posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The paranoid conspiracy concept that they were "in the pocket" of the local very large major airline is not supportable - however there is certainly
evidence of them being ordinary people - trusting too much in the word of technical and operations experts who have much more resource than the
regulatory authority has, and not being sufficiently "on the ball" in some cases.
How is it a "paranoid conspiracy" when it's been documented that FAA inspectors have warned airlines days before "surprise" inspections? Or that they
failed to take action that later led to either a crash, or an in flight incident? There are sworn depositions from airline employees stating that the
airline had a warehouse off site, and when the FAA inspector warned them they were coming, the airline would move unapproved parts out of their supply
area, into the warehouse. After the inspectors left, they moved them back and started using them again.
That is a conspiracy on the part of the airline, not the FAA inspectors.
Using unapproved (bogus) parts is a crime - people do crimes all the time. To expect otherwise is naive.
“Our investigation uncovered a pattern of regulatory abuse,” said Oberstar when announcing the hearing. “What is so disturbing is
that many FAA inspectors have given up reporting failures by the carriers because there is such a cozy relationship between FAA management and
A newly issued government report on the Federal Aviation Administration's inspections of airport security says that in some cases FAA agents
overstated how well airports performed and made efforts to help airlines do well on the inspections.
Some members of Congress, safety watchdogs, and whistle-blowers have long complained of a revolving-door culture that fostered coziness between
the FAA and major U.S. airlines.
The issue erupted publicly last year when a whistle-blower case over maintenance lapses at Southwest Airlines Co led to a congressional investigation
and harsh criticism of FAA oversight.
It's well documented that everyone but the FAA thinks and sees that the FAA is way too close to the airlines, and does everything they can to help the
airlines, and not the flying public, which they're supposed to do.
Indeed - and while every one of these is deplorable they are pretty well known -
see wiki article on "regulatory capture"
The small regulatory agency I have worked for had the same "problem" - overworked or bored inspectors/auditors sometimes not doing their job properly,
passing "tips" to their mates in industry about various things serious and not so serious, etc.
It is human nature - the aviation industry calls it "human factors" - most human factor studies look at the cockpit, some at maintenance, but the
field applies to the regulator - and indeed to all human behavior - just as much.
Labeling it all a conspiracy IS being paranoid - at worst it is many small individual "conspiracies" that may reach the level of being crimes, but
often are not - and to counter them you need to understand human behavior and set tasks, rewards, incentives, etc that are appropriate.
That is ideal - it will never happen of course, and as long as humans remain "in the loop" ther are going to be human failures.
The best systems are tolerant of human failure (ie when it happens it does not cause the system to crash) and are on high alert to detect them - that
is the best you get - perfection is not an option.
edit on 30-1-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)