The Problem with Regulations

Boeing 737 Max, photo: WSJ

Question:  Is the Boeing 737-Max a product of too little or too much regulation?

Or

Question:  Is the Boeing 737-Max a product of corporate greed and governmental failure?

By now almost everyone knows the story of how Boeing redesigned the workhorse of the Boeing fleet, the B-737 and to compensate for significant changes in the handling characteristics (and maintain a single type rating) they installed software and did not fully test the failure modes or issue adequate instruction to the pilots who would operate the aircraft.

This resulted in two fatal crashes, and has caused most, if not all, airlines to withdraw the aircraft from service, reduced orders for new aircraft, and a backlog of flyers as the airlines scrambled to restructure their schedules for the loss of several dozens of aircraft now grounded until the FAA approves whatever Boeing does to fix the software.

But why did this occur?

Airplane manufacturers are among the most regulated of businesses where every step in the manufacturing process is supposed to be documented, and each design change tested and approved by the regulatory agency, in Boeing’s case as a US manufacturer that would be the FAA.  Clearly, the regulation process broke down.  Why?

In the beginning, I asked two questions.  Is there too much or too little regulation?  I think this is like asking if the air is too hot or too cold.  Everyone will have their own opinion and little real concrete data to support it.  But it is a safe bet people in positions of authority will believe we need to have more regulations, for that is always the case in a failure, add more layers so it can’t happen again.

The second question is, in my opinion, easier to answer.  I don’t know how you can avoid saying yes.  To save costs Boeing took shortcuts, and the people who were supposed to protect the flying public failed to stop them.