Sorry, but the FAA have the job of ensuring that the aircraft is certified, and certified correctly, and that includes whatever checks it takes to make sure that all procedures are adequate for the job, and are correctly followed (note the sequence - get that wrong and it is more likely that bad things will happen). The fact that they have/had a "nice cozy" agreement with Boeing (or any other company for that matter) is verging on corruption, which I really hope is not the case.

That is the crux of my argument against the current (UK, Conservative) government's obsession with deregulation.

They argue that regulations get in the way of - and thus cost money for - virtuous, entrepreneurial, 'get up and grow' enterprises. I doubt it: a well-managed company, with a good business plan, will sail through the regulatory hurdles - because they recognise from day one that their good reputation will open doors and contracts for them in the future.

The regulations exist to protect us from the bad companies. Not necessarily explicitly criminal ones, but the cowboys, the corner-cutters, the penny pinchers and the liars.

Today, the UK has published the first part of the report into the Grenfell Tower fire (the tower block which was turned into a death-trap by a botched, deregulated 'refurbishment'. 72 people died.) Most of the press are headlining on the Fire service, who failed to evacuate people from a building which had been designed with fire compartmentalisation from the start, and thus didn't have (didn't need) mass evacuation routes.

The fire service did their best, but the real villains are the refurbishers who destroyed the building's design integrity, the politicians who relaxed the regulations and allowed them to do so, and the inspectors who turned a blind eye while they did it. Sound familiar?

Letter to the Prime Minster from Sir Martin Moore-Bick

The report allows contain a number of recommendations which I am confident will improve the safety from fire of those who live in high rise buildings.
They require urgent action to be taken by the government and others who have responsibility for the oversight and direction of the emergency services, in particular the London Fire Brigade.

I look forward confidently to their implementation without delay.

Now if wishes were horses, I'd win the National & Derby by a mile!
Nobody is really listening. :-(
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
rule the roost.

Rob: There in moral responsibility and legal responsibility. You can transfer your legal responsibility to another.

Remember that the cuts in the London fire brigade budget were made while one B. Johnson was Mayor.

Only through taking legal action against the third party, provided YOU can prove they were negligent or fraudulent in their supply, and you were not responsible for any post-supply actions to "validate" the performance of the supplied component. In the case of a component of a flight control software build, YOU are responsible for integrating supplied components into the fcc as the SYSTEM INTEGRATOR.
In some companies, the phrase "delivery to the company" actually means "delivered to the part of the company building the product by another part of the same company who make the widget". What is not clear in the documents I've seen so far if this applies to the software changes applicable to MCAS or not. But this "sloppy talk" is common in large organisations where different parts of the same corporation are treated as having a supplier/customer relationship.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Yep & the head of the LFB union was too busy spending £6,000 on lunches.

Yep & the head of the LFB union was too busy spending £6,000 on lunches.

And his employer was spending £300K on second-hand water cannon that were illegal to use.

Rob, neither you or I have seen the contract between Boeing and the MCAS software supplier and/or any other FCS software supplier(s). Neither of us can offer who is responsible for what testing without reading it. Subrogation. Reasonable Man. I'm betting Boeing's lawyers are better than their design process. None of this speaks to how much insurance the MCAS supplier has so if the claims run more than that amount, Boeing being the deep pocket ... .

<ed>And the AoA repair shop that sent the duff part, the maintenance shop that installed it.

When I was in NATO I worked with the "Prime Contractor" for a new communications system. The American "Prime Contractor" was responsible for absolutely everything until the formal handover of a working station to NATO. Some of the major parts were supplied by companies in other NATO countries.

Garry, you are way out on your immature assumptions.
"Prime contractor", always carries the can, but may be able to claim some of the can back from suppliers. Boeing are the Prime Contractor (and Design Authority) for the B737MAX, thus it is their can to carry. I agree they have deep pockets, but just now they are hemorrhaging cash rapidly with parking charges for unsold aircraft mounting by the day, at the same time as they aren't getting the purchase money for those aircraft, flight maintenance spares for the whole B737MAX fleet.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Rob, you the prime contractor, hire Sam's plumbing to install a water heater to specifications. As part of the specifications he is to put in a pressure relief. Sam's plumbing forgets but signs off as done to specifications. A government inspector signs off that the work was done to specifications. Later the water heater overheats and explodes killing victim. So Rob goes to jail, he is the prime contractor.

If Sam is a competent independent contractor Rob, as a reasonable person, can rely on Sam's statement the the install was done to specifications and Rob does not go to jail. If Rob knew Sam was incompetent then a reasonable person would not rely on his statement it was done as specified and Rob would go to jail.

Now suppose Rob was building the 737Max neighborhood and Sam did the same error in every one of the houses. Does that change it?

Suppose it is a software controlled pressure relief and Sam installed them but programmed all of them wrong. Does that change it?

In the first place it is always the PRIME contractor, regardless of how good, or bad the secondary contractor is.
This applies even more so if the prime contractor does not do the proper integration of the supplied component into his overall system.
Now if the prime contractor does the proper integration into then he has a good and valid claim against the supplier if the supplier goofed up.
BUT if the supplier can prove they did exactly what the prime contractor wanted (at the point of integration), but that "something" is not what was really required then it's down to the prime contractor.

One thing to remember is that the end-customer has no contractual relationship with the component supplier when that component is supplied as part of a complex system.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

It is often said that "it gets worse before it gets better".

John Barnett says tests suggest up to a quarter of the oxygen systems could be faulty and might not work when needed.
He also claimed faulty parts were deliberately fitted to planes on the production line at one Boeing factory.

Hmm, wonder if the component manufacturers can be held accountable.
Doubts raised over 787 oxygen

This is one story that I really do hope is just someone trying to grab the headlines and totally devoid of truth.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Safety officials probing records of work on Southwest jets

DALLAS (AP) — Southwest Airlines says it will speed up inspections of dozens of used planes it bought from foreign airlines after federal regulators threatened to ground the jets because they might not meet all safety standards.

The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that Southwest agreed to complete the inspections by Jan. 31, and that the agency will take more action if necessary.

Southwest downplayed any risk to safety. The airline said repairs on some used Boeing 737 jets had been done but were not properly classified by previous owners.

“Our actions did not stem from any suspected safety concerns with the aircraft but were an effort to reconcile and validate records and previous repairs,” said a Southwest spokeswoman, Brandy King.

However, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee said recently he was skeptical that all the planes yet to be inspected are airworthy.

The issue involves 88 planes that Southwest has bought from more than a dozen foreign airlines since 2013. According to the Senate Commerce Committee, Southwest hired contractors to review maintenance records and then used authority delegated to it by the FAA to grant certificates that let it carry passengers on the planes.

DALLAS (AP) — Southwest Airlines says it will speed up inspections of dozens of used planes it bought from foreign airlines after federal regulators threatened to ground the jets because they might not meet all safety standards.

Foreign airlines don't meet safety standards? Where have I heard that one before? Lionair? Ethiopian Airlines? Can't whisper that, it doesn't fit the predetermined narrative.

In part I agree with you.
BUT SW have had some of these aircraft for about SIX years, and still haven't finished going through them all (39 completed out of 88)..
Several questions, not least of which is did SW undertake "Due Diligence" inspections on these aircraft and their supporting paperwork PRIOR to taking delivery of them/?
Why was it up to FIVE years between taking delivery and starting to do these checks?

And this is, possibly, another case where the FAA having delegated the "authority to certify" to someone else where the supervision and diligence of the self-certifying party has been "not all one would desire". Self-certification is OK if the party doing so really does their job properly, but sadly in too any cases it is seen as a way of saving money by assuming "everything is OK", and not checking that it really is OK.

At this point I should declare an interest - I work for a third-party certification organisation, and have had the "dubious pleasure" of rejecting a self-certified certified component because there obvious errors in the object at its interface with the "real world".

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

"According to the Senate Commerce Committee, Southwest hired contractors to review maintenance records and then used authority delegated to it by the FAA to grant certificates that let it carry passengers on the planes."

So, did Southwest hire the contractor to find issues or overlook issues? Why aren't the contractors under investigation? Did they do work for other airlines?

"According to the Senate Commerce Committee, Southwest hired contractors to review maintenance records and then used authority delegated to it by the FAA to grant certificates that let it carry passengers on the planes."

So, did Southwest hire the contractor to find issues or overlook issues? Why aren't the contractors under investigation? Did they do work for other airlines?

Can the US charge the contractors, who I assume are not a US company, as part of the problem was the inspection reports had to be translated.

Gary, as ever you miss the real point - SW didn't do their "due diligence" at the time of purchase and are now having to spend money doing jobs they hoped nobody noticed they hadn't done in the first place. In most industries (and I see no reason why the airline industry is no different to any other) companies do not have armies of specialist sitting around drawing pay checks and polishing chairs to actually only do a short term job every few years - they employ these specialists as contractors to do that one specific job when needed, the rest of them those contractors are doing similar jobs for other companies who find they have the "instant" requirement to do that job.
Do you have a plumber (or any other highly skilled trades person) sitting in your lounge 24/7 just to repair that once in then-year burst pipe? - No, you employ a plumber, who is contracted by you to repair that burst, and thus is a contractor (unless of course you are a professional "jobbing" plumber, in which case you are out there sorting out other folks burst pipes).
Of course the terms of contract have to be looked at, but as ever it is the PRIME contractor's responsibility (SW Airline in this case) to ensure that the sub-contractors are doing what is required of them and that is within the law. And if you read that report carefully you will see it is the CONTRACTORS who have found all these maintenance issues, not SW.....

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?