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

FAA is granting Boeing “limited delegation” to certify airworthiness

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: FAA is granting Boeing “limited delegation” to certify airworthiness

#51

Post by conception »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #20
cyphar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a little funny to make this comment under an article about a contraversial decision made by a government agency. Believe it or not, government agencies tend to have some overlap with politics.

People are really reaching. Bad governance didn't spring into existence the moment Trump stepped into the oval office. It's really very silly and doesn't lend itself to productive discourse. You end up oversimplifying problems for one thing or expanding them to such an immense size by linking it to every other political issue it basically negates the usefulness of any direct discussion on the topic. We may as well ju…

Who is in charge of the government departments changes how the government functions massively. There is a tremendous difference in support and effort depending on who has been appointed to run an agency. Just as one example, there is a difference between a nuclear physicist as the secretary of energy and a governor who has a lot of oil in his state. Certainly there are issues with the American government but this is yet again silly both sidesing something where clearly there is “not great” vs “purposeful appointments to actively ruin institutions “.

Re: FAA is granting Boeing “limited delegation” to certify airworthiness

#52

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

user_7832 wrote: post #47

If you're wondering - hey, that sounds terrible, why doesn't the FAA do anything about it? Answer, because it practically can't without maybe a 10x or more budget boost that's practically impossible. Why? Copying from another comment I made on this thread: (Caution, my thoughts are a bit rambly and scattered. It's been a while since I studied this in detail for a class where I had deep divided into the max 8 crash an…

how long ago did this self-certifying practice start?

how much smaller was Boeing (and the whole aviation industry) back then?

Re: FAA is granting Boeing “limited delegation” to certify airworthiness

#53

Post by conception »

sipofwater wrote: post #2

"United will replace planes at Guam hub, upgrade lobby; same-day connections from Saipan to Hawaii starts Dec. 1": https://www.guampdn.com/news/united-will-replace-planes-at-g... (www.guampdn.com/news/united-will-replace-planes-at-guam-hub-upgrade-lobby-same-day-connections-from-saipan-to/article_ab170120-872b-4c31-81de-83ea44357bce.html); https://archive.is/S47A0

Wow they didn’t even change the name? Impressive.

Re: FAA is granting Boeing “limited delegation” to certify airworthiness

#54

Post by carabiner »

tjr wrote: post #34

This article seems a bit light on details, but a little more at the FAA website: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-boeing-airworthin... https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_... It is typical for aerospace companies to have in-house "FAA delegates" who function in the stead of direct FAA reviewers, and it looks like all that is going on here is the FAA is allowing Boeing to go back to u…

Airbus has them too. So does Cessna, Bombardier, Dassault, and so on.

Re: FAA is granting Boeing “limited delegation” to certify airworthiness

#56

Post by hooskerdu »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #52
user_7832 wrote: post #47

If you're wondering - hey, that sounds terrible, why doesn't the FAA do anything about it? Answer, because it practically can't without maybe a 10x or more budget boost that's practically impossible. Why? Copying from another comment I made on this thread: (Caution, my thoughts are a bit rambly and scattered. It's been a while since I studied this in detail for a class where I had deep divided into the max 8 crash an…

how long ago did this self-certifying practice start? how much smaller was Boeing (and the whole aviation industry) back then?

Unit membership for manufacturing started with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, but I’m not sure how involved or hands-off it was at the time.

Re: FAA is granting Boeing “limited delegation” to certify airworthiness

#57

Post by eastbound »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #55

Do people trust the FAA on this matter though?

I don’t. It seems Europe didn’t either, because it grounded the Boeing planes before FAA did, and FAA followed just to keep face.

I guess the FAA can do all they want, let’s see how the UE validates it now.

Re: FAA is granting Boeing “limited delegation” to certify airworthiness

#59

Post by nine_zeros »

eastbound wrote: post #58
nine_zeros wrote: post #5

Return on the trump bribe (ahem, investment)

[flagged]

Looks like you are just a racist trying to pin things on black people.

Mr. Racist, here's a little fact check from chatGPT. You are still blaming people for their skin color - have some shame.

1. No "2013 airframe scandal" like that exists.

Boeing has had multiple controversies (e.g. outsourcing of 787 Dreamliner parts, later the 737 MAX crisis), but none that match this story.

In the 2000s and early 2010s, Boeing did face production quality problems with the 787 Dreamliner because large parts of the aircraft were outsourced globally, and some suppliers had issues meeting specifications. But this was not tied to race or prison labor in the way described.

2. No evidence of a race-based relocation of factories.

Boeing has moved or opened facilities (e.g. in South Carolina) for business, tax, and labor reasons. There is no credible reporting that this was to "give jobs to Black people" or to people leaving prison.

The claim sounds like a distortion of real events: Boeing did use suppliers in different regions, including some that hired less-skilled labor, but this was a cost and logistics decision.

3. About the “manual etching defects.”

Real reports do exist about manufacturing defects: gaps, shimming issues, and mis-drilled holes have been found in some Boeing fuselages, particularly in the 787. These were documented by whistleblowers and investigations.

But they were not due to "manual etching by ex-prisoners"; they came from industrial quality-control failures and supplier/manufacturer mismanagement.

4. Decision to “keep defective parts.”

There have indeed been allegations that Boeing sometimes tolerated defects to keep production on schedule. This is a legitimate criticism, but again, it has nothing to do with the story in the text you shared about racial hiring or prisons.

Post reply on HN