MSPNWA wrote:Two different words don't automatically create two different meanings
They are/were not SIGNING OFF another's work. They are/were ACCEPTING another's work. Completely different thing.
They're the same thing! Two different words don't automatically create two different meanings.
Another real-life example: Let's say I "accept" a shipment of goods from a supplier. I sign off on the delivery with barely a once-over, or worse, sight-unseen, completely taking their word for it because they've been reliable. Am I resolved of responsibility to my firm if that shipment is wrong? Of course not. I didn't make the mistake in loading the wrong shipment, but I am absolutely responsible for accepting it as-is. We both made a mistake. You can debate "grades" of mistakes, but you can't deny both made a mistake.
The idea that the EASA who:
-doesn't know the details of the MAX certification
-made a mistake by accepting the certification of the FAA based on agreements and prior trust
= being the ultimate authority for ungrounding the MAX is logically incongruent.
Correct. You need to know the context. In this case the context is very clear, and there is clearly a very different meaning to the two words.
The shipment goods supplier is a very poor comparison. The thing is that EASA and FAA have an agreement, which stipulates basically what the difference is between SIGNING OFF and ACCEPTING another's work. It lots of harmonization of regulations to and took twenty years of top level discussions to reach that agreement.
This is not about "we both made a mistake"
, it's about having checks and balances, controls and processes in place to catch such mistakes. And clearly, on the FAA side they have not worked.
The BASA agreement basically arranges that there is no longer duplication of efforts. A certification effort is a big process. It starts already at the design process, and finishes 5 – 10 years later with Type Certificate. Nobody (not FAA, not EASA, and certainly not Boeing) has anything to gain in duplicating such huge efforts. Hence the BASA agreement.
Again, it has nothing to do with EASA not doing its due diligence, because that is exactly what such agreement is intended for.
You would be correct if there were no such agreement, then EASA had a much higher level of due diligence.
If you want to throw out that agreement, then Boeing better be prepared that EASA will take another two - three years to re-certify the MAX, and each following new model. 77X is next in line.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"