Hacker News Reader

Comment by ivanech | Hacker News Reader

I think picking on the FAA is a little unfair. For the past ~20 years, they've been enormously successful in overseeing commercial airliner operations - I think the last commercial crash in the US that killed all onboard was in 2009

View on HN

This is what institutional decay often looks like! They can still carry out a set of procedures allowing them to do the same thing they've been doing for a long time -- but they get less efficient, less flexible, more ossified. They are no longer the FAA that figured out how to oversee airline operations; they're the FAA that follows the script left to them by their predecessors. Collison gives a nice example:

> The avionics you see in cockpits are bafflingly primitive because it's so hard, slow, and expensive to get the FAA to approve new technology. As a result, pretty much every pilot flies with an iPad running sophisticated flight planning software -- their connection to a world that the FAA doesn't encumber.

There was a time when the FAA was much better at dealing with new technology. There was a time when all the technology in their purview was new. Something changed.

iPads can run out of battery or get smashed in turbulence or fall prey to bugs/malware; old-fashioned steam gauges cannot. The FAA's regulations are written in blood - the aviation fatality rate has fallen sharply over the years [0] thanks to a combination of technological advancement and regulation. Aircraft builders are still free to do pretty much whatever they want within the 'experimental' category, provided they mount a placard informing occupants that the aircraft is experimental.

[0] https://aviation-safety.net/graphics/infographics/Fatal-Acci...

Just a few days, at the top of HN, was this post[0]: "FAA safety engineer goes public to slam agency’s oversight of Boeing’s 737 Max".

It links to a Seattle Times article [1] that outlines (from the inside) systemic failures in how the FAA attempts to implement it's own mandate.

That article would lead one to believe that it is in fact difficult to be _overly_ critical of the FAA.

It has a stranglehold on innovation in the industry, and... well, just because you grew up with it (presumably) doesn't mean it's not the laughingstock of international aviation-oriented industries.

The FAA is a trashfire. Persons who grew up in the USA don't have a benchmark on what it would look like for an agency that did it's job well.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26376549

[1]: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-s...

I think that's entirely the problem. I'm worried it's a sign that the FAA is no longer as effective as it once was, and the problems are going to quickly grow as time goes on.

This is a guess, of course. Time will tell.

> I think the last commercial crash in the US that killed all onboard was in 2009

The FAA approved the MAX and let it keep flying after the first crash because it wasn't Americans who died. They only acted after more died in a second crash and they could no longer pretend they weren't at fault for those deaths.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com