> so poor regulation could possibly be implicated
Can you work out the logical connection for someone who wouldn't understand it?
Can you work out the logical connection for someone who wouldn't understand it?
This regulation is used to make sure that all airlines that operate in the US adhere to the strict and narrow requirements from the manufacturers and the safety testing done.
Whether or not you or other people ideologically agree with heavy regulations around this stuff is a whole separate conversation. Considering the complexity of this industry, I’d say that overall they’ve done a pretty good job.
That aside, whenever a major incident like this happens, it almost always means those regulations were incorrect, violated, or didn’t cover a specific scenario (increasingly rare). There will be extensive reviews, that will take months, if not years, to determine how to prevent something like this from happening again. Sometimes it’s regulation, sometimes it’s updates to pilot guidelines and training. Sometimes it’s something else.
Boeing put the bean counters in charge because it made their stock price go up. Of course, it goes up until the corners you cut to juice short term profitability cause something catastrophic to happen, like the multiple 787-max crashes, the door plug blowout, etc. By the time the bad stuff happens, the original decision makers are usually drinking pina coladas on a beach somewhere (or, in the case of former Boeing CEO James McNerney, cashing royalty checks from his book about his stellar management style and what a smart guy he is).
1. No, I don't think the book royalties made a lick of difference to McNerney's net worth - in fact, he probably doesn't get any royalties, as it was just a fawning biography, not an autobiography. Instead, the fact that he made did make millions as CEO juicing the stock price, while actually putting in place the root causes for Boeing's subsequent downfall, is what I meant by "the original decision makers are usually drinking pina coladas on a beach somewhere".
2. I brought up the book because it's the height of irony for his biography being about what a great manager he is. The title of the book is "You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing". Yeah, turnaround all right, just not in the direction intended by the author.
> clearly made as sarcasm
It's not clearly sarcasm to readers. It sounds like a personal axe to grind which, as stated, undermines your overall point
Having an aircraft (with no emergency declared) landing with a 40° crosswind at 23 knots, gusting 33 knots, with patchy snow, and active snow removal ops ongoing, lose control on the runway is probably not a favorite to be a maintenance omission or a regulatory dodge.
Implicating the recent cuts for this crash makes absolutely no sense.
When would it show up?
Some parts of a plane are only seen a few times in the air frame’s lifetime unless there’s a very urgent flaw discovered.
Rather, we're seeing "the people in charge of all the procedures" (Govt employees, not airline employees) being grossly understaffed. It's a bit like "inbox zero"; you have a list of SOPs you want to observe, and you want absolute inbox-zero for completely every single procedure, to the letter, for something like flight control, spaceflight, etc.
If you cut staff, and still demand the same throughput, then the simple reality is balls are going to get dropped in the juggling - and at worst, if you refuse to accept that you don't have staff on hand to do it, and threaten to punish people who fail to keep up the same output with less staff, people are going to start lying about it.
And that - that, is the nightmare scenario. That creates what the Russians call "Vranyo": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik