8 ms·
FAA is granting Boeing “limited delegation” to certify airworthiness
- sipofwater 1y ago"United will replace planes at Guam hub, upgrade lobby; same-day connections from Saipan to Hawaii starts Dec. 1": https://www.guampdn.com/news/united-will-replace-planes-at-guam-hub-upgrade-lobby-same-day-connections-from-saipan-to/article_ab170120-872b-4c31-81de-83ea44357bce.html https://www.guampdn.com/news/united-will-replace-planes-at-g... (www.guampdn.com/news/united-will-replace-planes-at-guam-hub-upgrade-lobby-same-day-connections-from-saipan-to/article_ab170120-872b-4c31-81de-83ea44357bce.html); https://archive.is/S47A0 https://archive.is/S47A0
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- conception 1y agoWow they didn’t even change the name? Impressive.
- AtlasBarfed 1y ago[flagged]
- mrtesthah 1y agoThis is a legitimate question we should be asking every single one of his hardcore supporters. Because they clearly consider him to be the only trusted authority; anyone who challenges him is clearly lying and out to get him.
- dboreham 1y agoI don't think this is representative of what's going on inside their heads. For sure it's the conclusion anyone applying critical thinking would come to, but that's not what's actually happening. What I hear when I ask is things like "oh I don't really like him myself, but he sure told them what's what" or "I think he's an idiot, but 100% better than those liberal criminals". In summary, the fact that Trump is a buffoon is fully accepted by most supporters, but for various reasons they prefer that to the alternative (that they perceive is available).
- jordanb 1y agoNext plane crash he'll fix with a sharpie.
- kjkjadksj 1y agoCommemorative coin sales
- emeril 1y agoon the bright side, the next phone which gets sucked out of a mis-installed door will get even bigger publicity if it survives intact like the last one
- nine_zeros 1y agoReturn on the trump bribe (ahem, investment)
- eastbound 1y ago[flagged]
- nine_zeros 1y agoLooks like you are just a racist trying to pin things on black people. Mr. Racist, here's a little fact check from chatGPT. You are still blaming people for their skin color - have some shame. 1. No "2013 airframe scandal" like that exists. Boeing has had multiple controversies (e.g. outsourcing of 787 Dreamliner parts, later the 737 MAX crisis), but none that match this story. In the 2000s and early 2010s, Boeing did face production quality problems with the 787 Dreamliner because large parts of the aircraft were outsourced globally, and some suppliers had issues meeting specifications. But this was not tied to race or prison labor in the way described. 2. No evidence of a race-based relocation of factories. Boeing has moved or opened facilities (e.g. in South Carolina) for business, tax, and labor reasons. There is no credible reporting that this was to "give jobs to Black people" or to people leaving prison. The claim sounds like a distortion of real events: Boeing did use suppliers in different regions, including some that hired less-skilled labor, but this was a cost and logistics decision. 3. About the “manual etching defects.” Real reports do exist about manufacturing defects: gaps, shimming issues, and mis-drilled holes have been found in some Boeing fuselages, particularly in the 787. These were documented by whistleblowers and investigations. But they were not due to "manual etching by ex-prisoners"; they came from industrial quality-control failures and supplier/manufacturer mismanagement. 4. Decision to “keep defective parts.” There have indeed been allegations that Boeing sometimes tolerated defects to keep production on schedule. This is a legitimate criticism, but again, it has nothing to do with the story in the text you shared about racial hiring or prisons.
- wizzwizz4 1y agoIt's not really worth replying to racists, but I can't trust a ChatGPT rebuttal to be anything resembling factually correct. In future, I'd advise pointing out the bigotry, rebutting the things you know to be false, and then ending the comment there.
- WheatMillington 1y ago[flagged]
- camillomiller 1y ago[flagged]
- WheatMillington 1y ago[flagged]
- beanjuiceII 1y ago[flagged]
- cyphar 1y agoIt is a little funny to make this comment under an article about a contraversial decision made by a government agency. Believe it or not, government agencies tend to have some overlap with politics.
