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

#361

Post by bryanlarsen » Sat, Jan 13, 2024, 11:41 PM UTC

burnerthrow008 wrote: post #76

bryanlarsen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of industries self-inspect with regulatory oversight. For example, the SpaceX Starship mishap investigation that required 63 corrective actions from SpaceX before they were allowed to fly Starship again was done by SpaceX with FAA oversight. It seems that the oversight was effective; I highly doubt that SpaceX would have imposed 63 corrective actions on itself without effective oversight. It's hard to see how i…

> I highly doubt that SpaceX would have imposed 63 corrective actions on itself without effective oversight. Eh, I don't know if I agree with that. Most of the actions were very straightforward "stuff we need to fix to make the rocket do what we want it to do and not do what we don't want it to do". Like, one of the actions was "make the launch pad not explode when the engines turn on". That was the root cause of the…

Makes sense, they likely would have performed all of those mitigations. But would they have listed 63 in a public document? That resulted in some pretty bad headlines.

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

#362

Post by gottorf » Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 12:54 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #250

gottorf wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Modern China has already reached the end of their system, a scant 50 years after Mao Zedong. Off topic, but are you implying that Mao was 'good people'? It seems that for the Communist 'dynasty', it fell apart immediately - that is, it never got anywhere. I'm not sure the Communist dynasty is any worse than the Qing or Ming or others before it, at least in that respect.

> are you implying that Mao was 'good people'?

No; Mao was a dictator, and the country suffered so much under him that there was an informal agreement between the leaders of the country after him that power should be distributed among multiple people (the Politburo), and that no one person acting as the paramount leader should be in power for over 10 years.

That system lasted for roughly 50 years, with Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping at the helm. The last of whom, of course, decided he didn't want to be bound by that pesky 10 year thing anymore. So there was a short streak of "good people", which is over.

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

#363

Post by game_the0ry » Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 4:27 PM UTC

shermantanktop wrote: post #146

game_the0ry wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finance. As proven by the 2008-2010 Great Financial Crisis, self regulation does not work well.

...in all cases. You've got a great counterexample, but it doesn't invalidate the successful use of self-regulation in other areas.

> ...the successful use of self-regulation in other areas.

Where has self-regulation been successful?

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

#364

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:38 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.

that assumes one side doesn't win, which is why we're having problems now.

That's literally what "too big to fail" means, it means they've won.

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

#365

Post by JohnFen » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 4:19 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #294

JohnFen wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Free markets subvert toxic heirarchies and inefficient industries But a free market cannot exist in the absence of regulation, and regulation is a form of government.

> a free market cannot exist in the absence of regulation As you are using the term "regulation" (see below), this is false. A free market is in fact exactly what you do get in the absence of government regulation: all transactions are voluntary. Only governments can force people to engage in market transactions they don't want to engage in, or prevent them from engaging in market transactions they do want to engage…

> A free market is in fact exactly what you do get in the absence of government regulation

No, you don't. At least not for very long. In the absence of regulation, a free market will always devolve into monopoly as one player leverages their advantages to absorb more and more of the market. This effect snowballs -- the more successful a company is, the more easily they can monopolize ever larger parts.

And that's not even mentioning that in the absence of regulation, companies will engage in profitable activities that are very harmful for everyone. Environmental issues, externalizing business costs, etc.

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

#366

Post by xenadu02 » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 9:26 PM UTC

stevehawk wrote: post #283

xenadu02 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall if it is just by handshake agreement or in an actual treaty but the country where the manufacturer of a plane operates is the one designated authority over that manufacturer. FAA issues Airworthiness directives and sets rules Boeing has to follow. EASA largely defers to the FAA (not always but in almost everything). Similarly the FAA follows EASA when it comes to issues with Airbus. Both FAA and EASA r…

I believe that's only true for planes flying over/through other countries, and it is not universal. In order for a plane to be sold in EASA governed countries it has to be certified by the EASA. So in effect, the 737 is getting certified twice. In general aviation there's this common misconception that the Cirrus SR line can't recover from a stall, which is because the FAA drops spin recovery testing if you ship with…

That's true. Aircraft that do not cross borders are only subject to the home country's laws.

FWIW I'm very glad in the US we still allow experimental and home-built aircraft. That's how we got aircraft in the first place and many experimental planes (most?) are built from kits engineered to similar specs as certified aircraft, they just don't go through certification.

However EASA does not actually make Boeing go through a full from-scratch certification again. For the most part EASA reviews the FAA's certification and does not actually put the 737 through a from-scratch certification. This is part of the various "Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements".

For certain hard requirements (as you noted) there may be disagreement on the rules and the manufacturer may be required to do additional certification with FAA or EASA for the differences but again it is not usually a from-scratch process - it only covers the differences. Technically other countries have similar processes and their own agreements but FAA (being the origin country of powered flight and home to the most aircraft manufacturers) and EASA (home to Airbus and also highly involved since the early days of powered flight... the Wright brothers toured France with their flier to much fanfare, disproving a lot of skeptics in the process) are the leaders and everyone else mostly just follows them rather than inventing their own rules and certifications.

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

#367

Post by nerpderp82 » Mon, Jan 22, 2024, 8:13 PM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #358

nerpderp82 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they have autonomy. By having the regulators embedded, they can continually tell them how to improve. The regulation isn't to punish, but to conform and exceed to the specifications.

Who are the “they”s in this example? The more I read this comment the less I understand it. Can you try again?

We are only talking about organizations that are participating in self regulation.

Those that self-regulation have a greater duty to be truthful and in good faith, attempt to remain in compliance. If they cheat, not only should they lose the right to self regulate, but they should face stiffer penalties for breaking that trust.