30 ms·

"""On the matter of parts being lost, in early 2017 a review by the Federal Aviation Administration upheld Mr Barnett's concerns, establishing that the location

"""On the matter of parts being lost, in early 2017 a review by the Federal Aviation Administration upheld Mr Barnett's concerns, establishing that the location of at least 53 "non-conforming" parts was unknown, and that they were considered lost. Boeing was ordered to take remedial action""" That's not just bad; this is really, _really_ bad. In my eight years of the Navy, working on aircraft, parts and tool accountability was 100% the most serious part of our day. You went to and left the aircraft with everything accounted for. If _one_ part or tool was missing, everything would shut down for that aircraft until it was found. The fact that tools and parts were/are missing tells me that either supply didn't do its job right, or someone left a loose nut in a compartment somewhere, just waiting to kill people. People _die_ because of this shit.

iagovar 7y ago
I would say, as european, that all this storm of shit is good news for Airbus, but I hop on Boeing planes too, and I think competition is good news. Boeing is maybe too big to fail, but the reputation hit they are taking may lead to companies not buying their planes, thus pushing for least competition, which is bad news for everyone. Airbus being the kind of behemoth company it is, I am convinced that without Boeing's competition, over time, they would end up with the same practices, convinced that their aircraft sell themselves.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  After the demise of the a380 project i doubt airbus will ever think again that the aircraft can sell themselves.
  - salex89 7y ago
    The A380 might actually live the destiny of the 767 or 757. Sure, it was a handful for the manufacturer, luckily pulled it off, kinda broke even after some time. But it will be long gone when it will be really needed, when large hubs become even more congested or certain P2P lines heavily overgrow on themselves.
    - tormeh 7y ago
      Good riddance. Despite being so big, its fuel efficiency is unimpressive. Something must be wrong with the design.
      - TremendousJudge 7y ago
        Can you expand on that?
      - innocenat 7y ago
        Yeah, the A380 designed for a longer fuselage so it's inefficient in the -800 variant.
        tormeh 7y ago
        Makes sense. It looks too bulky, and not slender enough.
      - wahern 7y ago
        It's engines are old, at least 1.5 generations behind the latest engines in production. Fuel efficiency only looks low when compared to aircraft using more modern engines. Unsurprisingly, Emirates canceled their order only after Rolls-Royce rescinded their plans for an engine upgrade. That's why there was the one year of waffling; Airbus and Emirates were trying secure a commitment from Rolls-Royce as everything turned on an upgraded engine. Even with the engine handicap the A380 was still generally competitive if fully loaded. And if not fully loaded it could still be competitive, as described by a recent story about the outsized role of the Dallas-Sydney route to Quantas' bottom line: https://simpleflying.com/dallas-sydney-qantas/ https://simpleflying.com/dallas-sydney-qantas/ (see also https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/10/28/this-once-a-day-flight-from-dfw-airport-brings-in-over-400-million-a-year/ https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/10/28/this...) Considering that engine efficiency is perhaps the biggest contributor to financial viability, that says something very positive about the A380 approach and design. But as engines continued to advance the A380 would have lost even that edge.
  - rorykoehler 7y ago
    A380 is an amazing business case. Ask anyone who has flown on one what their favourite commercial plane is and I would bet the majority will say it's the A380. Despite that it was still a commercial failure.
    - sandworm101 7y ago
      Exactly. A good airplane isnt enough. The manufacturer has to follow the market, not expect that thier new aircraft will create that market.
      - neuronic 7y ago
        You can't just follow when R&D and production for a new aircraft take decades. First feasibility studies for a A380 type aircraft were done in the 1980s, expecting the market in the future. The first delivery to a customer was MSN 003 to Singapore Airlines in 2007. You need to plan ahead.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - coredog64 7y ago
      My wife surely wouldn’t. The upper deck lav leaked on our heads for half the flight from Sydney to LA. What’s worse than a 16 hour flight? A 16 hour flight where you have to stand in the aisles.
      - FabHK 7y ago
        I've frequently seen condensed water from the air conditioner leak in an A380 (sometimes quite voluminously during take-off), are you positive it was the lavatory? (FWIW, I think the A380 has superb pax comfort.)
        crististm 7y ago
        So it's ok to have water dripping on your head as long as it's vapour condensation?
- lawlessone 7y ago
  >, but the reputation hit they are taking may lead to companies not buying their planes, thus pushing for least competition If the company doesn't suffer for such failures then competition doesn't matter.
- kpU8efre7r 7y ago
  Good for Airbus for putting out safer aircraft.
- mrtksn 7y ago
