

FAA faulted for outsourcing 787 safety checks to Boeing - Create
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html

======
fnordfnordfnord
The sad/pathetic part of this is that Boeing are infinitely more qualified to
make these assessments.

The scary/pathetic part is that when faced with such a problem, the FAA's
choices were: 1. Punt the responsibility to Boeing and hope it works out. Or
2. Just tell them "no" as we've been telling everyone else who wants to use
whatever post-60's technology they've chosen for their aircraft.

~~~
ims
I don't necessarily disagree about those things being sad/scary/pathetic. But
these things _cost money_. Taxpayers are generally averse to spending money on
long term prevention. Something that people consider an "expensive boondoggle"
and refuse to pay for before an incident tends to become "shame on you for not
doing your job" right after.

Do you remember after the BP spill how people were shocked -- _shocked!_ \--
that the government did not have deep sea oil rig submersibles and that we had
to rely on BP's resources? This type of thinking blew my mind. Who on earth
would have supported paying for deep sea utility submersibles for some "black
swan" oil spill before this incident happened? And the funny part is, now that
it's over and everybody has moved on, they probably still wouldn't.

So back to the FAA... how are we going to pay for top tier engineering talent
in the kinds of numbers required to check these components at the level of
detail we might wish?

TL;DR: proper oversight costs money.

------
tlb
I disagree with the premise that the FAA might understand modern aircraft
design better than Boeing. Or that Boeing doesn't have plenty of incentive to
make the aircraft very safe.

~~~
SeanDav
To think that a company will police itself adequately in the face of losing
money if rules are enforced correctly is naive in the extreme.

Since when has big business ever cared more about safety than the bottom line?

~~~
larrik
Normally this would be totally true, but given that every airliner crash is
worldwide headlines, safety IS their bottom line.

~~~
acdha
What about Challenger? Thiokol engineers wanted to scrub the launch but were
overridden by their management over business concerns:

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2012/02/06/146490064/rem...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2012/02/06/146490064/remembering-roger-boisjoly-he-tried-to-stop-shuttle-
challenger-launch)

It's not exactly the same situation but I think it illustrates the need to
have independent oversight from someone outside the same management hierarchy
– otherwise it's just too easy to cut corners, particularly since the feedback
usually isn't immediate.

~~~
neurotech1
It's worse than Challenger. NASA isn't a publicly traded corporation, airlines
didn't buy shuttles and people didn't buy tickets on the shuttle. If a 787
crashes due to a design or manufacturing flaw, Boeing stock price will fall
significantly, and customer airlines will be very hesitant to order them.

A closer analogy would be the fallout to both McDonnell-Douglas and the FAA
after a series of DC-10 crashes. These crashes doomed the company, and they
were sold off to Boeing.

~~~
acdha
NASA isn't a public corporation – although it seems rather unlikely that a
disaster getting Congressional attention would be much easier – but Thiokol
was a private business and would thus theoretically have a strong incentive
not to lose a key contract due to failures in their components.

The problem was that they perceived the risk of perceived flaws as high enough
that they chose not to act. Market incentives aren't always as simple as they
might seem at first glance.

------
tjr
I don't know the details of this specific situation (beyond the article here),
but the scenario in general is not uncommon. Employees at avionics companies
can receive FAA training to act as internal FAA delegates, reviewing work in
line with FAA guidelines, just as an employee of the FAA would do.

~~~
itsmeduncan
Came here to agree with you. Most of the repair stations have in house
employees that are designated by the FAA to approve any changes. DER is what
it is called specifically. This happens because the FAA does not have the
resources to look at every single thing on an aircraft.

~~~
sageikosa
If they did, airline ticket prices would be astronomical.

------
millerc
I don't see how the FAA could do differently, given the budget cuts and the
rule that prevents them from spending more than 40 hours on a project. Until
they can justify splitting up a battery into a multitude of projects (N
projects on the anode, N projects on the electrolytes, N projects on the
casing, ...), or they are given the means to show their expertise, the checks
and balances are engineered for failure from the administration level.

------
protomyth
I'm actual surprised its not the NTSB that would do the checks. Its seems
like, given the funding, that would be a natural fit and help later in the
airplane's life.

------
jstalin
It's a bit of a tradeoff. If the FAA fails at some regulatory function, you
can't sue the government. If Boeing fails, at least you can sue them.

~~~
eli
Who said you can't sue the government?

~~~
showerst
It's called sovereign immunity.

Basically you can only sue the US government over things where it has agreed
to let you, like things covered by The Federal Tort Claims Act.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act>

~~~
eli
If you got hurt because the FAA failed to do its job wouldn't that be a
perfect example of a case where you could successfully sue the government?

~~~
jstalin
Not unless Congress gave you permission to, which they haven't.

~~~
eli
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The Federal Tort Act explains the
procedures (and puts some limits on) how you can sue the FAA, but it certainly
doesn't prohibit it.

Here's 3 seconds of googling:
[http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=...](http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=149194)
[http://www.10news.com/news/faa-settles-lawsuit-with-
family-o...](http://www.10news.com/news/faa-settles-lawsuit-with-family-of-
deceased-pilot)

