Jump to content

Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max crashes killing 157


Nueces River Rat

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Oh there’s pretty recent proof of their being tampered with to achieve someone’s aims as well.

No one is trying to set the expectations that their will be a 0 error rate as that is unreasonable. The recent tragedy has proven that the industry cannot self-regulate even though it may be in its own best long term interest.  The reason being is that the level of risk a company is willing to take for profit is likely higher than what the general public believes it should be. That risk vs cost should be a public discussion which it can’t be if a company / industry self-regulates.  If regulated by a government entity, the debate can happen through policy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that policy can be affected by...the entities being regulated. That’s the point. I’m not postulating that the industry be unregulated. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of demonizing a company for failure to police itself when the government entity in charge of that handed the reigns to said company. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

And that policy can be affected by...the entities being regulated. That’s the point. I’m not postulating that the industry be unregulated. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of demonizing a company for failure to police itself when the government entity in charge of that handed the reigns to said company. 

You are missing the understanding that the entities responsible for regulating have been neutered based on the justification that self regulation is more effective. We have shown by the recent tragedies that self regulate does not work so you need to fund gov entities to do their mandate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

And that policy can be affected by...the entities being regulated. That’s the point. I’m not postulating that the industry be unregulated. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of demonizing a company for failure to police itself when the government entity in charge of that handed the reigns to said company. 

Can we demonize the company for forcing the government entity to hand over the reigns? Your logic is terrible. It is like saying the robber is blameless because the victim willing handled his wallet over at gunpoint. I feel perfectly comfortable demonizing the company for the full compendium of its action. And it deserves it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Can we demonize the company for forcing the government entity to hand over the reigns? Your logic is terrible. It is like saying the robber is blameless because the victim willing handled his wallet over at gunpoint. I feel perfectly comfortable demonizing the company for the full compendium of its action. And it deserves it. 

Some of you really can’t grasp the concept of “Why not both?”.  

Here’s real life boys and girls. Regulating agencies aren’t some panacea of infallible individuals above outside influences. Buh, buh, but Boeing lobbied to influence and weaken the FAA’s oversight ability through money whipped lawmakers.  Oh. I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that was unique to the aviation industry. The fact that you admit that it was successful destroys the point that regulating is the end all. The FAA abdicated their responsibility. You’re not even denying it. 

Oh, but they had their budget cut. You realize that they’re sitting on about a $16B slush fund?  You probably didn’t.  Hmmm, maintain our responsibility for oversight or protect our rainy day fund?  Tough choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tucker said:

You are missing the understanding that the entities responsible for regulating have been neutered based on the justification that self regulation is more effective. We have shown by the recent tragedies that self regulate does not work so you need to fund gov entities to do their mandate. 

No. I’m not missing any understanding. Complete self regulation is also a disaster. But you’re very argument shows that a regulating agency isn’t a perfect answer. Now, if you want to argue that lobbyists shouldn’t be allowed to effect funding and policy then we can have a reasoned discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regulatory agencies aren't the only answer. From the last article however, it appears Boeing misled the FAA about the system changes, and downplayed their importance.  

At the end of the day this was a monetary/ bottom line decision, plain and simple.  As aviation design history is one of mistakes, followed by fixes, hopefully this one will be a strong lesson learned by Boeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is right, if we shift to the captured paradigm described by Bucky Fuller as LAWCAP, the acronym for Lawyer Capitalism.

Critical Path (1981) introduced the concept of a version of capitalism where there is no fundamental difference between The Corporations and The Government.  This is much bigger than Regulatory Capture.

In essence, if we view "The Government" (including the FAA) as fundamentally indistinct from Boeing, then everyone is correct.

I highly recommend Critical Path and the follow-up Grunch of Giants (1983) published weeks before Fuller died.

A dash of synchronicity for this thread: Fuller's self-chosen nickname is on a marker next to his gravestone: "CALL ME TRIMTAB".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

And that policy can be affected by...the entities being regulated. That’s the point. I’m not postulating that the industry be unregulated. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of demonizing a company for failure to police itself when the government entity in charge of that handed the reigns to said company. 

It's super interesting how you first spread blame to the pilots who were killed by boeing's malfeasance, and now you also point the finger at the FAA more vociferously than you do at boeing. You're blaming the victims of boeing's profiteering and regulatory capture, rather than blaming the entity doing all the bad shit in the first place. That's why people are shitting on you.

If you didn't deflect every criticism of boeing into an attack on something else, people would probably be more likely to think that you aren't defending boeing.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Some of you really can’t grasp the concept of “Why not both?” 

Uh, because you said both wasn't an option? You literally said it would be "absurd" to demonize the company for its failure. That is insane to me.  The rest of your post is non-sequitur. No one is arguing that regulating agencies are perfect or infallible. No one is arguing that they aren't subject to regulatory capture. We are all saying quite the opposite: they aren't perfect, are vulnerable, and in this very instance that vulnerability was taken advantage of by Boeing to detriment of hundreds of peoples lives. For some unintelligible reason you think we shouldn't harp on Boeing for its actions. For some unintelligible reason you seem to think that everyone else deserves more blame than Boeing for.... wait for it... falling for Boeing's bullshit. I mean, fuck, if you think about it, it is really the fault of the passengers for getting on the planes without double checking Boeing's design decisions. Why criticize Boeing when the passengers couldn't be bothered to do any due diligence?

