Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitxbitxbitcoin | Hacker News Reader

The article implies that this is the Chinese government's way of signalling itself as a separate world aviation safety authority besides the FAA. Morbid as it is to think about, they're now postured in a position to benefit if another 737 Max goes down anywhere in the world.

View on HN

If any other country ground 737s it's better for safety concerns. But if it's China, it must be political motivated.

China is a one party state which explicitly doesn't permit any organization, much less a government agency, to operate without political interference.

America is a two party state... so what?

My point is if your mind is closed to looking at their actions at an objective level, there is no point arguing against your position, since it is that China is inherently evil, and is incapable of good actions.

Question is, what if you’re wrong? What if one party is better than two, or four, or 8? And if you can’t consider that possibility, are you any more open than China’s politically oppressive one-party system?

There is massive gorge between a one party state and a two party state. Stop trying Arthur they are the same.

As I’m sure there is a massive difference between a two party state and a n-party state (or even senate/house). We all think our own systems are the best...

> America is a two party state.

US are a multi-party state with two dominant parties. There are many unrepresented legal political parties.

> US is a multi-party state with two dominant parties.

The US federal government is a two-party system with some non-party representation; not only is a multi-party system is defined by having multiple represented parties, but the US has a number of government systems set up whose structure is fundamentally predicated on their only being two parties that matter, and both the major parties observe that structure even when they have the political opportunity to gain immediate advantage by exploiting the huge loopholes that this opens in theory; e.g., a party could pack the so-called “independent” government commissions whose members are Presidentially appointed with a limit of a bare majority (3 on 5-member commissions) from a single party by appointing friendly independents or members of ideologically-aligned minor parties, but even when the President’s party controls the Senate and so shutting the opposing party out completely would not provoke confirmation battles that might be lost, the form of duopoly is strictly adhered to.

It's clear that functionally, everything outside or the major parties is decorative and non-functional; even the independents in office functionally are tied to one or the other of the major parties (whichever they caucus with).

The US has an independent judiciary, and regulatory agencies which are fairly insulated from political pressure.

I'm not saying that China is evil, I'm just saying that there is a reason why the international community doesn't take anything they do at face value. The US can be wrong about things, and China can be right (for example, it would be naive to believe that the FAA is completely free from Boeing's influence), but the US's institutions are definitely more transparent and trustworthy than China's.

Now even the US has grounded 737 Max, as the last one to follow up. Also for political reason?

Good political move, but that doesn't preclude it from being a smart move - as far as I've read so far, the conditions (weather, airline quality, etc) make this completely unexpected. Is implausible to believe that the FAA may be leaned on to suppress news that may damage Boeing, especially with the current administration, and the current slate of news coming out of Canada's shenanigans with the SNC?

The FAA doesn't operate on altruism. They were quite happy to take money from and do work for Southwest during Trump's last shutdown. And regarding the MAX, the FAA happily buried any mention of MCAS (while the Brazilian authorities wisely thought it was significant enough to document in the differences training).

Perhaps the underlying motivation is that China is a major purchaser of the 737 Max. Indeed, Boeing built a 737 'completion' facility to improve the rate of deliveries to Chinese clients.

> The article implies that this is the Chinese government's way of signalling itself as a separate world aviation safety authority besides the FAA

Are you implying that before this "signalling" the FAA was a "world aviation safety authority" and furthermore the only one?

Of course, it's not the only one. But in practice, the FAA (along with its European equivalent, the EASA) are widely "trusted" by the rest of the world, meaning other countries will usually adapt their directives -- especially where safety is concerned.

Indeed, a shrewd political move.

The Chinese government is also a competitor to Boeing (Comac and AVIC). Seems difficult to believe China can provide truly independent oversight over certifying airplane or engine products designed by their own government.

Sure but let's flip this. If the US started using China's first exported passenger plane and it went down twice in six months in similar circumstances, we would absolutely be doing the same thing.

How do you know that? Are you a person at FAA responsible for these decisions and protocols?

I think we should change that scenario a bit.

If China was our major supplier for Aircraft with a good record for reliability, but their latest model went down twice in six months in similar circumstances, would we ground that model?

Perhaps. I don't know, but I don't think your comparison is the correct one.

I am quite sure that if the FAA banned Chinese, or European, aircraft the same accusations would apply.

That assumes Europeans or Chinese would have the same issue where nationalism constantly blinds their judgement.

The Chinese government is also a competitor to Boeing (Comac and AVIC)

Competitor is a bit strong given that even the Chinese airlines don't want to fly the domestically designed planes.

Please read the article below taking about MCAS, which is the prime suspect, and tell me if you still think that it’s a political move from the Chinese to ground them, or quite the opposite, a political move from the western world to keep them flying.

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com