- FridayoLeary 1y agoPeople are really reaching. Bad governance didn't spring into existence the moment Trump stepped into the oval office. It's really very silly and doesn't lend itself to productive discourse. You end up oversimplifying problems for one thing or expanding them to such an immense size by linking it to every other political issue it basically negates the usefulness of any direct discussion on the topic. We may as well just make daily threads about things and people we hate, with people contributing new insights as to how terrible they are in a self supporting loop while any useful comments and threads fall through the cracks.
- conception 1y agoWho is in charge of the government departments changes how the government functions massively. There is a tremendous difference in support and effort depending on who has been appointed to run an agency. Just as one example, there is a difference between a nuclear physicist as the secretary of energy and a governor who has a lot of oil in his state. Certainly there are issues with the American government but this is yet again silly both sidesing something where clearly there is “not great” vs “purposeful appointments to actively ruin institutions “.
- gaogao 1y agoIffy by the headline, but the every-other-week model doesn't sound absolutely the worst. I don't have a great read on if it's a bad idea or not though.
- gnarlouse 1y agoSo, Kelly Ortberg currently leading Boeing. Had family members who worked with him directly. He’s a very solid guy, good choice on Boeing’s part. Don’t know if they’re cutting corners to protect jobs and suckle the Trump admin, but that doesn’t seem characteristic of Kelly. My completely anecdotal take.
- FridayoLeary 1y agoThe headline might as well be FAA decides not to do literally their job. Again. A more charitable explanation is that their resources are more limited than the mess Boeing have created and they can't be everywhere at once. The idea that boeing have earned back trust is laughable to me. Ot but mentour pilot on youtube does an excellent job of explaining how insanely safety focused the airline industry is and has plenty of boeing analysis as well.
- randycupertino 1y agoMoving their HQ from Chicago to Arlington, Virginia (next to Washington DC) to prioritize lobbying and access sounds like it helped! https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096961418/boeing-moving-headquarters-washington-dc-area https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096961418/boeing-moving-head... > Boeing is a major defense contractor, and the move will put executives close to Pentagon leaders. According to the book Flying Blind: The 737 MAX Tragedy and the Fall of Boeing by Peter Robison the entire decline of Boeing started when they moved their HQ from Seattle to Chicago and deprioritized engineering, quality and safety.
- jordanb 1y agoI remember when they moved to Chicago the argument was to be closer to their Airline customers. They wanted to shift from a focus on building planes to a focus on selling planes. Now they can't even sell planes so their new focus is corruption I guess. The good news for them is that business is booming.
- vuln 1y agoGovernment money will never run away.
- yfw 1y agoElections matter
- SturgeonsLaw 1y agoTo a company like Boeing? I think their tendrils are deep enough into government that it doesn't matter who the administration of the day is. The number of people who work in government and the military and aren't subject to elections is orders of magnitude greater than the number of elected politicians.
- kjkjadksj 1y agoThere is something to be said about having an airplane company choosing to site executives someplace specific at all, over, you know, using airplanes to get them places. It only takes 5 hours to get across the entire continental US.
- linuxhansl 1y agoThe cynical part in me wants to say: "Because it worked so well the last time!" Did Boeing implement internal and process changes to justify this? That's an actual question, if they did this step would make sense. I want to trust Boeing to do the right thing when it comes to safety. As is, I still prefer Airbus when I get a choice.
- pfexec 1y ago> As is, I still prefer Airbus when I get a choice Better pack a toxic fume respirator in your carry-on: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-engines-airbus-toxic-fumes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-engines-airbus-toxic-fume...
- gmac 1y agoIs there any reason to think this doesn’t apply to all aircraft using bleed air from the engines to pressurise the cabin? If not, only the 787 would be exempt, as far as I understand.