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

It's super interesting how you first spread blame to the pilots who were killed by boeing's malfeasance, and now you also point the finger at the FAA more vociferously than you do at boeing. You're blaming the victims of boeing's profiteering and regulatory capture, rather than blaming the entity doing all the bad shit in the first place. That's why people are shitting on you.

If you didn't deflect every criticism of boeing into an attack on something else, people would probably be more likely to think that you aren't defending boeing.

You have the reading comprehension and retention of your namesake. Point to any post in this thread where I even hinted that Boeing wasn’t culpable. I can point to post after post where I say they f’d up royally. As did the FAA. And the purchasing airlines. And the pilots. I even posted that I discussed the piloting failures in depth because that is my area of expertise. 

The whole thing that kicked this off was the dumbass comment about the failure of self regulation, when the regulating body completely failed in its responsibility too. As in also. Tambien.

Boeing’s failure is a given. I can then discuss the other failures in the accident chain without having to revisit their misdeeds in every post. Figure it the F out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Uh, because you said both wasn't an option? You literally said it would be "absurd" to demonize the company for its failure. That is insane to me.  The rest of your post is non-sequitur. No one is arguing that regulating agencies are perfect or infallible. No one is arguing that they aren't subject to regulatory capture. We are all saying quite the opposite: they aren't perfect, are vulnerable, and in this very instance that vulnerability was taken advantage of by Boeing to detriment of hundreds of peoples lives. For some unintelligible reason you think we shouldn't harp on Boeing for its actions. For some unintelligible reason you seem to think that everyone else deserves more blame than Boeing for.... wait for it... falling for Boeing's bullshit. I mean, fuck, if you think about it, it is really the fault of the passengers for getting on the planes without double checking Boeing's design decisions. Why criticize Boeing when the passengers couldn't be bothered to do any due diligence?

No. You literally can’t connect both parts of the statement. It is absurd to demonize the company for self regulating when the agency charged with that process didn’t do their job either. 

Why. Not. Both. 

It’s not a defense of Boeing. Christ you fuckers can’t read. It is a statement about the stupidity of bashing self regulation when the regulating body failed to do its job by granting....self regulation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

It is a statement about the stupidity of bashing self regulation when the regulating body failed to do its job by granting....self regulation. 

But you obtusely skip over the impetus behind that.  The regulatory agency didn't hand off its job because it was lazy, because it didn't feel like asking for funding, etc.  It did so because that's EXACTLY what Boeing wanted to happen, and EXACTLY what Boeing worked very, very, very hard to make happen (I mean, sure, maybe Boeing wrote all those campaign contribution checks to members of Congress because Boeing really feels strongly about our national park system).  The FAA is controlled by the executive and by Congress (funding).  The executive and Congress were controlled/directed by Boeing.  Thus, the FAA did exactly what BOEING wanted it to do -- hand over regulation to Boeing.

We're bashing self-regulation because that was a goal that Boeing had, Boeing worked towards that goal, and Boeing achieved it.  Boeing controls the FAA, not the other way around.  That's the whole damned point.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

No. You literally can’t connect both parts of the statement. It is absurd to demonize the company for self regulating when the agency charged with that process didn’t do their job either. 

Why. Not. Both. 

It’s not a defense of Boeing. Christ you fuckers can’t read. It is a statement about the stupidity of bashing self regulation when the regulating body failed to do its job by granting....self regulation. 

I agree that your previous statements indicated you weren't defending Boeing (deflecting is up to interpretation). But, logically speaking, here is how your statement maps out:

* If regulator didn't do its job ---> absurd to demonize company

* regulator didn't do its job

Therefore: absurd to demonize company (as in, at all).

What I think you meant to say is that "it is absurd to demonize the company if you don't also blame the regulator."  With that statement, the conclusion isn't that it is absurd to demonize the company. Rather, the conclusion is that you have to also blame the regulator in order to demonize the company. Regulatory blame would be a necessary condition of a demonizing the company as opposed to an exculpatory factor. 

I disagree with the modified premise, but at least it is a fair bit more rational than what you originally offered.  But see Brisket's post above: Boeing intentionally caused the regulatory neglect. I can blame Boeing for pointing a gun at the regulator without having to blame the regulator for handing over its wallet.  

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partly. The FAA has neither the staffing nor expertise to provide the kind of oversight many of you think it should or does. Most part 121 airlines have advanced qualification programs that have been blessed by the Feds, but beyond that there's not much involvement by the g men. My FAA observation ride when I checked out as a captain at Continental was observed by a Continental check airman as the FAAs designee. I'd have been waiting for months for an FAA guy to show up to do the ride otherwise. Very common in this industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

But you obtusely skip over the impetus behind that.  The regulatory agency didn't hand off its job because it was lazy, because it didn't feel like asking for funding, etc.  It did so because that's EXACTLY what Boeing wanted to happen, and EXACTLY what Boeing worked very, very, very hard to make happen (I mean, sure, maybe Boeing wrote all those campaign contribution checks to members of Congress because Boeing really feels strongly about our national park system).  The FAA is controlled by the executive and by Congress (funding).  The executive and Congress were controlled/directed by Boeing.  Thus, the FAA did exactly what BOEING wanted it to do -- hand over regulation to Boeing.

