a tad worried now. By the way, senior means VP-levek and above, usually one for the design side (propably less relevant in the door plug question), one on production side (they should be worried), one each for design and production quality (same as above, the production quality oeople should be worried a lot) as well as one for supply chain and other functiobs with less responsibilities (the supply chain people are imolicated in this door plug thing as). Personally, I don't see how the FAA can just let this slip, their relationship with international partbers and their reputation is already damaged by the 737 MAX, so they have to do something about it.

jajko 3y ago
Why would currently anybody globally trust FAA? Clearly regulatory capture has happened, its not 1 or 2 isolated cases at this point. Trust is something thats hard earned and easily lost, they already went through both so if FAA wants to come back they have some serious effort on their shoulders in upcoming decade at least. And slapping Boeing and those responsible so hard that wall will give them another is mandatory first step since this theatre is played out for literally everybody in the world, everybody is watching.
- hef19898 3y ago
  You are pinting to a very serious issue. Up until the 737 MAX, if someone or something had FAA or EASA certification, getting the other one was more or less just a formality. And this helped everyone a lot, and in fact made things saver as the engineering was less, constraint, limited, bothered by regulation (no idea how to phrase this...), because they only had to worry deeply about either FAA or EASA requirements. The 737 MAX did put a dent in this, and that was and is a problem. And everyone knows this, besides Boeing it seems, which is the reason why I am cautiosly optimistic about the investogations.
  - stavros 3y ago
    How did it put a dent in this? Is it not certified by one of the two agencies?
    - hef19898 3y ago
      It is certified by both, with EASA nasically accepting the FAA certication at face value (oversimplified a bit). That means trusting the other agency. It was this trust that was hurt by the initial B737 MAX scandle and the handling of it by both, Boeing and the FAA.
      - stavros 3y ago
        Ah, I see, thanks. So the FAA cut corners when certifying? I guess trust only works when the other agency is up to the same standards as you, but then "certified by the FAA and the EASA" only really means "certified by one of the two".
        hef19898 3y ago
        No, the FAA didn't cut corners, Boeing did. The FAA did a bad job catching it. And being certified by both means that orgs and aircraft are certified by both. Decades of cooperation and alignment of regulations and requirements mean that the sevond certification is covering the delta between both, believing the common stuff to be properly cerified by the other regulator. That is where the FAA lost trust. Hence my believe the FAA will not show much liniency to Boeing this time.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  The last fatal accident in a commerical airliner in the US was in 2009. We have to zoom out here, the FAA are not dropping the ball.
  - jen20 3y ago
    Regardless of whether flying is safer or not, the citation is incorrect: a passenger on Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 died in 2018 following a contained engine failure.
    - sebzim4500 3y ago
      Fair point, although since I said "in a commercial airliner" and the passenger was partially ejected before dying I might be technically correct.
      - jen20 3y ago
        Ah, well by those criteria alone, PenAir 3296 in 2019 would probably win - a passenger died inside the plane after a runway excursion.
  - lucianbr 3y ago
    You think the crashes of the two 737 MAX being outside of the US was not luck, but determined at least in part by the FAA? Would you care to explain how you came to this conclusion, as I really, really don't see it...
    - jajko 3y ago
      His comments point to borderline racist statements from boeing early in the saga where they tried to blame this all on incompetence of the Ethiopian/other pilots, maintenance crew and so on. To some folks human lives don't have the same value but it depends highly on passport, as long as stuff happens outside of their border all is fine (although in this case nothing is since this affects everybody everywhere). I wouldn't expect such a comment here in 2024 but here we are.
georgeplusplus 3y ago
>>> Not sure about FAA rules, but I assume they are somewhat similar. So at the very least, those individuals, at Boeing and Spirit Aerospace, should be a tad worried now. It’s funny to see comments like. You think this isn’t just a dog and pony show? They don’t give a damn. They will sleep just fine. Nothing will happen because the government is in bed with these folks and they don’t implicate their own and the sooner you understand that the less it shocks you when nothing happens.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Not sure I can actually agree with that, at least in such broad strokes. And no, I know that it is not just a dog and pony show. "It" is the reason air travel is as safe as it is today, and that is way saver than 20 or 30 years ago, despite whatever Boeing did with the 737 MAX.
  - boppo1 3y ago
    >way saver than 20 or 30 years ago Is it?
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Yes, it is. And 20-30 years ago it was saver than, say, 50 years ago. Like in medcine, people don't always see those incrementle improvements over time.
      - chx 3y ago
        I would've agreed with you five or so years ago but https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305868 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305868 is more than an accident, you begin to wonder what's going on. There are staff shortages everywhere, why not with pilots? Are they as rested and trained as they ought to be? Together with the plane safety issues surfacing like an army of skeletons falling out of an infinite closet, I am not so sure we are on the same track as we were before.

