9 ms·

The FAA has their hands full investigating problems _after_ they become problems. Are airplanes in a race to the bottom or is there an opportunity to inject qua

The FAA has their hands full investigating problems _after_ they become problems. Are airplanes in a race to the bottom or is there an opportunity to inject quality and reliability into this industry?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> FAA has their hands full investigating problems _after_ they become problems The FAA is constantly auditing, certifying and testing airmen, airplanes and plants. They have their hands full. But it's totally incorrect to say they're an ex post facto investigations agency.
- dsr_ 2y ago
  Right, that's the NTSB.
- nucleardog 2y ago
  > The FAA is constantly auditing, certifying and testing airmen, airplanes and plants. Are they? Much of the work that would be done to inspect and certify the planes being manufactured was outsourced to the manufacturers to increase efficiency. They build their planes, inspect their planes, inspect and approve modifications and major repairs to their planes, and issue their own airworthiness certificates for their planes. For a long while, the FAA was barely even involved in rubber stamping whoever Boeing et al appointed as FAA inspectors at their plants, never mind inspecting and certifying the planes themselves—in 2016 the Transportation Department said more than 85% of the tasks associated with certification were delegated from the FAA to the manufacturer’s own inspectors. By 2018, the FAA said that Boeing was handling 96% of the certification process. There were some reforms around 2021 (737 MAX crashes were 2018 and 2019), but they were mostly focused on improving the self inspection program, not solving the fundamental problem of having companies certify their own work. > But it's totally incorrect to say they're an ex post facto investigations agency. While the inspections and certifications have been delegated by the FAA and _technically_ are still done in the name of the FAA, the reality certainly looks much more like the FAA proper is only involved _after_ significant safety issues. I really don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as you make it out to be.
  - 1jbdg 2y ago
    Seems like there is a lot of criticism of the FAA while ignoring real time cuts to their budget. Looking at 2005 they had 14bn, 22.5bn in today’s money. Last years budget was 18.5bn. I am sure there is waste and opportunities for improvement but… that ignores the significant increase in flights, new planes etc. that has ballooned much faster than the crude time value of money calc above. Criticising them for doing less with, umm, less seems a bit rich. Especially as others (not necessarily you in this comment) then use that a reason for more cuts to agencies.
    - brookst 2y ago
      We should separate two propositions: 1) whether or not the operations of the agency are too weighted toward ex post facto investigations and therefore, and 2) whether or not the people involved are competent and doing they best they can It’s perfectly possible that the FAA has correctly optimized for the constraints they are under and the FAA is not sufficiently effective at delivering its charter.
      - p_l 2y ago
        The outsourcing of some routine operations to manufacturers was a presidential mandate during Bush Jr. administration, to make aviation business more "agile" or something /s
    - nucleardog 2y ago
      > Seems like there is a lot of criticism of the FAA while ignoring real time cuts to their budget. Certainly wasn’t my intention! I don’t _think_ I said anything in there that was assigning blame to the FAA, merely pointing out that in practice they are no longer actively preventing issues. I know their overall budget has been decreased and there are sources implying that’s the cause of the failures, but I couldn’t (on my phone, to be fair) find any good source comparing the portion of their budget that went to these programs specifically over time. So I chose to stick to what I could source and mostly let people draw their own conclusions. For instance, while I have Thoughts(TM) I left it to the reader to take a wild fuckin’ guess which political party controlled the presidency, house, and senate in the years we decided outsourced the regulatory role of the FAA to those they regulate.
- bitcharmer 2y ago
  Are you talking about the same FAA that allowed Boeing people to certify themselves?
- ironmagma 2y ago
  There is a concept of a “moral minimum” where having a regulation might produce worse work than if the regulation didn’t exist, because companies will frequently work up to the minimum required by law and no more.
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    This strikes me as an extremely weak argument for removing regulation. Like yea that's a nice thought if you already believe in efficacy of private organizations, but on the other hand trust in any organization goes out the window the second a profit motivation is introduced.
    - ironmagma 2y ago
      I’m not proposing deregulation. But it is possible to have bad regulations that don’t produce the desired outcome. Basically, you can’t just regulate by specifying every little detail. An analogy could be drawn to overfitting a system.
    - inemesitaffia 2y ago
      Sesame Seeds
chaostheory 2y ago
The airlines moved maintenance overseas a few years ago, which make it harder for the FAA to inspect. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-disturbing-truth https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> FAA has their hands full investigating problems _after_ they become problems The FAA is constantly auditing, certifying and testing airmen, airplanes and plants. They have their hands full. But it's totally incorrect to say they're an ex post facto investigations agency.