We're bashing self-regulation because that was a goal that Boeing had, Boeing worked towards that goal, and Boeing achieved it.  Boeing controls the FAA, not the other way around.  That's the whole damned point.

Here’s the extensive list of industries not seeking to ease their regulatory burden through lobbying and political influence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get the picture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Here’s the extensive list of industries not seeking to ease their regulatory burden through lobbying and political influence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get the picture?

See, this is an excellent example that could lead one to believe that you're arguing that since everyone does "it", that makes "it" ok or justifiable, and therefore, not worth worrying about. It's very "both sides" of you, because it's diluting the culpability by a single entity to some vague collective problem 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Captainant said:

See, this is an excellent example that could lead one to believe that you're arguing that since everyone does "it", that makes "it" ok or justifiable, and therefore, not worth worrying about. It's very "both sides" of you, because it's diluting the culpability by a single entity to some vague collective problem 

You can believe that Boeing royally f’d up while not being overly irate that they successfully effected the regulation process, because every company out there worth naming is in fact doing the same thing.  

Is it right to be able to lobby to do that? It’s another discussion worth having. 

The FAA is in fact sitting on a $16B slush fund of cash. All their own.  So being too cash strapped to have inspectors actually certify airplanes is kinda a BS response even with a reduced budget. They made a calculated choice to not tap into that money on the somewhat defensible assumption that Boeing would do good work. 

Its not “both sides” of me. It’s having an inkling of perspective on the situation.

i would suspect that an in-depth comparison of deaths due to Ford F-150 defects this year and Ford’s efforts to effect their regulating body would be equally as scandalous. But they’re losing people in onesies and twosies instead of 180 here and there even though their total numbers are likely higher. Granted, that’s all somewhat hypothetical, but you’re not losing your mind over it. 

Daysoff is correct in that the FAA often passes off their duties to other entities. A fed observed me giving a line check at my last job, and then conveyed check authority on me in place of an inspector. Standard procedure. But certifying airplanes seems a tad more important, and likely to kill a lot of people. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I agree that your previous statements indicated you weren't defending Boeing (deflecting is up to interpretation). But, logically speaking, here is how your statement maps out:

* If regulator didn't do its job ---> absurd to demonize company

* regulator didn't do its job

Therefore: absurd to demonize company (as in, at all).

What I think you meant to say is that "it is absurd to demonize the company if you don't also blame the regulator."  With that statement, the conclusion isn't that it is absurd to demonize the company. Rather, the conclusion is that you have to also blame the regulator in order to demonize the company. Regulatory blame would be a necessary condition of a demonizing the company as opposed to an exculpatory factor. 

I disagree with the modified premise, but at least it is a fair bit more rational than what you originally offered.  But see Brisket's post above: Boeing intentionally caused the regulatory neglect. I can blame Boeing for pointing a gun at the regulator without having to blame the regulator for handing over its wallet.  

Even though the regulator in fact has a metric ton of cash in reserve?  Even though aircraft certification is likely a more important facet of his job than taxiway repair in Fumbuck, MS?  And if you’re going to point the finger at Boeing for lobbying to ease regulation then you better line up every company worth naming to get in line for their attempts to do the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Even though the regulator in fact has a metric ton of cash in reserve?  Even though aircraft certification is likely a more important facet of his job than taxiway repair in Fumbuck, MS?  And if you’re going to point the finger at Boeing for lobbying to ease regulation then you better line up every company worth naming to get in line for their attempts to do the same. 

Again, what the fuck does any of that have to do with Boeing's conduct in this instance? I dont give a shit that regulators of other industries are subject to capture, or that other manufacturers (Airbus? Who are we talking about here that matters for this industry) may have done something similar to Boeing. Fuck them too, but they didnt completely botch the duty they convinced congress and presidential administrations to force the FAA to abdicate. I dont even care if you blame the FAA as well. I am just saying it isn't logically required to find fault with the FAA in order to call out Boeing for its bullshit. I am just saying that I see no need to deflect from Boeing's malfeasance by saying "but everyone else did it". Seriously, even children know that argument is bullshit. Why dont you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm taking exception with is just accepting that boeing, an aircraft manufacturer, isn't designing planes that are well-engineered. And that when flaws were found by their engineers, boeing decided to do nothing and tell nobody about it. I don't know about you, but that sort of violates the fucking social contract of common good and brings everything that they do into question. And instead of correcting that cancer in OUR LARGEST FUCKING AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER, you'd rather talk about systemic issues and how the "good guys" just aren't good at their jobs. Nevermind that maybe the people building the planes shouldn't be so fraudulent when convincing the public to give them a shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, what the fuck does any of that have to do with Boeing's conduct in this instance? I dont give a shit that regulators of other industries are subject to capture, or that other manufacturers (Airbus? Who are we talking about here that matters for this industry) may have done something similar to Boeing. Fuck them too, but they didnt completely botch the duty they convinced congress and presidential administrations to force the FAA to abdicate. I dont even care if you blame the FAA as well. I am just saying it isn't logically required to find fault with the FAA in order to call out Boeing for its bullshit. I am just saying that I see no need to deflect from Boeing's malfeasance by saying "but everyone else did it". Seriously, even children know that argument is bullshit. Why dont you?

