“Do we have one FAA engineer for every Boeing engineer to “check their work?””
That’s just a dumb statement. You don’t need 1:1 to check work.
You don’t know engineering or aerospace and you’re way off base on your thought process.
You do not need 1 for 1 because the vast majority of the engineering tasks are on items that are not catastrophic if they fail. It turn out that MCAS is a catastrophic system but was not certified as such. Whether this was an oversight or a devious scheme is yet to be determined
I am not sure you are following my thought process here. Respectfully, read my post above this one.
A few Saudi’s got on planes with box cutters on 9/11 (legal at the time by the way). We now have far more federal employees conducting essentially the same job at airports here in America and we cannot take nail clippers on to a plane. A new bureaucracy with tens of thousands of new employees at great expense to the taxpayers that has turned an inconvenience into a more tedious and time consuming process that cost far more and is of questionable effectiveness.
No, you do not need a 1:1 to check work. However, do you think the FAA will remain the same size and somehow improve the process given past history? That is how government bureaucracy usually responds in the face of an adverse result.
We will likely see a bigger FAA, more engineers, and more government oversight and regulation in response to this screw-up if recent history holds true. Our children will be on the future version of FR lamenting the size, scope, and power of government and they will talk about how it crushes the free market and aircraft manufacturers cannot get a new design approved.
There are obviously problems with MCAS. I find the lack of training and warning to pilots inexcusable in the extreme. The early stories that additional safety equipment to mitigate the MCAS problems was an “option” on the plane were especially troubling if true. Boeing really screwed up and then they tried to cover it up based on what I have seen and read.
What is the solution? Boeing will fix it or they will not sell planes. Boeing will be under immense pressure in the future to not make a similar mistake or they will not sell planes. Boeing is paying a gigantic price over this.... free market forces.
If, as this author has indirectly asserted, we are going to make a President responsible for screw-ups like this and the President’s only process to prevent such a screw-up is via a regulatory vehicle like the FAA, there will inevitably be a larger and more powerful FAA. This means more governmental control over another private industry.
A gigantic corporation based in Seattle donated money to Obama. Trump has been a cheerleader for Boeing also. I hardly think this is news on either account nor is it surprising. Obama vacuumed up cash on the West Coast like no President before him - it is a solidly progressive region of the country and I detest their politics. Boeing was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation and HRC as well if memory serves.
Regardless of political donations, Boeing gets the same preferential treatment from the Trump administration because they are one of our manufacturing flagships and Trump wants them (as we all do) to succeed.
Respectfully, and I often enjoy your posts, can you not see my point here on a forum called Free Republic? I agree with you and others that the FAA did not get this one right and there are likely many reasons and influences leading to this failure.
However, I don’t think the “solution” is more government and indirectly that is what we will inevitably get out of this. Same thing has happened many times with FDA on new drugs..... they missed a few free market developed drug flaws and now it takes forever to get a new drug on the market and they cost much more.
I think many here are focused on the failure analysis and it is undeniable and multi-faceted. However, I am certain that blaming the FAA will make for a bigger FAA and more difficult FAA process that is no more effective in preventing such a rare problem in the future.
Cause and effect.