41–50 of 367 posts
Still unsure if the recent door issue was a matter of sloppy assembly (which inspection should find) or sloppy specifications/equipment (which inspection would reinforce, possibly making things worse).
What other industry is allowed to inspect itself? It completely ruins the point of an inspection. It's like being the judge and jury in your own trial. I'm amazed this is a thing in the first place.
Stockbroking, cinema, accountancy, law, life insurance, financial planning, nuclear power, real estate, medicine, advertising, media...[0][1] Self-regulation (especially at the industry level rather than delegating to individual companies) doesn't seem completely broken. Actually it can work quite well. You keep some oversight, and reserve the right for the state regulator to step in if the SRO goes bad. The people w…
It's similar to how income taxes work. You self-report all the figures, and then they are sampled and spot-checked and occasionally audited. The possibility of being caught by an audit, then prods people to generally submit truthful reports, because of the risk of penalties.
And then, if that incentive ceases to work, the self-report/self-regulate status gets revoked.
What other industry is allowed to inspect itself? It completely ruins the point of an inspection. It's like being the judge and jury in your own trial. I'm amazed this is a thing in the first place.
Mostly the government doesn't want to get involved in checking if bolts are tightened, they want to make sure that the company has a process to check that the bolts are tightened and is following it. It would be extraordinarily expensive and inefficient for government inspectors to do all this work themselves.
Finally, after a couple of plane crashes, fantastic investigative journalism, and a door blowing off mid flight (thankfully that was caught on video and shared). Too little, too late. We should regulate the regulators, bc I don't trust them either.
The plane crashes had nothing to do with inspection. You could've inspected a 737max down to every single bolt back in 2017 and not have prevented the crashes that happened after that.
Boeing has both have Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs) who are involved in design certification questions for airframe type certificates and quality inspectors who are involved in certifying individual already-built airframes for airworthiness (conformance to type certification and in condition for safe operation).
The former are usually not called inspectors, but many of the comments here are covering topics that are the domain of DERs rather than inspectors/A&P w/IA.
What’s there to consider even - political connections?
Does the faa have enough qualified staff and budget to review boeings planes? Does anyone other than Boeing have them, since noone else does it? Legitimate question. Would you poach a bunch of engineers from the airlines/military?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the faa have enough qualified staff and budget to review boeings planes? Does anyone other than Boeing have them, since noone else does it? Legitimate question. Would you poach a bunch of engineers from the airlines/military?
hire airbus to inspect boeing, and hire boeing to inspect airbus?
What other industry is allowed to inspect itself? It completely ruins the point of an inspection. It's like being the judge and jury in your own trial. I'm amazed this is a thing in the first place.
Stockbroking, cinema, accountancy, law, life insurance, financial planning, nuclear power, real estate, medicine, advertising, media...[0][1] Self-regulation (especially at the industry level rather than delegating to individual companies) doesn't seem completely broken. Actually it can work quite well. You keep some oversight, and reserve the right for the state regulator to step in if the SRO goes bad. The people w…
Maybe, maybe not. But I do know that I don't have much faith when companies "regulate" themselves. There's just too much conflict of interest there. A third party doing it is, on its face, more trustworthy.