Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

simpleflying.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 122 posts

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#11

Post by jacquesm »

olliej wrote: post #5

This is the long term cost of the defunding of the FAA and delegation of certifying a company's aircraft to that company. As we move forward fewer and fewer other countries will feel that deferring to US agencies is the wrong call and will move to (in this case) EASA. I wouldn't be surprised if more and more other countries start looking into approvals from US agencies, and investigating how independent those agencie…

It is more that this was the cost of failing to operate the FAA as an independent entity, but to get it to rubberstamp Boeing's airworthyness on behalf of Trump after it was clear that there were issues.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#12

Post by jbverschoor »

olliej wrote: post #5

This is the long term cost of the defunding of the FAA and delegation of certifying a company's aircraft to that company. As we move forward fewer and fewer other countries will feel that deferring to US agencies is the wrong call and will move to (in this case) EASA. I wouldn't be surprised if more and more other countries start looking into approvals from US agencies, and investigating how independent those agencie…

Good

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#13

Post by nolok »

jacquesm wrote: post #9
broAhmed wrote: post #3

Good. The FAA should have realized their insistence that the 737 Max was safe to fly despite evidence otherwise was likely to shake both confidence and respect for them as a regulatory body. It shouldn't have taken the intervention of the President for them to do their job. Time for them to reap what they've sown.

> It shouldn't have taken the intervention of the President for them to do their job. That's your takeaway of what happened? My takeaway is that the president 'intervened' only after it was clear that the combined Boeing/FAA/US position became untenable after other regions local air authorities and airlines declared the plane unfit to fly. Trump threw the FAA under the bus to make himself look good, but the weeks bef…

Agreed, they didn’t do it when the risk became clear, they didn’t do it after several big European countries banned it, they only changed their position once the ban was moved at the entire EU level. By that point they were getting their thunder stolen by the EASA and it felt protecting themselves was a much bigger motivation than protecting the passengers for who they actually work for.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#14

Post by jerven »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #10
xxpor wrote: post #7

Frankly, this is good IMO. It should also go in reverse. The FAA should have to independently certify Airbus/Embraer too.

I would argue this should be dependent on the level of self certification, which EASA allows Airbus. As this pustule of a scandal more and more pops out it turns out that Boeing essentially rubber stamped its own certificates. I'm not sure about the level Airbus is allowed to do that.

EASA tended to certify on the same day as the FAA. FAA tended to certify a month or two after FAA. Now EASA no longer trusts FAA like FAA didn't quite trust EASA.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#15

Post by nolok »

It’s important to understand that the main threat to both agency from this issue is very different.

The threat to the FAA is external, they risk losing their worldwide stamp “if we validate it then the rest of the world do”. That means the long term damage they risk is much bigger, but the short term and political one is non existent, they just need to convince everyone that nothing happened and they’re back at their game. For the FAA either nothing change or they lose some standing and power, there is no path where they come out better than before.

The EASA complaints are internal, each country and the remnants of their own agency blaming them for accepting the plane validation from the FAA when it’s clear they shouldn’t have. Short term they look stupid, but either they go back to the old position like nothing happened, or they make themselves more powerful and independent compared to the FAA on such issue, possibly getting other countries outside EU/USA to listen to them as much if not more than to the FAA.

Up until now the word of the FAA may as well have been the word of god in that field, they risk losing it, and the EASA is in a good place to get a good piece of it.

So the FAA needs to downplay it as much as possible, and the EASA needs to instead make it into as much of a big deal as possible. Of course the EASA is very much helped by the fact that it was indeed a totally avoidable yet complete failure and disaster that, from a regulatory perspective, can be entirely pinned down on the FAA.

All they need to do is point at the fact unaltered, and say “the only way we can stop that from happening again is if you agree to give us authority to check all the plane ourselves without automatically accepting the FAA approval”.

I just hope it will give us better oversight, Boeing, Airbus, newcomers from China etc ... We can’t afford so many death for such stupid reasons. The max fiasco is really an insult to the entire industry, and I’m sure many “older” people in Boeing feel ashamed of how far their company has fallen.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#17

Post by rurounijones »

xxpor wrote: post #7

Frankly, this is good IMO. It should also go in reverse. The FAA should have to independently certify Airbus/Embraer too.

You got downvoted heavily, I suspect, because you left out the reasoning behind your statement.

Do you think it should be the other way around in tit-for-tat political reasons? Or because "Many eyes makes all bugs shallow" or some other reason?

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#18

Post by nolok »

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #2

I think this isn't just a test of Boeing, it's a test of the FAA. If the EASA finds issues that the FAA didn't (either because they were missed, or not brought up), that'll hurt the FAA's reputation even more.

If the EASA finds real major issue that the FAA didn’t find then the FAA being the world validation office for Boeing planes is over.

But I don’t think this will happen, the FAA seem to have realized how angry the rest of the world agencies are. 350 dead because they screwed up, and their first reaction was to say it was the dead pilots fault...

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#19

Post by Nokinside »

nolok wrote: post #15

It’s important to understand that the main threat to both agency from this issue is very different. The threat to the FAA is external, they risk losing their worldwide stamp “if we validate it then the rest of the world do”. That means the long term damage they risk is much bigger, but the short term and political one is non existent, they just need to convince everyone that nothing happened and they’re back at their…

Trump attempted to nominate his personal pilot to run FAA. When it did not go trough, FAA was run by acting director until this July.

Trump government seems to sell influence in government organizations to companies they are supposed to oversee, so I don't know if Stephen Dickson is step for better or worse.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#20

Post by nolok »

Nokinside wrote: post #19
nolok wrote: post #15

It’s important to understand that the main threat to both agency from this issue is very different. The threat to the FAA is external, they risk losing their worldwide stamp “if we validate it then the rest of the world do”. That means the long term damage they risk is much bigger, but the short term and political one is non existent, they just need to convince everyone that nothing happened and they’re back at their…

Trump attempted to nominate his personal pilot to run FAA. When it did not go trough, FAA was run by acting director until this July. Trump government seems to sell influence in government organizations to companies they are supposed to oversee, so I don't know if Stephen Dickson is step for better or worse.

When the FAA asked for a software fix after they decided there was an issue after the first crash they came to an agreement with Boeing for a January deadline. Boeing didn’t deliver, the FAA didn’t do anything. In March the second crash happened. This alone is horrible to think about.
Post reply on HN