Senate report trashes FAA

Gee, I wonder if a Senate, GAO, House report ever found people were doing something right.

Amazing how “Despite this awareness, the FAA has failed to correct course and solidify an effective safety culture.” has resulted in dozens and dozens and dozens of airliners falling from the sky every year in the USA:rolleyes:.

Cheers.
 
Senate report trashes FAA
tldr; is it saying the FAA needs to be harsher, more restrictive to GA??
 
The Management Council has decided to reopen the thread, as we’ve allowed discussions pertaining to the 737 MAX and the resulting developments that have occurred since their grounding. We recognize that this subject has the potential to turn political and in this case, it already did. Posts that crossed the line have been deleted and if this discussion enters the spin-zone again, it will get locked a second time and the offenders will be warned with points.
 
I am personally unimpressed with the FAA and for the most part just a consider it self serving jobs program that no better than the post office. There are some good people trying to make things right but in general the organization is self serving. Recent interactions with them or lack of it even when asking just confirmed it all for me. Boeing did not design the MAX to crash in third world countries and in reality the FAA does not have the competence to To do more than rubber stamp after a long and arduous certification process. Just the way government works ...
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
tldr; is it saying the FAA needs to be harsher, more restrictive to GA??
Click to expand...

No, the report was driven by the MAX certification debacle where the FAA sat back and let the manufacturer pretty much self certify with little oversight.

Congress could care less about GA.
 
Fearless Tower said:
No, the report was driven by the MAX certification debacle where the FAA sat back and let the manufacturer pretty much self certify with little oversight....
Click to expand...
Do you think if the FAA had been more diligent in its oversight, they would have had the expertise to recognize the issue? Personally, my guess is the FAA would have certified anyway. In the drug, aviation, and most other industries, the smartest folks are NOT in government, and certification is mostly left up to the companies.
 
Does anyone find it ironic that some members of our political class are all about deregulation, but get in a huff when insufficient regulation results in a breach of public safety? Politicians love pointing fingers and second-guessing. It's so much easier than finding the right balance to actually solve, prevent, or learn from problems.
 
It's real easy to pile on and chastise.
 
When the person they are regulating is you, of course you feel they are overstepping. Look at most of the medical threads. But when they are regulating another party....
 
I find it hard to believe any reports coming out of that esteemed body.
 
Here's the problem with discussing regulation- we collectively tend to discuss it in terms of whether there should be "more" or "less". The thing is, rules/regulations only help when they're the right rules and regulations. Adding hoops to jump through just for the sake of having "more" is harmful in it's self because it makes people focus on busywork not the real issues(not to mention making people lose faith in the rules in general). OTOH, if you don't hold people in check, someone will inevitably get sloppy and potentially cause massive amounts of harm.

The trick isn't having more or less regulation. What we actually want is rules that make sense, are minimally burdensome, and work to accomplish the end goal. Being a private pilot I've probably got a much better idea of what they should be than Congress and the public as a whole. That said, I'm wholly unqualified to make those decisions.

One thing I do know from studying aviation safety is that asking why things happened and concentrating on preventing them from happening again has served us very well. Finding a person, company, or organization to blame may feel viscerally good to our emotional sides but it doesn't really accomplish anything useful. Most people are in fact not monsters and don't intentionally put people in danger just to make a little more money or make their jobs a little bit easier. The focus should be on the process and the engineering not the people.
 
chemgeek said:
Does anyone find it ironic that some members of our political class are all about deregulation, but get in a huff when insufficient regulation results in a breach of public safety? Politicians love pointing fingers and second-guessing. It's so much easier than finding the right balance to actually solve, prevent, or learn from problems.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The max issue falls squarely on the shoulders of industry. Not government. The government is not our savior.

If I were to make an argument against the FAA I would be more inclined to think their arduous and oppressive regulatory environment for aircraft certification caused the MAX problem by making a clean sheet aircraft so expensive Boeing was compelled to bandaid the 737 trying to avoid new certification costs.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Agreed. The max issue falls squarely on the shoulders of industry. Not government. The government is not our savior.

If I were to make an argument against the FAA I would be more inclined to think their arduous and oppressive regulatory environment for aircraft certification caused the MAX problem by making a clean sheet aircraft so expensive Boeing was compelled to bandaid the 737 trying to avoid new certification costs.
Click to expand...
Or....Boeing tried and failed to beat Airbus at their game....and our congriss critters encouraged it.
 
cowman said:
Here's the problem with discussing regulation- we collectively tend to discuss it in terms of whether there should be "more" or "less". The thing is, rules/regulations only help when they're the right rules and regulations. Adding hoops to jump through just for the sake of having "more" is harmful in it's self because it makes people focus on busywork not the real issues(not to mention making people lose faith in the rules in general). OTOH, if you don't hold people in check, someone will inevitably get sloppy and potentially cause massive amounts of harm.

The trick isn't having more or less regulation. What we actually want is rules that make sense, are minimally burdensome, and work to accomplish the end goal. Being a private pilot I've probably got a much better idea of what they should be than Congress and the public as a whole. That said, I'm wholly unqualified to make those decisions.

One thing I do know from studying aviation safety is that asking why things happened and concentrating on preventing them from happening again has served us very well. Finding a person, company, or organization to blame may feel viscerally good to our emotional sides but it doesn't really accomplish anything useful. Most people are in fact not monsters and don't intentionally put people in danger just to make a little more money or make their jobs a little bit easier. The focus should be on the process and the engineering not the people.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you on this. Unfortunately, I don't think there will ever be agreement about how much control is needed. I favor less, and targeted better. People ask me why I haven't continued flying after I stopped doing it as a job. The real answer, besides BTDT, is that following all those rules and procedures was OK when I was getting paid for it, but as a hobby, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Post #20. Vote @cowman for FAA chief-person-in-charge! Right on.
 
cowman said:
Here's the problem with discussing regulation- we collectively tend to discuss it in terms of whether there should be "more" or "less". The thing is, rules/regulations only help when they're the right rules and regulations. Adding hoops to jump through just for the sake of having "more" is harmful in it's self because it makes people focus on busywork not the real issues(not to mention making people lose faith in the rules in general). OTOH, if you don't hold people in check, someone will inevitably get sloppy and potentially cause massive amounts of harm.

The trick isn't having more or less regulation. What we actually want is rules that make sense, are minimally burdensome, and work to accomplish the end goal. Being a private pilot I've probably got a much better idea of what they should be than Congress and the public as a whole. That said, I'm wholly unqualified to make those decisions.

One thing I do know from studying aviation safety is that asking why things happened and concentrating on preventing them from happening again has served us very well. Finding a person, company, or organization to blame may feel viscerally good to our emotional sides but it doesn't really accomplish anything useful. Most people are in fact not monsters and don't intentionally put people in danger just to make a little more money or make their jobs a little bit easier. The focus should be on the process and the engineering not the people.
Click to expand...

A well thought out post.

It's also been my observation that the more rules there are, the more likely something slips through, overall the process slows, and the intended objective is less likely to be hit.
 
WDD said:
A well thought out post.

It's also been my observation that the more rules there are, the more likely something slips through, overall the process slows, and the intended objective is less likely to be hit.
Click to expand...

my experience has also been that there is a tipping point where those who ordinarily follow rules decide to give the “#1 signal” to the rule-makers.

most people have no problem following reasonable laws and rules, and there will always be scofflaws. But when the scofflaws become an increasing segment, it’s usually because the rules have gotten ridiculous.
 
chemgeek said:
Does anyone find it ironic that some members of our political class are all about deregulation, but get in a huff when insufficient regulation results in a breach of public safety?
Click to expand...

Not really. That’s what talentless people usually do for a living.

We are talking about the folks supposedly “scrambling” to meet another government funding deadline — as if there’s not a calendar app for that, right?

LOL.

cowman said:
Adding hoops to jump through just for the sake of having "more" is harmful in it's self because it makes people focus on busywork not the real issues(not to mention making people lose faith in the rules in general). OTOH, if you don't hold people in check, someone will inevitably get sloppy and potentially cause massive amounts of harm.
Click to expand...

So you’re saying that neither actually works... because.... humans.

LOL. I agree. Humans are terrible. :)

idahoflier said:
By doing that the rest of us never get examples of what's considered inappropriate. I have been here for three years and I still don't know what or where the line is...
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Discussing it is literally expressly forbidden by the rules here.

No worries. You’ll get a love note in your inbox if you do it. Due to tech limitations it’s only viewable on the web interface though. Which is fine.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Agreed. The max issue falls squarely on the shoulders of industry. Not government. The government is not our savior.

If I were to make an argument against the FAA I would be more inclined to think their arduous and oppressive regulatory environment for aircraft certification caused the MAX problem by making a clean sheet aircraft so expensive Boeing was compelled to bandaid the 737 trying to avoid new certification costs.
Click to expand...

