FAA is granting Boeing “limited delegation” to certify airworthiness • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by rcxdude » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 7:48 AM UTC

jjav wrote: post #64

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…

> 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. You're correct in that the FAA can't (or at least, it would be wildly impractical) have a staff of in-house experts that equal or exceed the experience of the manufacturer engineers on every possible topic. But, that's…

>But, that's not necessary to enforce a process of quality. It can be done by enforcing that the company must establish and document the processes to ensure quality, including which experts need to sign off on what. Then the FAA needs to hold the engineers who sign off professionally responsible and their managment legally liable if any circumvention is discovered down the line.

Having seen how quality processes work, it's really not a substitute for competent oversight. You can have a crap design and get all the paperwork is completely 100% in order, in fact the paperwork then makes it a lot more time consuming and expensive to fix the design!

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

#82

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 7:50 AM UTC

tedggh wrote: post #80

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…

The MCAS system is probably not the best example here because it doesn’t take expert knowledge on MCAS to catch lack of redundancy and poor documentation in the design of a system so critical. This one of the reasons patterns, processes and standards exist. I did this for a living and consulted for many companies in processes my team had no domain experience with, still we were able to catch process gaps. MCAS IMO wa…

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by SlightlyLeftPad » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 7:59 AM UTC

randycupertino wrote: post #12

Moving their HQ from Chicago to Arlington, Virginia (next to Washington DC) to prioritize lobbying and access sounds like it helped! https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096961418/boeing-moving-head... > Boeing is a major defense contractor, and the move will put executives close to Pentagon leaders. According to the book Flying Blind: The 737 MAX Tragedy and the Fall of Boeing by Peter Robison the entire decline of Boein…

Ah, It’s not so easy to un-McDonnell this Douglas.

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

#84

Post by kakacik » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 8:02 AM UTC

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…

That's trivial to solve and you are attacking the problem from wrong direction. Simple answer is: long term punishment for bad behavior. Company, executives, and indirectly but intensively shareholders. Make it an example, and make it fucking loud example for everybody.

Anybody wanting a stable long term cash flows will align, and do their best to fix this. This is how banks were put in line after 2008, very effectively. No western bank knowingly circumvents new related regulations, punishments would be absolutely crushing and never worth the risk. Those people up there are not stupid, this is how calculus for criminals works.

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

#85

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 8:16 AM UTC

randycupertino wrote: post #12

Moving their HQ from Chicago to Arlington, Virginia (next to Washington DC) to prioritize lobbying and access sounds like it helped! https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096961418/boeing-moving-head... > Boeing is a major defense contractor, and the move will put executives close to Pentagon leaders. According to the book Flying Blind: The 737 MAX Tragedy and the Fall of Boeing by Peter Robison the entire decline of Boein…

Boeing is at the end stage of the feedback loop where regulatory failures lead to monopolies and vice versa.

The regulatory failures usually come first, either a failure of antitrust (they're allowed to buy up the competition) or a regulatory environment that itself puts the competition out of business. Then you have a consolidated market.

Monopolies are like cancer. They metastasize. If you didn't have regulations that keep upstart competitors out of the market before, the incumbents will welcome them if not actively lobby in favor of them. And then you're stuck with them. They're too big to fail. If you had 10 other domestic aircraft companies and one of them was screwing up, they'd not only have to contend with customers going somewhere else, the government could actually punish them. Whereas if there's only one, what are you going to do? Bankrupt the only domestic supplier? And they know it.

The only way out of it is to restore competition. But the longer you wait, the harder it gets to fix it.

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

#86

Post by burnt-resistor » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 9:15 AM UTC

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…

The problem that needs to be addressed is the proper expansion and funding of the FAA, not sacrificing safety for the expediency of corporate concerns. This is a solvable problem but instead regulatory capture actively thwarts it. The future will see more MCAS scenarios and more crashes because the process favors and shows deference to $$$ rather than to regulators.

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

#87

Post by burnt-resistor » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 9:21 AM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #62

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…

> This isn't unique to just aviation btw but most industries Most of us work in tech. Imagine an auditor coming in and trying to sort out if one of the most complex systems at your company is "safe." What's safe? Every previously known failure mode and every new one you're going to be blamed for when it happens.

That's what an (effective) audit is, conducted by technically-competent auditors. These do exist, and while some of their checklists include some bullshit, not all of it is bullshit when there are qualitative reviews of exceptions and of the soundness of processes.

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

#88

Post by burnt-resistor » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 9:26 AM UTC

greesil wrote: post #41

Enshittification's final and hitherto unproclaimed stage: 1. Build product people like 2. Build competitive moat 3. Extract maximum value by raising prices or spending less. 4. When the value proposition becomes negative for the end user, then legislate your business' continued profits and existence.

5. Fail spectacularly.

6. Get acquired by private equity through an LBO.

7. Become even worse.

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

#89

Post by chmod775 » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 9:54 AM UTC

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…

The FAA has a budget of USD ~23,000m. Surely you can fit in some experts there.

EASA fills a similar role on a budget a 100 times smaller (in USD it's ~300m), paying for ~800 personnel.

The main difference is that EASA doesn't handle ATC, but it shows that the aspect of the FTC's duties we are talking about here really can't be that expensive.

If you'd 10x the budget of the FAA, it would have the same budget as the entire EU or 4x Airbus/Boeing's revenue. That's ridiculous.

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

#90

Post by niffydroid » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 9:56 AM UTC

jjav wrote: post #64

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…

> 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. You're correct in that the FAA can't (or at least, it would be wildly impractical) have a staff of in-house experts that equal or exceed the experience of the manufacturer engineers on every possible topic. But, that's…

^ this. My father is an aerospace engineer. He has worked for many companies and in various positions, director/head of engineering/certification across various sectors. He now works for the regulator as an auditor and specialises in the sectors he has worked in and often with companies he's worked for. There is a huge amount of integrity involved for the profession and I've never heard of any cases where this has been questioned. At the end of the day, there are rules and processes to follow, don't follow them and it's quite simple you loose the power to verify your own work, no business wants this and it's much easier to work with the regulator and conform to the rules. Also if the regulator determines there is an issue or fault then they can ground the affected aircraft, in a number of cases the airlines/manufacturer even have clauses with these companies that are the along the lines of "if your product grounds us, you will pay us x amount per day" The regulator will also specify how much cost to rectify work will be so the company will lose money, that's why it's easier to just follow the rules!

I should add that the regulator will be to the letter. I was told a case where the company followed the test form a spec from standard x, but standard x was superseded twice. The latest spec and standard x, the testing was exactly the same but because the company had done the testing against x and not the latest they had to redo all the work. Regulator would not shift or give dispensation on passing it.