jajko 3y ago

Why would currently anybody globally trust FAA? Clearly regulatory capture has happened, its not 1 or 2 isolated cases at this point. Trust is something thats hard earned and easily lost, they already went through both so if FAA wants to come back they have some serious effort on their shoulders in upcoming decade at least. And slapping Boeing and those responsible so hard that wall will give them another is mandatory first step since this theatre is played out for literally everybody in the world, everybody is watching.

hef19898 3y ago
You are pinting to a very serious issue. Up until the 737 MAX, if someone or something had FAA or EASA certification, getting the other one was more or less just a formality. And this helped everyone a lot, and in fact made things saver as the engineering was less, constraint, limited, bothered by regulation (no idea how to phrase this...), because they only had to worry deeply about either FAA or EASA requirements. The 737 MAX did put a dent in this, and that was and is a problem. And everyone knows this, besides Boeing it seems, which is the reason why I am cautiosly optimistic about the investogations.
- stavros 3y ago
  How did it put a dent in this? Is it not certified by one of the two agencies?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    It is certified by both, with EASA nasically accepting the FAA certication at face value (oversimplified a bit). That means trusting the other agency. It was this trust that was hurt by the initial B737 MAX scandle and the handling of it by both, Boeing and the FAA.
    - stavros 3y ago
      Ah, I see, thanks. So the FAA cut corners when certifying? I guess trust only works when the other agency is up to the same standards as you, but then "certified by the FAA and the EASA" only really means "certified by one of the two".
      - hef19898 3y ago
        No, the FAA didn't cut corners, Boeing did. The FAA did a bad job catching it. And being certified by both means that orgs and aircraft are certified by both. Decades of cooperation and alignment of regulations and requirements mean that the sevond certification is covering the delta between both, believing the common stuff to be properly cerified by the other regulator. That is where the FAA lost trust. Hence my believe the FAA will not show much liniency to Boeing this time.
sebzim4500 3y ago
The last fatal accident in a commerical airliner in the US was in 2009. We have to zoom out here, the FAA are not dropping the ball.
- jen20 3y ago
  Regardless of whether flying is safer or not, the citation is incorrect: a passenger on Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 died in 2018 following a contained engine failure.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    Fair point, although since I said "in a commercial airliner" and the passenger was partially ejected before dying I might be technically correct.
    - jen20 3y ago
      Ah, well by those criteria alone, PenAir 3296 in 2019 would probably win - a passenger died inside the plane after a runway excursion.
- lucianbr 3y ago
  You think the crashes of the two 737 MAX being outside of the US was not luck, but determined at least in part by the FAA? Would you care to explain how you came to this conclusion, as I really, really don't see it...
  - jajko 3y ago
    His comments point to borderline racist statements from boeing early in the saga where they tried to blame this all on incompetence of the Ethiopian/other pilots, maintenance crew and so on. To some folks human lives don't have the same value but it depends highly on passport, as long as stuff happens outside of their border all is fine (although in this case nothing is since this affects everybody everywhere). I wouldn't expect such a comment here in 2024 but here we are.

georgeplusplus 3y ago

>>> Not sure about FAA rules, but I assume they are somewhat similar. So at the very least, those individuals, at Boeing and Spirit Aerospace, should be a tad worried now. It’s funny to see comments like. You think this isn’t just a dog and pony show? They don’t give a damn. They will sleep just fine. Nothing will happen because the government is in bed with these folks and they don’t implicate their own and the sooner you understand that the less it shocks you when nothing happens.

hef19898 3y ago
Not sure I can actually agree with that, at least in such broad strokes. And no, I know that it is not just a dog and pony show. "It" is the reason air travel is as safe as it is today, and that is way saver than 20 or 30 years ago, despite whatever Boeing did with the 737 MAX.
- boppo1 3y ago
  >way saver than 20 or 30 years ago Is it?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Yes, it is. And 20-30 years ago it was saver than, say, 50 years ago. Like in medcine, people don't always see those incrementle improvements over time.
    - chx 3y ago
      I would've agreed with you five or so years ago but https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305868 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305868 is more than an accident, you begin to wonder what's going on. There are staff shortages everywhere, why not with pilots? Are they as rested and trained as they ought to be? Together with the plane safety issues surfacing like an army of skeletons falling out of an infinite closet, I am not so sure we are on the same track as we were before.