dsr_ 2y ago
Right, that's the NTSB.
nucleardog 2y ago
> The FAA is constantly auditing, certifying and testing airmen, airplanes and plants. Are they? Much of the work that would be done to inspect and certify the planes being manufactured was outsourced to the manufacturers to increase efficiency. They build their planes, inspect their planes, inspect and approve modifications and major repairs to their planes, and issue their own airworthiness certificates for their planes. For a long while, the FAA was barely even involved in rubber stamping whoever Boeing et al appointed as FAA inspectors at their plants, never mind inspecting and certifying the planes themselves—in 2016 the Transportation Department said more than 85% of the tasks associated with certification were delegated from the FAA to the manufacturer’s own inspectors. By 2018, the FAA said that Boeing was handling 96% of the certification process. There were some reforms around 2021 (737 MAX crashes were 2018 and 2019), but they were mostly focused on improving the self inspection program, not solving the fundamental problem of having companies certify their own work. > But it's totally incorrect to say they're an ex post facto investigations agency. While the inspections and certifications have been delegated by the FAA and _technically_ are still done in the name of the FAA, the reality certainly looks much more like the FAA proper is only involved _after_ significant safety issues. I really don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as you make it out to be.
- 1jbdg 2y ago
  Seems like there is a lot of criticism of the FAA while ignoring real time cuts to their budget. Looking at 2005 they had 14bn, 22.5bn in today’s money. Last years budget was 18.5bn. I am sure there is waste and opportunities for improvement but… that ignores the significant increase in flights, new planes etc. that has ballooned much faster than the crude time value of money calc above. Criticising them for doing less with, umm, less seems a bit rich. Especially as others (not necessarily you in this comment) then use that a reason for more cuts to agencies.
  - brookst 2y ago
    We should separate two propositions: 1) whether or not the operations of the agency are too weighted toward ex post facto investigations and therefore, and 2) whether or not the people involved are competent and doing they best they can It’s perfectly possible that the FAA has correctly optimized for the constraints they are under and the FAA is not sufficiently effective at delivering its charter.
    - p_l 2y ago
      The outsourcing of some routine operations to manufacturers was a presidential mandate during Bush Jr. administration, to make aviation business more "agile" or something /s
  - nucleardog 2y ago
    > Seems like there is a lot of criticism of the FAA while ignoring real time cuts to their budget. Certainly wasn’t my intention! I don’t _think_ I said anything in there that was assigning blame to the FAA, merely pointing out that in practice they are no longer actively preventing issues. I know their overall budget has been decreased and there are sources implying that’s the cause of the failures, but I couldn’t (on my phone, to be fair) find any good source comparing the portion of their budget that went to these programs specifically over time. So I chose to stick to what I could source and mostly let people draw their own conclusions. For instance, while I have Thoughts(TM) I left it to the reader to take a wild fuckin’ guess which political party controlled the presidency, house, and senate in the years we decided outsourced the regulatory role of the FAA to those they regulate.
bitcharmer 2y ago
Are you talking about the same FAA that allowed Boeing people to certify themselves?
ironmagma 2y ago
There is a concept of a “moral minimum” where having a regulation might produce worse work than if the regulation didn’t exist, because companies will frequently work up to the minimum required by law and no more.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  This strikes me as an extremely weak argument for removing regulation. Like yea that's a nice thought if you already believe in efficacy of private organizations, but on the other hand trust in any organization goes out the window the second a profit motivation is introduced.
  - ironmagma 2y ago
    I’m not proposing deregulation. But it is possible to have bad regulations that don’t produce the desired outcome. Basically, you can’t just regulate by specifying every little detail. An analogy could be drawn to overfitting a system.
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    Sesame Seeds

chaostheory 2y ago

The airlines moved maintenance overseas a few years ago, which make it harder for the FAA to inspect. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-disturbing-truth https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance...