Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

Firstly I want to make it clear I agree that without strong evidence otherwise this decision should be assumed to be a technical/bureaucratic one.

However, citing single a 1991 crash as evidence of something 30 years later is a bit extreme - that isn't even in the same century any more. If it was geopolitics or community attitudes, sure. But extrapolating present attitudes from a technical decisions about a thrust reverser is too far.

I couldn't find a milder way to say that while capturing the point. I'm more amused at attitudes to airline safety than anything else.

View on HN

I wouldn't go as far as calling the Lauda Air anecdote "evidence of something", but there appears to have been a pattern whereby Boeing writes the rule book for test procedures, which are then adopted by the FAA as the standard. Of course, a manufacturer would not publish a set of tests, then promptly fail to pass them.

So the question becomes - assuming this dynamic is still valid today: what independent mechanism exists to ensure Boeing's standards are sufficient?

Worth pointing out that the FAA bought Boeing's claim that the 737 MAX 8, 9 did not require a new type certificate, and so did EASA. However, from what I gather, the Brazilian regulator deemed the MAX with MCAS sufficiently different from prior generations.

So, there is some regulatory independence.

It could be argued the Brazilian authorities are biased towards Embraer, much the same way US authorities might be biases towards Boeing.

It would be a good argument, one that I am interested in hearing.

Do you have some examples to give?

But Embraer doesn't compete directly with that 737

What about the Canadians and Bombardier? The A220/C series is a much closer competitor to the 737 than anything Embraer has to offer and the Canadians still gave Boeing a pass on MCAS.

The Brazilians required that Boeing document MCAS and include it in the required differences training. MCAS was considered a fairly small difference (if memory serves — "B") by the Brazilians and the MAX is still operating on the same type certificate. The big question in my mind is: why did the FAA not do the same?

>However, citing single a 1991 crash as evidence of something 30 years later is a bit extreme - that isn't even in the same century any more.

2001 and 2000 aren't the same century, doesn't mean there was much change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com