One of the largest customers of the 737, as well as other large customers demanded the 737Max against a clean sheet design because they did not want another type on the property. They also pushed Boeing to ensure the Max would carry the same type designation. Problem was with so many changes the Max was going to have to get a separate type, thus is when certain certification items came up they were minimized in order not to change the type.

The Max was customer driven. Boeing had a clean sheet design but not enough customers due to demand of the 737.
 
Maybe I am cynical or perhaps simply worn down by the low standards of today. I’ve represented witnesses at 3 congressional hearings and have been a witness at another. Truth is not what congressional committees are about; rather it become some macabre game of point scoring by the majority and minority staffs. More to the point, it’s all a choreographed mini Greek tragedy since everyone knows how the hearing is going to turn out well before it gets started. And I’ve seen GAO investigators testify under oath to facts they know not to be facts. When confronted after the hearing, they admitted they knew better but their report had been submitted before the real facts were known, and they were not allowed to change their report or their testimony. What a system. So whenever I watch a snippet of a hearing or read some report, I take it with a healthy dose of skepticism that it bears any resemblance to the facts or the truth.By the way, my kids were teenagers the last hearing I did so I was a C-Span celeb for like 20 minutes
 
Doc Holliday said:
One of the largest customers of the 737, as well as other large customers demanded the 737Max against a clean sheet design because they did not want another type on the property. They also pushed Boeing to ensure the Max would carry the same type designation. Problem was with so many changes the Max was going to have to get a separate type, thus is when certain certification items came up they were minimized in order not to change the type.

The Max was customer driven. Boeing had a clean sheet design but not enough customers due to demand of the 737.
Click to expand...
Yep
 
Doc Holliday said:
One of the largest customers of the 737, as well as other large customers demanded the 737Max against a clean sheet design because they did not want another type on the property. They also pushed Boeing to ensure the Max would carry the same type designation. Problem was with so many changes the Max was going to have to get a separate type, thus is when certain certification items came up they were minimized in order not to change the type.

The Max was customer driven. Boeing had a clean sheet design but not enough customers due to demand of the 737.
Click to expand...
Wonder how many certification "exemptions" the Max has? ......vs the Airbus A320?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Wonder how many certification "exemptions" the Max has? ......vs the Airbus A320?
Click to expand...
We'll never know how many exemptions for the Airbus as the BEA/EASA are no where near as transparent as the FAA. Throw in we are signatories to several bilateral aviation agreements with those same entities and we accept their certification at face value just as they must do with the MAX. However, if you think how the FAA runs their own shop is AFU, you should spend some time dealing with the BEA/EASA. :rolleyes:
 
Jumpmaster said:
Maybe I am cynical or perhaps simply worn down by the low standards of today. I’ve represented witnesses at 3 congressional hearings and have been a witness at another. Truth is not what congressional committees are about; rather it become some macabre game of point scoring by the majority and minority staffs. More to the point, it’s all a choreographed mini Greek tragedy since everyone knows how the hearing is going to turn out well before it gets started. And I’ve seen GAO investigators testify under oath to facts they know not to be facts. When confronted after the hearing, they admitted they knew better but their report had been submitted before the real facts were known, and they were not allowed to change their report or their testimony. What a system. So whenever I watch a snippet of a hearing or read some report, I take it with a healthy dose of skepticism that it bears any resemblance to the facts or the truth.By the way, my kids were teenagers the last hearing I did so I was a C-Span celeb for like 20 minutes
Click to expand...

BTDT Also. Funniest thing in the ones I was involved with was a Senate Armed Services hearing on F-15/F100 Engine problems. The Chief witness was a 4 Star who was hauled up to mansplain the problems. I was asked to provide a Flexible Borescope we use to inspect turbines. I showed the 4 Star how it worked and was a horse holder at the show and tell.

When the time came, we approach the thrones and show the ‘scope. One of the Senators (who shall remain nameless) asked “But Gen Hooferdoofer, how does it really work?” as this was apparently critical to some monumental decision. He stuck the ‘scope near the August Lawmaker’s face and wiggled the tip remotely to show its flexibility, the Senator threw up his hands and d*** near fell over backwards out of his chair.

Almost busting out laughing, we retreated to the hot seats and then later escaped with no actions required.

Cheers
 
Let’s start a pool on how long before they come out with a report trashing Pfizer for rushing the COVID vaccine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top