- btilly 1y agoI'm still of the belief that whistleblower John Barnett was murdered by Boeing. I have heard absolutely nothing about Boeing that suggests that anything meaningful has changed at all there.
- sipofwater 1y ago"“If something requires us to cease production, we will do that:” FAA -- "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering whether to suspend the Production Certificate of Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) if it’s not satisfied changes to its safety culture are sufficient, LNA has learned."": https://old.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/1bj6jsh/if_something_requires_us_to_cease_production_we/ https://old.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/1bj6jsh/if_somethi... (From March 2024, old.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/1bj6jsh/if_something_requires_us_to_cease_production_we/)
- tjr 1y agoThis article seems a bit light on details, but a little more at the FAA website: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-boeing-airworthiness-certificates https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-boeing-airworthin... https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/delegated_organizations https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_... It is typical for aerospace companies to have in-house "FAA delegates" who function in the stead of direct FAA reviewers, and it looks like all that is going on here is the FAA is allowing Boeing to go back to using their own internal delegates (every other week!).
- salawat 1y agoWhich defeats the purpose of adversarial review by a regulator. When your paycheck is signed by who you are regulating, you absolutely cannot force handling of what your employer doesn't want to handle. And seeing as FAA has had reciprocity in terms of certification with other countries (which if other countries were smart, they'd cease recognizing until the U.S. gets their shit straight), it's really an egregious abdication of responsibility on the FAA's part.
- user_7832 1y ago(Caution, my thoughts are a bit rambly and scattered. It's been a while since I studied this in detail for a class where I had deep divided into the max 8 crash and FAA's lapse, so my memory is a bit foggy.) The short answer is that unfortunately it's practically almost impossible to do this any other way, short of massively increasing funding for the FAA (which is presumably politically not going to be done.) The long answer is, anyone with expertise ends up going to work at an aerospace company where they are properly compensated. You end up with the engineers at Boeing et al, and the regulatory folk at FAA etc. (This isn't unique to just aviation btw but most industries where you need a high level of technical expertise.) And if you think it should be easily doable... here's a thought experiment. Say 20 people in boeing know about MCAS (pre crashes and their publicity). If even only 2 FAA employees need to be technically sound in their knowledge of such a niche system, that's about 10% of how many boeing employees know about it. Now if you extrapolate that to all systems and all employees across multiple companies... you see why it's an issue for one agencies to have such deep knowledge about everything. (And this isn't even considering what happens when people quit etc.) Because of this, the most obvious answer to "how does the FAA, without much engineers, decide what's safe or not", is to ask the experts and just have them certify stuff, well, not under oath, but as close to that as possible.
- greesil 1y agoEnshittification's final and hitherto unproclaimed stage: 1. Build product people like 2. Build competitive moat 3. Extract maximum value by raising prices or spending less. 4. When the value proposition becomes negative for the end user, then legislate your business' continued profits and existence.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago5. Fail spectacularly. 6. Get acquired by private equity through an LBO. 7. Become even worse.
- irrational 1y agoLOL. What this tells me is I should never fly on a Boeing aircraft ever again. I wonder how much Boeing had to pay Trump to get the FAA to say this.
- anigbrowl 1y agoProbably agreed to some freebies on the refurbishment of the jet from Qatar.
