US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

This immediately falls apart, by that logic we should literally have no government or society to speak of. "Only as much power as you think the worst possible person should have" would mean literally no power - there isn't a single decision in my life I would pass off to the worst person I could think of. What you're describing is anarchy.

You build checks and balances, but you cannot have a functioning government without the assumption that the people you put in charge will act in good faith, but also have a reliable means to remove them from power if they act in bad faith.

The problem is the worst people NOT IN GOVERNMENT already have more power than that, and can thus easily crush such a government and turn it into a de facto oligarchy.

> Ambition must be made to counteract ambition

Sounds nice but it’s fundamental a recipe for getting nothing done. And just because the government doesn’t do it doesn’t mean it won’t be done. Private entities, with far fewer restraints (any ambitions to restrain them are of course counteracted) will naturally fill in the gaps. It’s why the US has private companies selling expensive tax software rather than a simple system which would benefit everyone.

I do not think you have picked a good example. Mao was a pretty nasty piece of work. The relatively prosperity of modern China is the result of abandoning his ideology - and a large chunk is the result of reversing the damage he and his followers did.

There has been no line of good people in communist and post communist China. It failed from the start.

They all depend on this. There is no set-it-and-forget-it algorithm that you can put in place that self-perpetuates good government. There are "people" at every point along the chain of any government including those writing its laws, enforcing them, interpreting laws in court and in many bureaucratic institutions that may or may not ignore these rules or undermine them.

I think every system has a life-cycle like an organism, and some aspects of degradation and corruption are almost unavoidable in practice if not in principle.

Off topic, but are you implying that Mao was 'good people'? It seems that for the Communist 'dynasty', it fell apart immediately - that is, it never got anywhere. I'm not sure the Communist dynasty is any worse than the Qing or Ming or others before it, at least in that respect.

That doesn't make real sense to me, because that means that government is impossible. I prefer the idea that "desire for office should be disqualification for office."

The US system is notoriously bad to get working and really seems to only work for the US. Anywhere else we have tried it has ended with some kind of failure. However, it's reasonable to call the parliamentary systems like the UK republican democracies and those have been emulated else where with a higher degree of success.

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fo...

Microstates don’t count.

> expected large swathes of it to be amended and replaced

Would they have? There exists a mechanism to amend the Constitution, and it seems reasonable to me that the Supreme Court would insist on textual originalism until the text is amended through that legal process.

This is why things like Roe V. Wade are (/were) so controversial. Does the Supreme Court have the right to imagine new rights to abortion with no textual basis in the Constitution? Even RBG didn't think so. OTOH, given the recent election results, Abortion is finally starting to become settled law - something the USSC could not do. Democracy works again.

That said - they got far more right then wrong, and ditching the lessons they learned first are a big reason we are in the state we are in now.

Once upon a time, leaders actually had to learn history to be leaders. Now-adays, not so much.

"I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man. The result of the deliberations of all collective bodies must necessarily be a compound, as well of the errors and prejudices, as of the good sense and wisdom, of the individuals of whom they are composed. The compacts which are to embrace thirteen distinct States in a common bond of amity and union, must as necessarily be a compromise of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations. How can perfection spring from such materials?"

"Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration."

"But this is not all: what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Congress, from the nonattendance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of a Polish diet, where a single VOTE has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy."

"It is not difficult to discover, that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption, as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed. The mistake has proceeded from not attending with due care to the mischiefs that may be occasioned by obstructing the progress of government at certain critical seasons. When the concurrence of a large number is required by the Constitution to the doing of any national act, we are apt to rest satisfied that all is safe, because nothing improper will be likely TO BE DONE, but we forget how much good may be prevented, and how much ill may be produced, by the power of hindering the doing what may be necessary, and of keeping affairs in the same unfavorable posture in which they may happen to stand at particular periods. "

I'm willing to accept your premise, but I want an example where there isn't one overwhelmingly dominant culture. I'll accept 2 equally dominant cultures.

Every country has adopted American Republicanism with a clearly defined and written constitution that has some form of separation of powers. None of these, for example, allow the PM to act as an absolute dictator without some form of emergency. The difference is simply in whether the president has an independent mandate from the parliament or not.

I agree that the the Supreme Court is more important because of the inability of Congress to pass regular legislation.

However I don't think the root cause is "checks and balances". I think the root cause is the (unconstitutional) Senate filibuster. This prevents parties who control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency from passing laws. It is often the case that this happens (2016-18 for Republicans; 2020-22 for Democrats) and in those periods it should be possible to pass many laws and thus diminish the role of the Supreme Court. But the filibuster prevents this.

Yeah, if I understand, the original idea of the checks & balances in the US was that each branch of government would be fighting to become the most powerful and so they all had ways to stop each other. But it wasn't really designed to deal with the idea that political parties would grow in power enough to supersede the branches of government as the top-level entities fighting for power.

This idea that you'd be able to form a large enough coalition across Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency that you could get all three branches to work together wasn't really considered back then. With more localized politics that was basically impossible and so the individual branches were fighting for power.

Our form of government should be updated to reflect the reality of more powerful political parties.

In many ways, it's winner take all. President + 50%+1 in the lower legislature + 50%+1 in the upper legislature = a huge amount of power.

Historically, I think it's been exceedingly rare to have as finely balanced government as recent times have featured.

And to me, the Supreme Court is less about the people currently sitting on it, and more about the fact that they have all dedicated their lives to the legal profession.

They may rule one way or another on hot issues, for personal reasons. But you're checking with people who all hold the rule of law (as a concept) much higher than the legislature or executive. Which is a valuable check to have.

In that way, they're more like the UK's Speaker of the House of Commons.

The problem in the US is actually the opposite -- the checks and balances were intended to be stronger but have been substantially weakened, in a way that creates instability.

In the original constitutional framework the federal government was meant to be extremely limited. Senators were appointed by state legislators so that they would limit expansion of federal power at the expense of state power, but that was changed and deprived the states of their primary representation in the federal government. Which not coincidentally was immediately followed by a massive expansion of federal control.

Which was itself meant to be much more limited. The original intention of the interstate commerce clause was for the federal government to handle things like mail fraud, where you have a perpetrator and a victim in different states and the victims have no representation in the perpetrator's jurisdiction. It has since been interpreted to allow the federal government to regulate essentially anything, infamously including non-commerce that occurs solely within a single state.

In the intended frameworks the deadlocks were fully intentional. If you couldn't reach widespread consensus then you couldn't do something at the federal level, doing things at the federal level was disfavored in general, and that was fine because anything outside the scope of federal power or without widespread consensus could be handled by the states. Laboratories of democracy.

But then we made it too easy to do things at the federal level, and of course power-hungry sociopaths are attracted to centralized power. So instead of the federal government being weak and uninteresting because strong checks and balances limited it from being abused, it became the battleground for winner-take-all popularity contests.

I'm also not sure I agree that the US system is necessarily less sustainable than those other systems. A lot of European democracies are younger than the US, and some of them are more frequently deadlocked. I think effectiveness and sustainability are orthogonal concepts here (some would say they are diametrically opposed...)

Alternatively, you get brinkmanship where you have a coalition of 53.33% where every party in the coalition that has >=4% of the votes (a.k.a. all of them) will threaten to bring down the entire coalition unless they get their most extreme demand. Incidentally, they are still trying to bring down the supreme court.

Personally, I'd gladly welcome some political deadlock over here.

This is a feature. In a unitary state, it would be suicide. But in a federation, national disagreement prompts gridlock which automatically devolves the question.

it is utter madness that politicians are involved in anyway in certifying the results of elections

A system with checks and balances can be subverted, but it's still better than a system without them.

This doesn't always end well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1031_Canal#Partial_collapse_du...

Eh, I don't know if I agree with that. Most of the actions were very straightforward "stuff we need to fix to make the rocket do what we want it to do and not do what we don't want it to do".

Like, one of the actions was "make the launch pad not explode when the engines turn on". That was the root cause of the engine failures that led to the flight termination. Was SpaceX really not going to do that anyway?

Besides formalizing the process and writing down a list of 63 bullet points and using the legalese of "corrective actions" for them, I think the result would have been basically the same without the FAA looking over their shoulder.

But the main reason for my belief is that the Falcon 9 launch success streak is currently better than any other rocket in history (by a large margin), at 241 launches and counting (and 180 launches since the last landing failure). To put this in context, other launchers with a similar or greater number of launches go 30-50 launches between failures. Unless SpaceX is just incredibly unbelievably lucky, they seem to understand how to do RCA to build reliable rockets.

Self regulation of the industry is common as you say. It tends to involve one central body enforcing the standards on the members, and acting as a central point for agreement of the standards.

This is not the case with the Aviation regulation. The FAA is the regulator, and has delegated the testing to the people it is meant to be regulating.

We can easily publicly fund over-sight committees to oversee these industries instead of relying on SROs who take tax-payer money and are in the perfect financial and power position to do some really corrupt and immoral things.

Look at the National Association of Realtors, another SRO— On October 31, 2023, a federal civil jury found that the NAR had conspired to inflate commissions paid to home-buyers' real estate agents, and determined that NAR and its codefendants owed damages of almost US$1,800,000,000.

Zillow and NAR have anti-trust lawsuits coming their way too. Relying on SROs is just asking for corruption, imo.

It's similar to how income taxes work. You self-report all the figures, and then they are sampled and spot-checked and occasionally audited. The possibility of being caught by an audit, then prods people to generally submit truthful reports, because of the risk of penalties.

And then, if that incentive ceases to work, the self-report/self-regulate status gets revoked.

Maybe, maybe not. But I do know that I don't have much faith when companies "regulate" themselves. There's just too much conflict of interest there. A third party doing it is, on its face, more trustworthy.

Except if the "people who run the SRO" are in fact employees of the very company they're supposed to be regulating... ?

Then they surely have an even greater incentive to keep quiet in order to keep their jobs?

