US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes • Hacker News Board

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#131

Post by TylerE » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:25 PM UTC

wanderingmind wrote: post #101

As an aside, For all those who talk about corruption and getting money out of politics I suggest reading Federalist 10 by Madison. Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another.

While the Federalist Papers are great works, I don't agree with taking them as enlightened guidance from on high. They were theorizing. No one of them really knew how a modern democracy/republic would actually work in practice.

Remember, the authors of the constitution (large overlap) stated on the record that they expected they got a lot of it wrong, and expected large swathes of it to be amended and replaced once actual experience was obtained.

Yes, for those on one side of the spectrum the ruling orthodoxy is textual originalism. The founders themselves would have told the modern Supreme Court that it's bonkers.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#132

Post by TylerE » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:27 PM UTC

gottorf wrote: post #103

wanderingmind wrote: post #101

As an aside, For all those who talk about corruption and getting money out of politics I suggest reading Federalist 10 by Madison. Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another.

> Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another. Absolutely! Any form of government that depends on an unbroken line of "good people" in power will fail, and fail much sooner than anybody thinks. Modern China has already reached the end of their…

> And government should only have as much power as you think the worst possible people in charge should have

The problem is the worst people NOT IN GOVERNMENT already have more power than that, and can thus easily crush such a government and turn it into a de facto oligarchy.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#133

Post by hash872 » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:27 PM UTC

wanderingmind wrote: post #101

As an aside, For all those who talk about corruption and getting money out of politics I suggest reading Federalist 10 by Madison. Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another.

>The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another

Completely American myopic POV. Stable, healthy democracies that are unicameral parliamentary systems include Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Portugal, and Sweden. (Most of those countries don't have strong judicial review either. Or federalism). That's without even getting into bicameral countries where the upper house is actually a lot weaker/just for show.

You don't have to separate the executive & the head of state, and you don't need to have checks & balances- that's propaganda for presidential systems. In fact I'd say the opposite is true- it's the countries with the checks & balances (by having a separately elected legislature and president) that are much more unstable and prone to autocracy. See Juan Linz on the Perils of Presidentialism

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#134

Post by blibble » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:29 PM UTC

hangonhn wrote: post #123

blibble wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. > The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances this is a very US centric view constitutional monarchies seem to work as well, if not better by the various democracy/stability indicies > Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. the near term survival of the current US system certainly looks far from c…

Aren't most modern constitutional monarchies just a veneer over a republican democracy anyways? The monarch wields no real power -- even if on paper they may still retain a great deal. The US system is notoriously bad to get working and really seems to only work for the US. Anywhere else we have tried it has ended with some kind of failure. However, it's reasonable to call the parliamentary systems like the UK republ…

> Aren't most modern constitutional monarchies just a veneer over a republican democracy anyways?

it's the other way round, by the time of the rebellion absolute monarchy was long gone, the things the colonists didn't like were being passed by parliament

the US then gave its presidency more power than George III would have dreamed of

(in practice the presidency also seems to be prone to dynasties)

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#135

Post by MilStdJunkie » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:29 PM UTC

cromka wrote: post #105

Can someone explain why the focus is on FAA, while there's also EASA and others? Do they also allow Boeing to self-inspect and self-evaluate themselves like FAA does? Can FAA and Boeing be really the only ones to blame here? If Boeing was in bed with FAA that much and they were dropping the ball on safety, shouldn't EASA's own process take note of that and extra-scrutinize Boeing planes during certification for Europ…

EASA generally respects FAA activities unless something's extraordinarily fuggity fuggity boop. The reverse is also true, so you can get EASA auditors in a US plant. . but woo boy, there is no way to express the sheer panic we would all feel when we learned our pet FAA DER was going to be replaced by some steely-eyed Aryan bastard from EASA with his micrometers and tiny little notebooks. Those guys did not screw around. Speaking anecdotally, of course.

I suspect that the EASA/EUROCAE guys were often "accidentally" brought in when FAA was getting sick of us trying to slip stuff by them. Sort of like, "Try that Consumables trick with me again, and I'm sending Hans"

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#136

Post by mardifoufs » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:29 PM UTC

dogman144 wrote: post #56

mardifoufs wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

737 crash was software and training quality. I think if you included those i. a mission critical systems inspection, under which software on planes is about as important as the bolts and metal, then you’d find preventions. Or, just talk on ex-BA SWE and learn about it from them.

I don't disagree that the 737 crashes involved tons of systemic issues at boeing. I just don't think that federal inspections would've helped. There's almost no way a federal inspection system would be more effective than even the lacking software inspection Boeing had.

You could get the systems to comply perfectly well with standards and certifications, like the 737max did, but still have issues. I don't think the 737max didn't meet federal standards or requirements (which a hypothetical federal inspector would have to apply and check for). the issue was more so that they weren't enough in those specific situations.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#137

Post by fakedang » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:31 PM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #74

beambot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prominent examples of "Self Regulating Organizations": The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), The Financial Planning Association (FPA), Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), Options Clearing Corporation (OCC), American Institute of Certified Public Accounts (AICPA) https://www.investopedia.…

By organization he clearly meant single for-profit corporation. While the language was imprecise, he surely wasn’t referring to these types of entities.

NYSE is a for profit entity owned by Intercontinental Exchange. They also own Euronext. And they're regulated by the Sec, but carry out their own regulation efforts too. The parallel isn't that far off.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#138

Post by fakedang » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:32 PM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #74

beambot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prominent examples of "Self Regulating Organizations": The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), The Financial Planning Association (FPA), Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), Options Clearing Corporation (OCC), American Institute of Certified Public Accounts (AICPA) https://www.investopedia.…

By organization he clearly meant single for-profit corporation. While the language was imprecise, he surely wasn’t referring to these types of entities.

NYSE is a for profit entity owned by Intercontinental Exchange. They also own Euronext. And they're regulated by the SEC, but carry out their own regulation efforts too. The parallel isn't that far off.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#139

Post by iteria » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:34 PM UTC

hash872 wrote: post #133

wanderingmind wrote: post #101

As an aside, For all those who talk about corruption and getting money out of politics I suggest reading Federalist 10 by Madison. Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another.

>The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another Completely American myopic POV. Stable, healthy democracies that are unicameral parliamentary systems include Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Portugal, and Sweden. (Most of those countries don't have strong judicial review e…

Look at all those nations you listed that are very homogeneous. I want a nation with significant culture tradition differences listed that is like that. American exceptionalist is mostly BS but we do have some ways that we are very unique as a nation and that is how many different kinds of major cultures we have hanging out in US. People handwave the US as all the same but that is very much not the case. Even for as good as American indoctrination is, nothing is gonna change that living in Montana is nothing like living in Florida. What rural urban even means in both states is so different. And we've been this heterogeneous.

I'm willing to accept your premise, but I want an example where there isn't one overwhelmingly dominant culture. I'll accept 2 equally dominant cultures.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#140

Post by rootusrootus » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:34 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #124

blibble wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. > The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances this is a very US centric view constitutional monarchies seem to work as well, if not better by the various democracy/stability indicies > Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. the near term survival of the current US system certainly looks far from c…

It turned out the US system depended more on human virtuousness than many of us realized. Personally I've been kinda shocked to find out how much was just based on norms and traditions with no enforcement at all.

I agree. But on the other hand, it has survived a pretty steady onslaught so far, with a significant plurality of the elected representatives trying to subvert it. There's hope yet.