Because I’m not deflecting from Boeing’s malfeasance. 

It can be both. They can be culpable for their huge failings in this whole sh**show, and I can not be overly pissed that they lobbied to get the FAA to abdicate their regularly authority because I know damn well that Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer are doing it too. 

And do you think that there’s now some pretty serious FAA eyeballs on the certification processes at all manufacturers these days?  Pretty safe bet. Because the FAA knows it f’d up too. Which goes back to lessons learned in blood which I mentioned near the beginning of the thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

What I'm taking exception with is just accepting that boeing, an aircraft manufacturer, isn't designing planes that are well-engineered. And that when flaws were found by their engineers, boeing decided to do nothing and tell nobody about it. I don't know about you, but that sort of violates the fucking social contract of common good and brings everything that they do into question. And instead of correcting that cancer in OUR LARGEST FUCKING AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER, you'd rather talk about systemic issues and how the "good guys" just aren't good at their jobs. Nevermind that maybe the people building the planes shouldn't be so fraudulent when convincing the public to give them a shot.

Still figuring out that people aren’t inherently good then?

See, we can point to Boeing’s absolute failure in this whole mess while acknowledging that the FAA should never have given up certification authority in the manner in which they did. Yes, they did have the money whether Boeing’s fairy god senators restricted their budget or not. Yes, we can blame the purchasing airlines for buying single sourced safety systems and using very inexperienced crewmembers. And yes we can blame the crewmembers for their failures too. 

 But first you have to actually come to terms with the fact that accidents have chains and not single smoking guns. And it’s something you refuse to do. 

Edited by Bobby_Batronic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, Bobby’s “other industries try to do the same thing” is a classic example of the “tu quoque” logical fallacy.

Not only does the fact that other industries try to get similarly lax regulatory oversight NOT exculpate Boeing, for fuck’s sake, the outcome of Boeing’s efforts stands as a perfect cautionary tale/example of why the approach of regulatory capture is really bad fucking news.

Regulatory capture is bad, and can result in bad things. We should not be in favor of it. See, eg, Boeing and the 737 Max.

That’s how logic works.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Because I’m not deflecting from Boeing’s malfeasance. 

It can be both. They can be culpable for their huge failings in this whole sh**show, and I can not be overly pissed that they lobbied to get the FAA to abdicate their regularly authority because I know damn well that Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer are doing it too. 

And do you think that there’s now some pretty serious FAA eyeballs on the certification processes at all manufacturers these days?  Pretty safe bet. Because the FAA knows it f’d up too. Which goes back to lessons learned in blood which I mentioned near the beginning of the thread. 

Why does not being pissed at Boeing for lobbying follow from the fact that other manufacturers lobbied too? Shouldn't the result be that you're pissed at Boeing AND the other manufacturers? You know, like you keep saying, why cant it be both? We dont forgive a murderer because other people have committed murder too. That is completely nonsensical. 

Honestly, I've decided you're just a terrible communicator. I dont think you realize the logical implication of many of your previous statements. Because if you did, you couldn't say with a straight face that you haven't been deflecting blame from Boeing. 

 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

It’s not a defense of Boeing. It is a statement about the stupidity of bashing self regulation when the regulating body failed to do its job by granting....self regulation. 

BB, one of the tenets of the concept of regulatory capture is that regulating bodies become co-opted, and by definition, lose their autonomy.   The FAA could not, by definition (of regulatory capture) have the agency to grant self-regulation.  Because they are/were captured.  Ipso facto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why does not being pissed at Boeing for lobbying follow from the fact that other manufacturers lobbied too? Shouldn't the result be that you're pissed at Boeing AND the other manufacturers? You know, like you keep saying, why cant it be both? We dont forgive a murderer because other people have committed murder too. That is completely nonsensical. 

Honestly, I've decided you're just a terrible communicator. I dont think you realize the logical implication of many of your previous statements. Because if you did, you couldn't say with a straight face that you haven't been deflecting blame from Boeing. 

 

No, you’re just making terrible assumptions. How much emotional angst are you spending each day on industries and interests of all sorts bending the ears of politicians to influence regulating bodies?  I’m gonna guess near zero. 

Do I like it?  No, as clearly I’ve indicated several times on this thread.  But you pick your places.  

I bet I could quote 20-30 instances where I said Boeing f’d up and is guilty in this thread. Maybe more. And yet I’m some how deflecting blame from Boeing when I correctly detail the failing of the pilots, note that the foreign carriers bought single sourced safety systems when US carriers did not while using low time crewmembers, or that the FAA gave up their responsibility for oversight.  Every link in the chain failed.  I don’t know why that’s hard to comprehend.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

To be clear, Bobby’s “other industries try to do the same thing” is a classic example of the “tu quoque” logical fallacy.

Not only does the fact that other industries try to get similarly lax regulatory oversight NOT exculpate Boeing, for fuck’s sake, the outcome of Boeing’s efforts stands as a perfect cautionary tale/example of why the approach of regulatory capture is really bad fucking news.

Regulatory capture is bad, and can result in bad things. We should not be in favor of it. See, eg, Boeing and the 737 Max.

That’s how logic works.

