Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bombcar 1494 days ago
The FAA is in a lose-lose position. Be conservative and everyone bitches about how they're holding back progress. Be "flexible" and allow the MAX and everyone rips them a new one saying "they should have known".

The "game theory" move is to allow things in experimental and basically forbid them from passenger travel until some other certification body (EU?) sticks their neck out.
2 comments
emilecantin 1494 days ago
MAX happened because the logical change (tweak the body / landing gear of the plane to accomodate the larger engine) would've been too onerous because of the FAA rules, so they fixed it in a stupid way that complied with the FAA rules.

MAX was FAA's fault as much as it was Boeing's.

link
nradov 1494 days ago
The airlines were also at least partly at fault in the Boeing 737 MAX debacle. They specifically asked Boeing for an airplane with flight characteristics identical to existing 737NG models so that their pilots wouldn't need new type certification, which is why Boeing came up with MCAS as a flawed solution. Boeing and the FAA should have pushed back on that, and found the flaws earlier, but none of that would have happened if airlines hasn't tried to cheap out.

The 737 MAX 10 does have longer landing gear.

link
starwind 1494 days ago
> The FAA is in a lose-lose position. Be conservative and everyone bitches about how they're holding back progress. Be "flexible" and allow the MAX and everyone rips them a new one saying "they should have known".

It's not one or the other. They can allow innovation and still keep things safe. In fact, it's their job

link