4 ms·
But it rather defeats the point of having a regulatory body performing safety checks if the manufacturer does those itself, no?
by archangel_one 14y ago
But it rather defeats the point of having a regulatory body performing safety checks if the manufacturer does those itself, no?
- rayiner 14y agoIt doesn't defeat the point necessarily, it's just a design point for an allocation of labor that involves various trade-offs. Boeing doesn't just give the FAA a single sheet of paper saying "we've signed off on it, it's all good!" At the same time, the FAA doesn't take delivery of a 787 and do all the tests from scratch by itself. Instead, the FAA specifies process, and Boeing does tests and gives the results to the FAA, and the two sides iterate until the FAA is happy.
- tjr 14y agoIn theory, no, because the Boeing employees should be performing the reviews in accordance with FAA guidelines. If they aren't, that's a problem. But there are so many checks and balances in reviewing aviation engineering work that it seems unlikely that FAA guidelines would get blown off, even if someone at Boeing wanted to.
- protomyth 14y agoIt actually happens quite a lot in many industries in the US. Not that the government inspectors have a much better track record than the companies themselves. The penalty for screwing it up is particularly high in some areas. I know of one case (food) where the penalties (government onsite workers & other measures) to the operation of a facility applied even after it is was sold to a competitor.