No one is in favor of it. But I’m not going to throw more shade at them for doing what is done by every other manufacturer and industry of relevance. They would deserve even greater shame if this weren’t absolutely business as usual in Washington. Understanding that a bad practice is normal isn’t excusing it. That’s the fallacy. You don’t have to like something just because you acknowledge that something wrong is an everyday occurrence. 

Someone probably killed someone today by exceeding the speed limit.  Actually that probably happens every day.  Probably multiple times every day.  Did that stop you from driving 3-5 over the limit in that zone where the cops won’t pull you over?  Speeding leading to deaths is bad right? Breaking the law is wrong isn’t it? And yet you continued to get away with what you thought you safely could, and didn’t bat an eye when you did it.  

Again, you want to have a discussion about ending lobbying interests and influence in Washington then you find me staunchly for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

BB, one of the tenets of the concept of regulatory capture is that regulating bodies become co-opted, and by definition, lose their autonomy.   The FAA could not, by definition (of regulatory capture) have the agency to grant self-regulation.  Because they are/were captured.  Ipso facto.

Well then, every regulatory agency must be co opted, because you can’t tell me that there’s not interests being pressed each and every day by those who are being regulated. And somehow regulations get written and oversight is generally accomplished. The bottom line is that the FAA has the money, but lacked the will to do its job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Well then, every regulatory agency must be co opted, because you can’t tell me that there’s not interests being pressed each and every day by those who are being regulated. And somehow regulations get written and oversight is generally accomplished. The bottom line is that the FAA has the money, but lacked the will to do its job

But again, you'd rather focus on how the FAA didn't check boeing's work enough. Rather than the fact that boeing is intentionally doing sub-par work. And you're arguing that it's the FAA's job to ensure that boeing is doing good work, which in a sense it is, but I'm sure you'd also howl about over-regulation if they actually did their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Someone probably killed someone today by exceeding the speed limit.  Actually that probably happens every day.  Probably multiple times every day.  Did that stop you from driving 3-5 over the limit in that zone where the cops won’t pull you over?  Speeding leading to deaths is bad right? Breaking the law is wrong isn’t it? And yet you continued to get away with what you thought you safely could, and didn’t bat an eye when you did it.  

And when driver X doing 50 in a school zone runs over a kid.....is it relevant at all that "other people speed?"  Is that going to even be an admissible piece of evidence in his defense?

That's the point.  So what if other people pursue regulatory capture?  So the fuck what?  That doesn't exculpate Boeing.  In fact, Boeing is now the textbook case for an entity that pushed regulatory capture too far, and it contributed to over 300 people dead.  IN FACT, I would bet that other industries are looking at Boeing and the FAA, and thinking "sure, we want regulatory capture, but we don't want to go as far as Boeing did." 

Degree and consequences matter.  I drive 5-9 mph over the speed limit on the highway.  But the dude doing 110 in a 55 just killed a family of 4.  His 110 mph driving ass has no credibility if , in his defense, he points to Brisket and says "he was going 63 mph!"

And "the FAA lacked the will to do its job." NO. FUCKING.  SHIT.  That's the ENTIRE POINT OF REGULATORY CAPTURE.  Kind of like how 16 year old Brisket would have "lacked the will to punish Brisket for breaking curfew" had I effectively taken over my parents' role as disciplinarians.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

But again, you'd rather focus on how the FAA didn't check boeing's work enough. Rather than the fact that boeing is intentionally doing sub-par work. And you're arguing that it's the FAA's job to ensure that boeing is doing good work, which in a sense it is, but I'm sure you'd also howl about over-regulation if they actually did their job.

This isn’t a discussion about whether regulation is good or bad. It’s a discussion about believing a regulating body will actually do a great job. They generally do OK. But completely dropped the ball here. 

And you have some kind of disconnect because you still can’t come to terms that one can believe Boeing acted terribly while acknowledging that massive failures occurred elsewhere. Put simply, you’re not mad enough that the FAA didn’t do its job, that purchasing airlines skimped on safety features or that the pilots failed in their roles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

And when driver X doing 50 in a school zone runs over a kid.....is it relevant at all that "other people speed?"  Is that going to even be an admissible piece of evidence in his defense?

That's the point.  So what if other people pursue regulatory capture?  So the fuck what?  That doesn't exculpate Boeing.  In fact, Boeing is now the textbook case for an entity that pushed regulatory capture too far, and it contributed to over 300 people dead.  IN FACT, I would bet that other industries are looking at Boeing and the FAA, and thinking "sure, we want regulatory capture, but we don't want to go as far as Boeing did." 

Degree and consequences matter.  I drive 5-9 mph over the speed limit on the highway.  But the dude doing 110 in a 55 just killed a family of 4.  His 110 mph driving ass has no credibility if , in his defense, he points to Brisket and says "he was going 63 mph!"

And "the FAA lacked the will to do its job." NO. FUCKING.  SHIT.  That's the ENTIRE POINT OF REGULATORY CAPTURE.  Kind of like how 16 year old Brisket would have "lacked the will to punish Brisket for breaking curfew" had I effectively taken over my parents' role as disciplinarians.

The problem with your taking over the role as disciplinarian is that the FAA lacked the will, because they lacked the will. You can’t say they didn’t have the money. I can point to the pile of cash they are sitting on. You can’t say that they didn’t know better. I don’t give a F what some politician pressured them to do. They damn well knew better. As your parents did. If they chose to be irresponsible lazy ass then that’s on them. 

