> We have seen what Boeing has become when it's effectively unregulated.

I think this is vastly overstated by the media. Boeing is still heavily regulated and has a pretty good safety record compared 20 or 30 years prior. The biggest disaster of recent times (MCAS) was because of the tight regulations around type certification and trying to avoid costs to carriers

> Some things need to be regulated, esp. if mistakes are costly to the planet and/or people on the said planet.

I absolutely agree. I am not for the removing ALL regulations from nuclear energy but there is a whole political servitude cycle that has taken place for a number of years to make nuclear "safer" when in actuality it has little to no influence on the technology and just adds burden and overhead especially in the new construction of a nuclear power plant

Nuclear is this big scary monster because its invisible death machine. Despite us being regularly exposed various levels of radiation in our lives most people are completely unaware of. Some people are terrified of dental x-rays but will happily jump on an intercontinental flight without any second guess.

I think arguing in the opposite of "you can never be too safe" is kind of like the whole double your bet every time you lose at the casino yes, its technically true but you need an infinite pool of chips for it to work.

▲

piva00 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The biggest disaster of recent times (MCAS) was because of the tight regulations around type certification and trying to avoid costs to carriers

Meaning they tried to skirt around the regulations, including regulatory capture by pushing self-certification because competition caught up to them while they spent money on buybacks instead of investing in R&D, perhaps even investing in absorbing some costs of certification of pilots into a new type they could develop into the future instead of relying on a design from 60 years ago.

Mismanagement is what created Boeing's issues, not regulation.

▲

vablings a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Meaning they tried to skirt around the regulations, including regulatory capture by pushing self-certification because competition caught up to them while they spent money on buybacks instead of investing in R&D, perhaps even investing in absorbing some costs of certification of pilots into a new type they could develop into the future instead of relying on a design from 60 years ago.

No, this is literally the opposite of what happened. They did not want all the operators to go through lengthy and expensive recertification processes as required by the FAA so they make the system as close as possible which likely cost them millions of dollars.

The issue was that pilots were not aware, they received very little training and knowledge on the subject when they should have had more (just not a new type cert)

▲

mlinhares 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Its also bullshit to say the EU has less regulation on developing planes than the US. Boing was just incompetent and mismanaged because of decades of government handouts keeping the business going and MBA wielding idiots cutting costs at every corner.

It became a private equity managed business without ever being bought by private equity.

▲

janc_ 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Arguing the EU has less regulation than the USA on anything is 99.9999% always wrong.

	▲	ChocolateGod a day ago \| parent [-]
		Is the 0.0001% kinder eggs?

▲

Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Boing was just incompetent and mismanaged because of decades of government handouts keeping the business going and MBA wielding idiots cutting costs at every corner.

>cutting costs at every corner

Costs like those incurred when adhering to safety standards set by regulations?

▲

seg_lol 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The biggest disaster of recent times (MCAS) was because of the tight regulations around type certification and trying to avoid costs to carriers

Lost me right here, MCAS may have been motivated by losing type certification (as it should), but everything they did was not a result of regulations. Including upcharging to make the system actually redundant. Had they actually engineered the MCAS properly, they would have never gotten caught in the first place.

▲

dctoedt 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Nuclear is this big scary monster because its invisible death machine.

Yup: It really is big, it really is scary.

▲

Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> and trying to avoid costs to carriers

Isn’t that just code for trying to violate regulations without getting caught?

▲

vablings a day ago | parent [-]

Yes but no. They wanted as many pilots to fly the new aircraft as possible without having to get them re-type certified which is pretty expensive. The issue is that pilots were completely unaware of the MCAS and when it malfunctioned there was not correct training in place because the system was "a hidden abstraction"

Clearly the system worked as intended because nobody had to be re-certified to fly the aircraft but being completely unaware of an additional control layer is dangerous and should have been known about by pilots, but Boeing kept it hidden.

	▲	Forgeties79 a day ago \| parent [-]
		So cutting costs in a way that is explicitly unsafe. Seems a little bit like splitting hairs but I get what you’re saying