> 1. The FAA basically handed their risk-management keys over to Boeing when authorizing the 737-MAX, contributing to those deaths
Couldn’t this also be interpreted as: when the FAA holds the keys, disasters like the 737-MAX tend not to happen? Obviously this raises questions about how that decision came about in the first place, but as an example, it seems counterproductive to your point, i.e. evidence that shifting away from some long standing policies directly led to harm, implying the original policies might have been better ones.
In a thread that seems eager to move fast and break things, this seems like a big problem, and would seem to indicate the need for a return to founding principles, not the opposite.
> 2. The FAA's pilot medical vetting process
This is an interesting one for sure, but also seems like an incredibly complex issue. Have there been studies about the safety of operating machinery while on those drugs that would obviate the need for a policy change?
The potential risk averted by such a policy would need to be weighed against the negative impacts of the 2nd order undesirable behaviors - obviously it’s bad that the policy discourages much needed mental health support, but how bad this is depends entirely on how effective the initial screening process is.
I’m not saying these mental health policies shouldn’t be changed, but neither do they seem to have obvious or measurably better alternatives at the moment.
And taken in the context of the original claim - that people are grossly misunderstanding the FAA and all of this is theater - they seem like weak examples to use as evidence of broad organizational failure.
Couldn’t this also be interpreted as: when the FAA holds the keys, disasters like the 737-MAX tend not to happen? Obviously this raises questions about how that decision came about in the first place, but as an example, it seems counterproductive to your point, i.e. evidence that shifting away from some long standing policies directly led to harm, implying the original policies might have been better ones.
In a thread that seems eager to move fast and break things, this seems like a big problem, and would seem to indicate the need for a return to founding principles, not the opposite.
> 2. The FAA's pilot medical vetting process
This is an interesting one for sure, but also seems like an incredibly complex issue. Have there been studies about the safety of operating machinery while on those drugs that would obviate the need for a policy change?
The potential risk averted by such a policy would need to be weighed against the negative impacts of the 2nd order undesirable behaviors - obviously it’s bad that the policy discourages much needed mental health support, but how bad this is depends entirely on how effective the initial screening process is.
I’m not saying these mental health policies shouldn’t be changed, but neither do they seem to have obvious or measurably better alternatives at the moment.
And taken in the context of the original claim - that people are grossly misunderstanding the FAA and all of this is theater - they seem like weak examples to use as evidence of broad organizational failure.