And again, you literally cannot separate understanding that everyone is doing something from believing it’s ok. You, as you’ve admitted, won’t do 90 in a school zone. But you’ll likely do 25 in a 20. Boeing wasn’t doing 90 in a school zone either. That would indicate their acting grossly out of line with those around them. Nope. They’re doing the exact same thing with regard to influencing the regulatory process as everyone else. And not for a minute do I believe that other industries or competitors are looking at this situation and deciding not to emulate Boeing’s success. Completely the opposite. They wondering how they can effect their regulatory bodies just as effectively, and then maybe thinking about how to make better decisions once they’ve effected the process. Maybe. 

To continue the speeding example, Boeing wasn’t doing 90 in the school zone. They were doing 3-5 over the limit like everyone around them.  They were, with regard to their manufacturing and safety practices blitzed out of their minds while FaceTiming in three day old adult diapers. The judge and jury would likely hammer them for the latter, and not for keeping pace with the traffic around them with regard to speed (capture)

Youve already admitted that you don’t in fact have problems with doing something wrong, because you know everyone else is doing it too. You take that calculated risk to skirt the law everyday. Is it right to speed? Nope.  You know that. And yet you do it. I typically limit mine to 5 over knowing it’s what I can get away with.  I know that it’s wrong and that I’ll get away with it. That’s the point.  It’s not an excuse in a court of law, but no one around me on the road is pissed about my marginal speeding. Because they’re doing it too even though they also know it’s wrong. 

Thus, I’m not overly irate about Boeing’s attempts to effect their regulating body. Not being overly upset about it is different than excusing it. 

Edited by Bobby_Batronic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

This isn’t a discussion about whether regulation is good or bad. It’s a discussion about believing a regulating body will actually do a great job. They generally do OK. But completely dropped the ball here. 

And you have some kind of disconnect because you still can’t come to terms that one can believe Boeing acted terribly while acknowledging that massive failures occurred elsewhere. Put simply, you’re not mad enough that the FAA didn’t do its job, that purchasing airlines skimped on safety features or that the pilots failed in their roles. 

Part of that dropping the ball was being misled by Boeing regarding the system, and the changes made (monetary decisions). You can't remove that from the dropped the ball equation.  Should the FAA known the event of the design changes, and how it affected performance ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Well then, every regulatory agency must be co opted, because you can’t tell me that there’s not interests being pressed each and every day by those who are being regulated. And somehow regulations get written and oversight is generally accomplished. The bottom line is that the FAA has the money, but lacked the will to do its job. 

This association fallacy is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

""The FAA is captured, therefore all regulatory agencies are captured.""

 

BB, the FDA, NSA, EPA, none of them matter in this discussion.

How much money the FAA has doesn't matter.

 

Either you agree that the FAA is what you call "co-opted" and the rest of us define as "captured".

Or you don't.  If you don't, cool.  But there is one fact in this equation that can't be downed.

 

If the FAA is "co-opted"/"captured" then it is by definition not possible for the FAA to have the will to regulate.  It is not possible for the FAA to cede the power to regulate.  The FAA is "co-opted"/"captured".  The FAA no longer has agency.  How much money they have, what other agencies are doing, none of that is relevant.  None of it matters.

 

The reverse of this is that if you assert that the FAA _does_ retain the agency to regulate and enforce, then by definition the FAA is _not_ "co-opted"/"captured".

 

Because you insist that the FAA abdicated, you by definition insist they have agency, and therefore, by definition, your position is the FAA is NOT "co-opted"/"captured".

 

Everyone else in this thread believes the FAA _IS_ "co-opted"/"captured".

 

So at this point, I have to ask, do you have a personal, family connection to Boeing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The problem with your taking over the role as disciplinarian is that the FAA lacked the will, because they lacked the will. You can’t say they didn’t have the money. I can point to the pile of cash they are sitting on. You can’t say that they didn’t know better. I don’t give a F what some politician pressured them to do. They damn well knew better. As your parents did. If they chose to be irresponsible lazy ass then that’s on them. 

And again, you literally cannot separate understanding that everyone is doing something from believing it’s ok. You, as you’ve admitted, won’t do 90 in a school zone. But you’ll likely do 25 in a 20. Boeing wasn’t doing 90 in a school zone either. That would indicate their acting grossly out of line with those around them. Nope. They’re doing the exact same thing with regard to influencing the regulatory process as everyone else. And not for a minute do I believe that other industries or competitors are looking at this situation and deciding not to emulate Boeing’s success. Completely the opposite. They wondering how they can effect their regulatory bodies just as effectively, and then maybe thinking about how to make better decisions once they’ve effected the process. Maybe. 

To continue the speeding example, Boeing wasn’t doing 90 in the school zone. They were doing 3-5 over the limit like everyone around them.  They were, with regard to their manufacturing and safety practices blitzed out of their minds while FaceTiming in three day old adult diapers. The judge and jury would likely hammer them for the latter, and not for keeping pace with the traffic around them with regard to speed (capture)

Youve already admitted that you don’t in fact have problems with doing something wrong, because you know everyone else is doing it too. You take that calculated risk to skirt the law everyday. Is it right to speed? Nope.  You know that. And yet you do it. I typically limit mine to 5 over knowing it’s what I can get away with.  I know that it’s wrong and that I’ll get away with it. That’s the point.  It’s not an excuse in a court of law, but no one around me on the road is pissed about my marginal speeding. Because they’re doing it too even though they also know it’s wrong. 