- user_7832 1y agoIf you're wondering - hey, that sounds terrible, why doesn't the FAA do anything about it? Answer, because it practically can't without maybe a 10x or more budget boost that's practically impossible. Why? Copying from another comment I made on this thread: (Caution, my thoughts are a bit rambly and scattered. It's been a while since I studied this in detail for a class where I had deep divided into the max 8 crash and FAA's lapse, so the details are a bit foggy.) The short answer is that unfortunately it's practically almost impossible to do this any other way, short of massively increasing funding for the FAA (which is presumably politically not going to be done.) The long answer is, anyone with expertise ends up going to work at an aerospace company where they are properly compensated. You end up with the engineers at Boeing et al, and the regulatory folk at FAA etc. (This isn't unique to just aviation btw but most industries where you need a high level of technical expertise.) And if you think it should be easily doable... here's a thought experiment. Say 20 people in boeing know about MCAS (pre crashes and their publicity). If even only 2 FAA employees need to be technically sound in their knowledge of such a niche system, that's about 10% of how many boeing employees know about it. Now if you extrapolate that to all systems and all employees across multiple companies... you see why it's an issue for one agencies to have such deep knowledge about everything. (And this isn't even considering what happens when people quit etc.) Because of this, the most obvious answer to "how does the FAA, without much engineers, decide what's safe or not", is to ask the experts and just have them certify stuff, well, not under oath, but as close to that as possible.
- NooneAtAll3 1y agohow long ago did this self-certifying practice start? how much smaller was Boeing (and the whole aviation industry) back then?
- hooskerdu 1y agoUnit membership for manufacturing started with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, but I’m not sure how involved or hands-off it was at the time.
- dehrmann 1y ago> This isn't unique to just aviation btw but most industries Most of us work in tech. Imagine an auditor coming in and trying to sort out if one of the most complex systems at your company is "safe." What's safe? Every previously known failure mode and every new one you're going to be blamed for when it happens.
- tonyhart7 1y agothe problem is Boeing know how to make safe planes, they just choose not to many Engineer concern is ignore by management because it cost them something, greed to max
- pseingatl 1y agoWe are doomed. Today's Boeing simply cannot be trusted.
- swarnie 1y agoMake the smart choice, fly Airbus.
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoDo the Europeans still allow their aerospace companies to bribe/kickback to win contracts? I know that was allowed a decade ago. I know multiple nations fleets (not at the airbus/boeing level) were chosen based on kickbacks. I know we were the originally winning bid, but that it was not extended to us because we wouldn't do kickbacks (they are illegal for US companies but at the time not for Europeans). Personally I'd rather the fly on the best aircraft not the one that inflated the price a half million per plane and sent those extra millions back to the government officials the picked the airframe.
- LunaSea 1y ago> Personally I'd rather the fly on the best aircraft Is that the one crashing down from the sky every few months?
- bryanrasmussen 1y agoDo people trust the FAA on this matter though?
- eastbound 1y agoI don’t. It seems Europe didn’t either, because it grounded the Boeing planes before FAA did, and FAA followed just to keep face. I guess the FAA can do all they want, let’s see how the UE validates it now.
- M95D 1y agoThe next thing they could do is invalidate FAA certifications and require separate certifications from EASA. Or maybe Trump can help by withdrawing from ICAO? /s
- N19PEDL2 1y agoWhat could possibly go wrong?
- tux2bsd 1y ago[dead]
- byyoung3 1y agoBruh
- cramcgrab 1y agoHeadline and article misleading
- buyucu 1y agoBecause it worked so well last time, right? No way I'm flying Boeing again.
- Havoc 1y agoI hear the FAA changed their slogan to "What could possibly go wrong?". Even if this was a sound practical decision surely they can see how it's radioactive for their(FAA) reputation?
- alwahi 1y agois it even corruption if it is certified by law?
- conartist6 1y agoWelp, we can pay costs in blood or money. Looks like the idea is to pay in blood. That said, money didn't go great for Boeing either after the last batch of people died. I have a hard time not imagining that the engineering culture at Boeing is not just as moribund as it was.
- mrlonglong 1y agoThey never learn do they? Eventually airlines will just go somewhere else for planes that shouldn't crash.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- gte525u 1y agoFWIW - I work in aerospace. I believe this is talking about their FAA Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs). They are employed directly by the company or are consultants - they are subject matter experts in their domain. They act as the FAA delegate within the company. They generally have authority that goes well beyond the typical employee or QA person. The ones I have worked with have no problem telling management to go pound sand when they are pushing schedule.