EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban • Hacker News Board

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#91

Post by rconti » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 3:26 PM UTC

jayess wrote: post #76

cadence- wrote: post #27

Americans have been dismantling and weakening their regulatory bodies for quite a while now. The idea is that this will unshackle big corporations and allow them to innovate faster. This sounds like a great idea, until you realize that this “innovation” is most often about increasing profits. And the quality of the product is often sacrificed to increase profits. Just look at what is happening to telecommunication se…

> Just look at what is happening to telecommunication services, with big corporations growing their profits while Americans get stuck with slow and expensive service that becomes relatively worse comparing to other western countries. I get 1 gig internet service for $80 a month in a mid-sized American city in the midwest. No complaints here. The offerings just keep getting better and cheaper.

Not only is it EXTREMELY rare to get 1 gig internet anywhere in the US (I just got it in Silicon Valley, 3 months ago) (btw, hopefully this is symmetric FTTH), but that price is extremely far from impressive in the places that get similar speeds.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#92

Post by jquery » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #32

tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misunderstanding I see repeated a lot. The idea isn't unshackling big corporations, it's about unshackling small to medium sized businesses and entrepreneurs. Big corps actually love regulations for the barriers to entry they create, and most of them already have a whole host of regulatory compliance teams armed and ready to dissect the next big regulation that comes. > Americans get stuck with slow…

So, on the high end, the US is fine, and thus is does fairly well on mean speeds (top 10 on some metrics). However, if your internet in the US is bad, it's often really, _really_ bad. In areas without competition, providers still sometimes use ADSL1! (Max 8 down, In general, the tendency in most European countries has been to force wholesaling and/or LLU, and set minimum standards for both; this has generally at leas…

How is American internet when taking into account its rural-bias and sheer size? My understanding is it's reasonably good, all things considered (not that it couldn't be improved, especially in dense metros). I remember seeing an apples-to-apples comparison chart a while ago, but I can't find it. I understand we're 9th in the world on average in 2017[1], which I believe is not a bad place to be considering our density. For comparison, the highly dense city-state of Singapore has a non-mobile average broadband rate about double ours. Our speed also rose 40% that year so we may have moved up the rankings.

[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2017/08/14/speedte...

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#93

Post by jdavis703 » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

pjkundert wrote: post #80

tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misunderstanding I see repeated a lot. The idea isn't unshackling big corporations, it's about unshackling small to medium sized businesses and entrepreneurs. Big corps actually love regulations for the barriers to entry they create, and most of them already have a whole host of regulatory compliance teams armed and ready to dissect the next big regulation that comes. > Americans get stuck with slow…

It astonishes me that so few HNers have (evidently) tried to start businesses. The staggering regulatory, tax and accounting burden that small business are groaning under is incomprehensible , unless you've experienced it. I'm a Canadian, in a super-simple business (no payroll, no significant hardward stock) and we are forced to spend double-digit percentages of our gross income just to stay "compliant" with regulati…

I'm an HNer who has started and sold my own businesses, I have family who have founded & operated businesses in highly regulated areas, and I'm an investor in startups. I have also been audited by the IRS (the US tax service). One wrong step does not mean you're toast. It means you need to admit and fix your mistake and make sure it doesn't happen again.

I'm sure agencies such as the FAA or DOE might be more of a PITA to deal with. But that's because they're regulating functions that are literally life and death.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#94

Post by Retric » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 4:51 PM UTC

throwaway5752 wrote: post #88

Retric wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EASA rubber stamping the FAA’s rubber stamping of Boeing is still EASA making a mistake just as much as it’s the FAA’s mistake. This has become a major public issue, bet the problems started when the aircraft entered service.

It's nowhere near as big of a mistake on the EASA's part. You don't understand how international regulatory and standards bodies interact with each other. There are explicit agreements between the EASA and FAA in order to reduce duplicated work ( https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88965 ) This is extremely bad. It it will be bad for any US regulated product used in EU markets like food, medical devices and equi…

These agreements don’t require EASA to accept everything FAA does.

From your link: each entity performs a “validation” of certification activities.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#95

Post by StreamBright » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #53

StreamBright wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you slightly confuse regulations and enforcement.

Effective regulatio n requires effective enforcement of regulation s .

Exactly, I think there is nothing wrong with the legislation but many things wrong with the enforcement.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/faa-knew-another-boeing-737-max...

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#96

Post by magduf » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #86

magduf wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In places like Romania, you can get internet service for a fraction of that price.

I was curious how that compared with prices of other goods/services so I found this: https://checkinprice.com/cost-of-living-in-bucharest-romania... Monthly public transport ticket 14.55 USD 1 ticket to the movies (adult price) 5.70 USD High speed internet per month 9.50 USD 1 month gym subscription 41.30 USD Assuming that's accurate, other stuff is cheaper than US cities but not by nearly as much as internet service…

Yep, this is exactly my point. A lot of stuff in various European cities isn't cheaper, or not that much cheaper, than internet service, so internet service in America is comparatively overpriced.

