[nolok]

It’s important to understand that the main threat to both agency from this issue is very different.

The threat to the FAA is external, they risk losing their worldwide stamp “if we validate it then the rest of the world do”. That means the long term damage they risk is much bigger, but the short term and political one is non existent, they just need to convince everyone that nothing happened and they’re back at their game. For the FAA either nothing change or they lose some standing and power, there is no path where they come out better than before.

The EASA complaints are internal, each country and the remnants of their own agency blaming them for accepting the plane validation from the FAA when it’s clear they shouldn’t have. Short term they look stupid, but either they go back to the old position like nothing happened, or they make themselves more powerful and independent compared to the FAA on such issue, possibly getting other countries outside EU/USA to listen to them as much if not more than to the FAA.

Up until now the word of the FAA may as well have been the word of god in that field, they risk losing it, and the EASA is in a good place to get a good piece of it.

So the FAA needs to downplay it as much as possible, and the EASA needs to instead make it into as much of a big deal as possible. Of course the EASA is very much helped by the fact that it was indeed a totally avoidable yet complete failure and disaster that, from a regulatory perspective, can be entirely pinned down on the FAA.

All they need to do is point at the fact unaltered, and say “the only way we can stop that from happening again is if you agree to give us authority to check all the plane ourselves without automatically accepting the FAA approval”.

I just hope it will give us better oversight, Boeing, Airbus, newcomers from China etc ... We can’t afford so many death for such stupid reasons. The max fiasco is really an insult to the entire industry, and I’m sure many “older” people in Boeing feel ashamed of how far their company has fallen.

[Nokinside]

Trump attempted to nominate his personal pilot to run FAA. When it did not go trough, FAA was run by acting director until this July.

Trump government seems to sell influence in government organizations to companies they are supposed to oversee, so I don't know if Stephen Dickson is step for better or worse.

[nolok]

When the FAA asked for a software fix after they decided there was an issue after the first crash they came to an agreement with Boeing for a January deadline. Boeing didn’t deliver, the FAA didn’t do anything. In March the second crash happened. This alone is horrible to think about.

[raverbashing]

Or the fact that Boeing determined that the lack of a functioning AOA Disagree (by mistake, it was only operational for customers that have the AOA indicator) did not constitute a safety issue.