philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 4, 2020 17:17:00 GMT 1
The point seems to be, that the FAA as a whole does not agree with Boeing, senior managers do. Everybody his doing his job. Rank-and-file engineers point to what would in their opinion be best. Any engineering work however requires trade-offs, and that's what managment is paid for. I think after the MAX debacle the FAA is unlikely to agree on corner-cutting.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Feb 4, 2020 17:34:03 GMT 1
The point seems to be, that the FAA as a whole does not agree with Boeing, senior managers do. Everybody his doing his job. Rank-and-file engineers point to what would in their opinion be best. Any engineering work however requires trade-offs, and that's what managment is paid for. I think after the MAX debacle the FAA is unlikely to agree on corner-cutting. The trade off between not costing Boeing to much money or not having frames dropping out of the sky? Those trade offs is exactly what brought us to this point. Management at the FAA should perhaps not overrule their own safety experts.
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Feb 4, 2020 18:02:45 GMT 1
Wrt the 737s being parked on employee car parking space, two Qs arise:
- where are the employees parking?!
- surely the foundations for car parks aren't built to take the weight of even an empty 737 even if distributed on 6 wheels?
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 4, 2020 19:07:35 GMT 1
The trade off between not costing Boeing to much money or not having frames dropping out of the sky? Those trade offs is exactly what brought us to this point. Management at the FAA should perhaps not overrule their own safety experts. Such trade-offs happen all the time in all development projects in all industries. As an engineer, you should be aware of that. In this particular case, we don't know exactly what are the issues and the respective positions, yet you take side. Are you suggesting that the FAA management should remain passive instead of doing its job ? Or do you mean that a rank-and-file engineer is always right, whatever he says, while a manager is evil ? Or is it that Boeing is always wrong, whatever the issue ?
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Feb 4, 2020 20:59:59 GMT 1
Philidor - the MAIN questions are....
We do know that the FAA "crew" did not done their work well - that is plain fact and was proven many times during this calamity without ANY DOUBT.
So once more - the main question: is the crew replaced or do they suddenly behave as they should ? Why would suddenly the original crew behave well ? Are we sure about it ? Do we trust them that their sins from 3-5 years back are forgotten - forgiven ? Do we believe that it is so easy to repair such a deep corruption and especially when the managers are the ones saying it is fine - they did exactly that in the situation which brought us to the state we are in !
I do believe that we are here on EXTREMELY thin ice !
I would be MUCH more careful with trust in those people.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Feb 4, 2020 23:37:32 GMT 1
The trade off between not costing Boeing to much money or not having frames dropping out of the sky? Those trade offs is exactly what brought us to this point. Management at the FAA should perhaps not overrule their own safety experts. Such trade-offs happen all the time in all development projects in all industries. As an engineer, you should be aware of that. In this particular case, we don't know exactly what are the issues and the respective positions, yet you take side. Are you suggesting that the FAA management should remain passive instead of doing its job ? Or do you mean that a rank-and-file engineer is always right, whatever he says, while a manager is evil ? Or is it that Boeing is always wrong, whatever the issue ? I know that trade off happens. But a political appointee or a MBA warrior, overruling the safety engineers goes very far. A manager deciding to overrule the experts, on what grounds? How is that doing his job? His job is to insure the safety of in the USA produced frames, not to insure that Boeing operates with minimal cost. In this case we know that EASA has safety concerns and according to the news the safety experts of the FAA agree.
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Feb 5, 2020 0:23:40 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 5, 2020 0:42:09 GMT 1
S543, I know that the FAA now has to overcome mistrust. Yet, I guess that after the turmoil they went through they are now prone to excessive caution, rather than to underestimation of risks.
Another factor is that for several security agencies to agree on a common list of demands, the list must include practically all items on all lists.
Nevertheless, there is no way all potential issues can be addressed.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Feb 5, 2020 8:40:59 GMT 1
S543, I know that the FAA now has to overcome mistrust. Yet, I guess that after the turmoil they went through they are now prone to excessive caution, rather than to underestimation of risks. Another factor is that for several security agencies to agree on a common list of demands, the list must include practically all items on all lists. Nevertheless, there is no way all potential issues can be addressed. FAA managers disagreeing with EASA and their own experts over safety matters does not inspire confidence. It seems that FAA managers fall into old ways again. You seem to imply that answering the safety concerns of EASA would be unreasonable. It is not, or should not be, the main concern of the FAA to look out for the bottom line of Boeing. The 737 has wast number of exemptions to safety rules, rather unreasonable.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Feb 5, 2020 20:53:26 GMT 1
Yet, I guess that after the turmoil they went through they are now prone to excessive caution, rather than to underestimation of risks. And my guess is that this is way too optimistic view at FAA - here I seems to be in complete agreement with mjoelnir
|
|