What's funny about this is that if you were to ask a group of brokers (IE: the ones with authority over the business - terminology is inconsistent between states...), they would probably tell you that the state has a great deal of oversight, but I'd agree with you - by and large no one is actually watching them. I was with a group of fellow brokers not long ago and it came as a clear surprise to them that the state would no longer be actually auditing them. The state wouldn't make it official policy, but it was a wink and a smile that they wouldn't. There were gasps around the room and it was really rather an insightful moment. While I am new in this role, it was obvious to me the state wasn't actually auditing anything - and frankly, why should they unless they've had a consumer complaint? But the fact that very experienced brokers were surprised by this was interesting.

You can't have (representative) democracy without lobbying. It is not that you need to get the lobbyists out, you need to convince more lobbyists in. It is likely that the average Joe has not talked to their representatives even just once, let alone on the ongoing basis necessary to fulfill the demands of democracy.

Yes, sure, it’s impossible to inspect and regulate every single thing all the time. But the US is doing a piss poor job where other nations at least have a decent baseline.

This is by design by the way, underfund agencies so that politicians keep getting money from their corporate buddies.

Even essentials such as food production is abysmally inspected in the US due to too few inspectors being available.

Most EU countries don’t have these issues and their “bureaucracy” hasn’t collapsed down onto itself.

Your comment is just another “this is an uniquely American issue and if we were to do it right the sky would come falling down” type argument that is trotted around everytime a fundamental issue, that has been solved elsewhere, is exposed.

There are no 737s operated in that configuration in Europe, so while EASA accepted FAA's grounding notice, it didn't really affect the EU.

But that's beyond the point. The point is those flawed quality controls that Boeing does on behalf of FAA could in theory affect other areas, not just the plug door. And so I wonder if EASA also allows Boeing to self-certify, or do they perform the checks themselves?

So the doors are kind of a distraction from the apparent fact that Boeing has forgotten how to make airplanes which do not threaten the lives of all those in and below them.

> Similarly the FAA follows EASA when it comes to issues with Airbus.

> Both FAA and EASA requirements are roughly alined anyway so it doesn't make that much difference.

Thanks. That then explains it. Although I have a feeling this mutual trust has its expiration date and I would be surprised if EASA didn't actually start raising concerns over the FAA's credibility.

The bolts the NTSB can't find are not the ones that have been found to be loose. The bolts they can't find are the ones with the castellated nuts and cotter pin. Very hard to imagine those vibrating loose. And for the door to transit in an upward direction it would really require all four of those to fail or for them to not exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maLBGFYl9_o at around the 7:26 mark has a great explanation of how the door is secured and it seems like as long as there is at least one of the four bolts installed the door can't move.

And Spirit seems entirely financially screwed as a company, they haven't had a positive gross margin since before Covid and on top of that they're now spending half their revenue on interest on their debt. Having Spirit eat those losses is probably great for Boeing's financials and stock price. They should likely be forced by the government to take Spirit over again.

Yes. It is way more powerful to actually see what happen than to just hear a report about it. I think it was more powerful than even a plane crash that is not caught on film, even though many people would die.

Do not underestimate the power of photo and video evidence.

Or, just talk on ex-BA SWE and learn about it from them.

My experience is that when quality breaks down, the effects are visible at multiple scales and multiple places. Who knows what else is non-compliant in the 737 MAX assembly line (surely this is why the FAA announced an audit).

Loose bolts happen because multiple layers of protection were bypassed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model

Boeing's entire business is to make good aircraft, and they are grossly failing to do so; their problems extend far beyond just the 737 MAX. A business that can't sell good products shouldn't be in business one way or another.

It has to be a complete plan, not just a slap-dash "we can hire some people and the problem is solved".

To do it best you do NOT hire from the industry, and if necessary you hire from unrelated industries (perhaps, for example, oil rig/pipeline inspectors).

When you take a checkride at the end of training to earn your pilot certificate, it's not an FAA employee riding with you... it's a "DPE" or Designated Pilot Examiner, who is a private individual designated by the FAA to conduct check rides (and who often charges you a fee to administer the test).

Occasionally an FAA employee will ride along with the student pilot and DPE to evaluate how the DPE is evaluating prospective pilots.

Deliberately sabotage the regulatory authorities, then use the fact that they no longer have the expertise and staff as a justification to outsource the regulation function over to the companies that were supposed to be inspected.

And when it goes wrong, which it always does, make shocked pikachu face and claim that nothing can be done because we no longer have the capacity to regulate industry.

This would be less infuriating if this was the first time, but it keeps happening again and again and people keep falling for it. It is immensely profitable for the few though, that might be why it keeps happening.

The fix is easy, just requires time and budget: rebuild that expertise and refuse to certify anything until you have the necessary capabilities.

Pass regulation that requires audit and certification by a rated and licensed authority that isn't necessarily the government itself. As a publicly traded company Boeing already has to do this with its books; why not with its product too?

I'm sure that E&Y, Deloitte, KPMG, or PwC would love a crack at a new market and they've certainly got the money to hire away from manufacturers.

Do you know a basis for that? My understanding, though limited, is that they have incredible expertise - and we can see their outstanding results. Also, IME, this claim is used by many industries to assert that they shouldn't be subject to regulation, and (IME) it's always false.