Of course, everything else in America is overpriced too, and you're not actually getting a better overall experience for that money. If it were an extremely safe, clean, and well-managed country, then it'd make sense for the cost-of-living to be high, but it isn't: gun violence is an epidemic, environmental regulations are being gutted, and the political leadership is utterly incompetent. And don't get me started on what an utter disaster the healthcare system is.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#97

Post by yarrel » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

jayess wrote: post #76

cadence- wrote: post #27

Americans have been dismantling and weakening their regulatory bodies for quite a while now. The idea is that this will unshackle big corporations and allow them to innovate faster. This sounds like a great idea, until you realize that this “innovation” is most often about increasing profits. And the quality of the product is often sacrificed to increase profits. Just look at what is happening to telecommunication se…

> Just look at what is happening to telecommunication services, with big corporations growing their profits while Americans get stuck with slow and expensive service that becomes relatively worse comparing to other western countries. I get 1 gig internet service for $80 a month in a mid-sized American city in the midwest. No complaints here. The offerings just keep getting better and cheaper.

That's expensive compared to elsewhere in the world.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#98

Post by throwaway5752 » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #94

throwaway5752 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nowhere near as big of a mistake on the EASA's part. You don't understand how international regulatory and standards bodies interact with each other. There are explicit agreements between the EASA and FAA in order to reduce duplicated work ( https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88965 ) This is extremely bad. It it will be bad for any US regulated product used in EU markets like food, medical devices and equi…

These agreements don’t require EASA to accept everything FAA does. From your link: each entity performs a “validation” of certification activities.

Do you know what validation means in that context? Not to be glib, but "validation" and "verification" and "certification" are not common language in those contexts and have fairly precise meanings. It does not mean they will perform the test again, and in practice probably means they will review the activities in the certification with the assumption that "qualified persons" planned and conducted it. Essentially, an agreement that the FAA was competent and trustworthy with minimal checks to ensure that was the case. That has actually been historically very reasonable and sensible, and this is a rebuke to the FAA from the EASA. It will raise costs and time for US airframes to get to EU markets, which essentially means globally.

edit: not precisely my area of expertise, so corrections welcomed

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#99

Post by tialaramex » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

vinay427 wrote: post #56

nolok wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well when they made that decision every country in the top 10 by air traffic volume had banned the plane except for the USA and Japan (who basically does what the FAA says on such issues), and the FAA and Boeing were still saying it was pilot error and basically blaming the dead people. I don’t see how any self respecting country could have trusted them with the black box in those conditions

> basically blaming the dead people This is strange wording to me. There's nothing inherently wrong with blaming "dead people" for something, because many accidents caused by user error result in death of the user. However, in this situation, it certainly seems rather hasty and inappropriate.

Well first of all blaming people is the wrong thing for an accident investigation to be doing anyway.

The purpose of accident investigation is not to fuel Americans' apparently insatiable appetite for revenge, you already have plenty of means for that, the purpose is the Prevention of Future Harm. Why Future Harm? Because we don't have time travel.

You clearly won't prevent any future harm by blaming anybody, whether alive or dead. To prevent future harm you will need to change what is done or how.

Almost invariably‡ the Right Thing™ will be some mix of procedural changes and engineering changes. For example ensuring that the right staff are empowered to stop something that's a bad idea being done even if senior management are short-sighted enough to demand it.

So the result is never "Bob is to blame because Bob did X" but rather e.g. "Bob did X. The Foozle should be modified to prevent doing X" or "Bob did X. Company policy did not say that doing X was forbidden. Change policy to forbid X".

‡ I've written about this before on HN. The one investigation report I've seen that did _not_ have any actionable recommendations was into an accident where two people died when their fishing boat sank. The cause? They'd taken so much heroin they couldn't operate the boat safely. Why no recommendation? Using heroin is already illegal. Using any intoxicating substance while in charge of a boat is already illegal. This was already obviously a terrible idea.

Re: EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban

#100

Post by yourapostasy » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

I wonder how much Boeing's strategy to reduce regulatory oversight as much as possible is going to cost Boeing shareholders going forward.

Share price may have benefited for a few decades, but Boeing's image will be tarred with this for quite a few decades with far higher certification costs worldwide in numerous jurisdictions. There are many potential jurisdictions [1] looking out for their own interests, and may choose to defensively force a certification on Boeing instead of trusting the FAA.

That will cost Boeing a lot of money. If the 737 line is continued at all, every single 737 variant that comes out after this will have a really steep hill of sales objections to climb, and they'll be handing out steeper discounts and lower profits to counter those objections. It may turn out that accepting an adversarial relationship with the FAA instead of lobbying to co-opt it was the optimal profit strategy in the long-term.

If it pans out this way, then the optimal profit strategy is to encourage the most stringent regulatory regime in the corporation's home country that all others hold up as the gold standard and follow without question. This avoids the multiple costs individual certification efforts rack up because no one can trust each others' certification results because they all recognize they're too weakened by industrial lobbying efforts.

A strong, quasi-centralized regulatory body then acts as the company's buffer to buy the benefit of the doubt, an insurance policy against a prolonged period when the company's culture is called into question.

[1] http://www.dgca.nic.in/Global_Links.pdf