Thus, I’m not overly irate about Boeing’s attempts to effect their regulating body. Not being overly upset about it is different than excusing it. 

(1) For reasons unknown to me, you keep insisting that everyone else doesn't understand that there were multiple points of failure. We do. We get it.

(2) The thing is, when assigning comparative responsibility, how and why the individual failures occurred matter. The pilots fucked up. Admitted. They didn't do so intentionally. They weren't aware that their actions were endangering the lives of themselves or the passengers. They made a mistake, either do to improper training or lack of experience. That happens, and when it does we call it negligence. The airlines didn't intentionally purchase aircraft missing critical safety features. Yes, they tried to save some money by not buying things that seemed to be luxuries, but not necessities. Had they known what Boeing intentionally hid from them, I'd assign a lot more blame here. As is, there was no reason for them to know how dangerous and vulnerable the MCAS system really was. The FAA, like everyone else, relied on the information from Boeing. Yes, I can put some blame here because they were lazy in double checking Boeing's work.

(3) But, I can also discount that blame on others because it is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the FAA was lazy. And it is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the FAA didn't have all the information it needed. It is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the pilots lacked information about their aircraft. It is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the airlines didn't understand the importance of the optional systems to aircraft safety. Boeing knew it was taking short cuts. Boeing knew short cuts in design and testing are dangerous. Boeing didn't care because it was losing money to Airbus. We focus on Boeing, not because we don't understand that multiple points of failure exist, but because Boeing's conduct was much more morally, ethically, and legally culpable than anyone else's. And Boeing's conduct was the instigating cause for the chain of events that led to hundreds of people losing their lives. 

(4) Your analogy on speeding is incomplete. You completely ignore the reason some instances of speeding are more morally culpable than others: the knowledge that your actions are endangering the lives of others. That knowledge is why going 25 in a 20 usually isn't such a big deal, but going 90 in a school zone is. It is entirely irrelevant whether "everyone else does it." If everyone went 90 in a school zone, it would still be dangerous and morally culpable conduct.

(5) I absolutely believe that industry needs a voice in helping structure regulation. But that voice should be used to make the regulation better, more efficient, and more effective at doing its job. That isn't what Boeing was lobbying for. It was lobbying for no effective regulation so that it could push its product out faster, in reckless disregard for the safety of others. And that disregard for safety is why Boeing's lobbying efforts are so damnable. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

(3) But, I can also discount that blame on others because it is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the FAA was lazy. And it is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the FAA didn't have all the information it needed. It is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the pilots lacked information about their aircraft. It is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the airlines didn't understand the importance of the optional systems to aircraft safety. Boeing knew it was taking short cuts. Boeing knew short cuts in design and testing are dangerous. Boeing didn't care because it was losing money to Airbus. We focus on Boeing, not because we don't understand that multiple points of failure exist, but because Boeing's conduct was much more morally, ethically, and legally culpable than anyone else's. And Boeing's conduct was the instigating cause for the chain of events that led to hundreds of people losing their lives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Part of that dropping the ball was being misled by Boeing regarding the system, and the changes made (monetary decisions). You can't remove that from the dropped the ball equation.  Should the FAA known the event of the design changes, and how it affected performance ?

They probably would have if they hadn’t signed over their right to oversight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

This association fallacy is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

""The FAA is captured, therefore all regulatory agencies are captured.""

 

BB, the FDA, NSA, EPA, none of them matter in this discussion.

How much money the FAA has doesn't matter.

 

Either you agree that the FAA is what you call "co-opted" and the rest of us define as "captured".

Or you don't.  If you don't, cool.  But there is one fact in this equation that can't be downed.

 

If the FAA is "co-opted"/"captured" then it is by definition not possible for the FAA to have the will to regulate.  It is not possible for the FAA to cede the power to regulate.  The FAA is "co-opted"/"captured".  The FAA no longer has agency.  How much money they have, what other agencies are doing, none of that is relevant.  None of it matters.

 

The reverse of this is that if you assert that the FAA _does_ retain the agency to regulate and enforce, then by definition the FAA is _not_ "co-opted"/"captured".

 

Because you insist that the FAA abdicated, you by definition insist they have agency, and therefore, by definition, your position is the FAA is NOT "co-opted"/"captured".

 

Everyone else in this thread believes the FAA _IS_ "co-opted"/"captured".

 

So at this point, I have to ask, do you have a personal, family connection to Boeing?

Nope. I don’t know a soul who works there. 

So do you really think the FAA has no ability to certify or regulate the new aircraft process?  No really?  The talk of funding is important, because the FAA is crying poor. They’re far from it. But what it really comes down to is the decision to be involved in the certification process with Boeing being put to someone, likely a group of someones, at the FAA, and they made the conscious decision to step aside. 

This captured, not captured business is fine for the school books. But at some point that decision point was before the FAA, and I’m sure their was political and funding pressure applied, and they removed themselves from the process. 

