
FAA engineers objected to removal of 787 lightning protection measures (2019) - gmac
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-engineers-objected-to-boeings-removal-of-some-787-lightning-protection-measures/
======
djohnston
"Boeing rejected the opinion of the FAA technical specialists and persuaded
FAA management that it was still in compliance with safety regulations."
basically says it all

------
ehvatum
“In the system that measures how much fuel is in the tank, Boeing dropped a
feature designed to prevent wires rubbing together. It removed sealant from
certain areas judged to no longer be vulnerable to sparking. It removed clamps
designed to ensure hydraulic tubing didn’t come loose inside the tank.”

“Most of the design changes reduce complexity, cost and weight. Boeing has
steadily reduced the cost of building the 787, a vital part of its drive to
recoup the $22 billion in still-outstanding 787 production costs deferred into
the future.”

The rot is far worse than I suspected. Unbelievable.

------
pcurve
"even before the FAA’s approval of the design change was reviewed, Boeing had
produced 40 Dreamliners with the change implemented."

Says a lot about how Boeing views FAA.

------
cft
The idea of regulating Boeing into making safer aircraft is inferior to Boeing
making safer aircraft under domestic competitive pressure. In the 60s, there
were three domestic competitors: Douglas, Lockheed and Convair. With the
acquisition of the last domestic competitor McDonnell Douglas in the 90s, the
the decision between Boeing and Airbus is more often based on politics than on
the product. Where was FTC when they allowed that acquisition happen?

~~~
AmVess
I should think it is much easier to fix the FAA than it is to start a new
aircraft company.

~~~
skissane
Even if the FAA isn't fixed, foreign agencies such as the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) are going to be much less trusting of the FAA from now
on. They will want to check things themselves rather than just trusting the
FAA on it.

Of course, anything EASA does to Boeing, the FAA could do to Airbus. But, is
it possible that Airbus as a company might handle stricter regulations better
than Boeing could? (EU companies tend to have more experience operating in a
higher-regulation environment than American companies do.) In which case, EASA
could tighten the screws on both, but that might end up in practice favouring
one more than the other.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
It's a losing fight because Boeing aircraft crashed and started this whole
mess.

Sure, politics are at play. But Delta doesn't want to buy defective planes.
Neither does United.

