Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hef19898 833 days ago
You are pinting to a very serious issue. Up until the 737 MAX, if someone or something had FAA or EASA certification, getting the other one was more or less just a formality. And this helped everyone a lot, and in fact made things saver as the engineering was less, constraint, limited, bothered by regulation (no idea how to phrase this...), because they only had to worry deeply about either FAA or EASA requirements. The 737 MAX did put a dent in this, and that was and is a problem.

And everyone knows this, besides Boeing it seems, which is the reason why I am cautiosly optimistic about the investogations.
1 comments
stavros 833 days ago
How did it put a dent in this? Is it not certified by one of the two agencies?
link
hef19898 833 days ago
It is certified by both, with EASA nasically accepting the FAA certication at face value (oversimplified a bit). That means trusting the other agency. It was this trust that was hurt by the initial B737 MAX scandle and the handling of it by both, Boeing and the FAA.
link
stavros 833 days ago
Ah, I see, thanks. So the FAA cut corners when certifying?

I guess trust only works when the other agency is up to the same standards as you, but then "certified by the FAA and the EASA" only really means "certified by one of the two".

link
hef19898 833 days ago
No, the FAA didn't cut corners, Boeing did. The FAA did a bad job catching it.

And being certified by both means that orgs and aircraft are certified by both. Decades of cooperation and alignment of regulations and requirements mean that the sevond certification is covering the delta between both, believing the common stuff to be properly cerified by the other regulator. That is where the FAA lost trust.

Hence my believe the FAA will not show much liniency to Boeing this time.

link