Done. Abdication of responsibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 pages in - does anyone want to make a guess as to when the 737 Max8 will start flying revenue routes again?
My guess is that some of them will need to be upgraded or retrofitted to the premium package of indicators, some additional pilot training and all of that comes after Boeing releases the MCAS system upgrade/fix.
So is it still 3+ months away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds right. I assumed there'd be some simulator training to at least pacify the general public, but a check airman told me last week there's enough evidence of poor piloting in both accidents that a computer based training program would suffice. Who knows. Like I said we don't even have a MAX9 sim, but plenty of 900ER sims. Same thing with two cup holders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

1) For reasons unknown to me, you keep insisting that everyone else doesn't understand that there were multiple points of failure. We do. We get it.

No. Clearly you don’t, or you wouldn’t keep coming back to this idea that I’m deflecting blame from Boeing just because I realize that there were more pieces to the puzzle. 

 

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The airlines didn't intentionally purchase aircraft missing critical safety features. Yes, they tried to save some money by not buying things that seemed to be luxuries, but not necessities.

You understand that every US airline purchased the MAX with dual sourced MCAS right?  Even though they too didn’t get the full disclosure from Boeing?  That’s not a coincidence. 

 

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

4) Your analogy on speeding is incomplete. You completely ignore the reason some instances of speeding are more morally culpable than others: the knowledge that your actions are endangering the lives of others. That knowledge is why going 25 in a 20 usually isn't such a big deal, but going 90 in a school zone is. It is entirely irrelevant whether "everyone else does it." If everyone went 90 in a school zone, it would still be dangerous and morally culpable conduct.

My analogy of speeding isn’t incomplete.  We’re only talking about capture here. And with that they aren’t grossly doing something that every other major corporation or industry isn’t. They may couch their influence in “smart regulation” or some other corporate words, but really they want the yoke as far removed as possible. And while doing 90 in a school zone is nice and dramatic, robbing yourself of reaction time and distance to avoid a pedestrian, not hit a stopped car, miss a turn or stop before the traffic light by only marginally speeding is much more akin to what they were doing with regard to lobbying efforts. Still plenty deadly with the right circumstances, but not something that isn’t happening everyday by every industry that matters. 

 

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

3) But, I can also discount that blame on others because it is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the FAA was lazy. And it is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the FAA didn't have all the information it needed. It is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the pilots lacked information about their aircraft. It is BECAUSE OF BOEING that the airlines didn't understand the importance of the optional systems to aircraft safety. Boeing knew it was taking short cuts. Boeing knew short cuts in design and testing are dangerous. Boeing didn't care because it was losing money to Airbus. We focus on Boeing, not because we don't understand that multiple points of failure exist, but because Boeing's conduct was much more morally, ethically, and legally culpable than anyone else's. And Boeing's conduct was the instigating cause for the chain of events that led to hundreds of people losing their lives. 

 

The FAA made a decision to abdicate their authority. It’s as simple as that. Regardless of outside influence. Someone or someones made the conscious decision to let Boeing certify themselves. 

The pilots crashed flyable airplanes. They died because they literally stopped flying the planes as their first task. There was an excellent article about this the other day in the WSJ. And the gist was simple. At the end of the day both aircraft were completely flyable save for the actions of their crews. Even with the lack of information with the Lion Air Crew. The Ethiopian crew was fully briefed and still screwed it up. 

I already discussed the purchasing airlines’ failures above. 

And the only design shortcut that Boeing actually took was allowing single sourced MCAS without a comparator to be an aircraft option.   They didn’t fully flesh out the systems description for training purposes and that is irresponsible. The sims couldn’t recreate the feel of MCAS, but airlines don’t or didn’t train those situations anyway. Yes they are at the heart of the whole mess. But at the end of the day the FAA made a conscious decision to let Boeing self certify, the foreign airlines made a decision to go cheap on a safety system and the pilots f’d up two recoverable airplanes. They doesn’t take away from Boeing being the main instigator. It can be both, or in this case all of the above. One’s deeds far outweighs the others, but your kidding yourself if you don’t think the FAA, the purchasing airlines and their training departments are s*itting themselves while hoping the litigation and blame hammer doesn’t fall a their feet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

No. Clearly you don’t, or you wouldn’t keep coming back to this idea that I’m deflecting blame from Boeing

Guy, I actually said I don't think that is your intention. I said that you struggle understanding the logical implications of your statements and that you are a poor communicator.  For instance, the next 6 paragraphs after this sentence do everything possible to emphasize every other possible cause of the accidents AND to minimize Boeing's own contributions. But, you finally got it right at the very end:

"One’s deeds far outweighs the others, but your kidding yourself if you don’t think the FAA, the purchasing airlines and their training departments are s*itting themselves while hoping the litigation and blame hammer doesn’t fall a their feet. "

Everyone on this thread has agrees with this sentiment at this point. Yes, others fucked up. Yes, others face liability. But, "One's deeds far outweighs the others," Boeing's. Period. Next time, start there. Then, explain the other failures in the system. When your thesis paragraph of every post appears to be "others fucked up and Boeing's fucks up weren't that bad" and when you respond to any emphasis on Boeing's fuck ups with "but you don't understand, other bad things happened too," you'll have to forgive people for getting the impression that you're deflecting.  Because, rhetorically and logically, that is what you're doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...