  Actually, there as an argument that it is not good for Airbus at all because it will risk the stability of duopoly between Boing and Airbus. The idea is that now Boing will be forced to actually invest tens of billions in new aircraft design, forcing Airbus to do the same instead of milking the current designs for as long as possible. Also, apparently the aircraft manufacturing is not a very flexible business and Airbus already produces as many planes as possible so other manufacturers(especially the Chinese) may actually use this as an opportunity to grab market share and destroying the comfortable duopoly.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > Actually, there as an argument that it is not good for Airbus at all because it will risk the stability of duopoly between Boing and Airbus. I like thinking about this in a sort of hypothetical Sparta. Sparta had two kings from two different royal lines. Suppose you're one of two kings, and the other royal line experiences some sort of dynastic hiccup. This inevitably happens to everyone. A popular strategy throughout history is to capitalize on that hiccup by exterminating the existing royal line, or at least driving them out of power so you can take it yourself. As a king, you are ideally positioned to do this. Maybe you can take both thrones and be the double-king. Maybe you can put your cousin on the second throne. Maybe you can put a flunky on the second throne. Maybe you can get rid of the second throne, leaving yourself as sole king. But once you do that, a precedent has been set. Your line will eventually stumble too, and it is likely to suffer whatever fate befell the other line the first time. Another strategy you have, back when the rival line first shows weakness, is to stake everything you have on your commitment to upholding the Spartan way of life as expressed in the dual kingship. Give rousing speeches on how unthinkable it would be for anything about the current setup to change. Throw all your considerable resources into supporting the king on the other throne, no matter how weak his position might look. If that sticks, the other line is likely to remember that you were there when they needed you. But even more than that, you've just established that the dual kingship, and the two families who fill it, are an integral part of the culture, never to be questioned. That tradition may ultimately prove more helpful to you than any personal support. And it has such obvious benefits to the other royal line that, going forward, they will likely support it just as strongly as you do. On this analogy, the problem with disturbing the Airbus / Boeing duopoly isn't that Boeing might start to compete with Airbus, provoking an arms race. The bigger problem is that (as you mention) some other company might start thinking they can make airplanes too, and who knows what could happen then.
- mopsi 7y ago
  Airbus is no better. Investigation report about an incident in 2018 was just released: https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd/0000&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd/0000&opt=0 What happened there: wrong kind of oil was used in elevator and it went unnoticed because maintenance guides did not require any inspections of affected parts. Wrong oil caused delays in sensor triggering, which led to primary computers shutting down, believing that there was a problem with elevator. Backup computers didn't detect gear compression correctly when the aicraft bounced on the runway (one computer believed it was on the ground, the other that it was airborne) and also shut down and locked the elevator in neutral (zero) position as a safety measure. This happened during a touch-and-go landing on a training flight. The A320 touched down, bounced, elevator got locked, the aircraft climbed a bit, then fell down on the runway scraping and damaging engines (due to loss of control), then took off again (not enough runway left for stopping) and was now flying with no elevator and with engines about to shut down. It's a miracle that pilots managed to turn around and land safely. In 1993, Lufthansa A320 crashed under similar conditions: landed in poor conditions, computers didn't think it was on the ground and didn't allow braking until it was too late https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_2904 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_2904
  - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
    > Airbus is no better. Maybe, but the report you linked does not show that. The issue with Boeing is not that a plane crashed but that planes crashed despite earlier reports that people considered these planes unsafe. No such reports came out of Airbus about the A320 as far as I'm aware. Also the regulators did not delegate certification to Airbus.
    - mopsi 7y ago
      Airbus has similar long-standing issues. On ground / airborne detection logic was broken in 1993 and is still broken in 2019, to a point that it can cause loss of flight controls. Boeing, in contrast, uses simple radar altimeter. Whenever altitude reads 10 feet or less, the aircraft is considered to be "on ground" and things like thrust reversers become available. I personally avoid praising or preferring Airbus when bashing Boeing. Who knows what else is under that rock too.
- iamtheworstdev 7y ago
  You shouldn't have anymore confidence in them then Boeing. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2923861/Airbus-whistleblower-faces-prison.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2923861/Airbus-whistlebl...
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    Everything’s coming up Bombardier? Haha.. oh...
- hourislate 7y ago
  It is worthwhile mentioning that the Airbus A320 wing was designed 35 years ago for a 70t platform, and has remained the same on all versions, from the A318 through to the A321. While unchanged, the wing has seen a steady loading increase: to 83t on the first A321, then 89t and 93.5t, and is finally expected to go up to 101t on the A321XLR. This increased wing loading has meant higher take-off speeds, reaching close to the maximum tire speed limits, and a lower safety margin at altitude – in other words, a tighter “coffin corner”, and lower stability protection. Airbus just hasn't had it's day yet.
situational87 7y ago
There has already been reporting on people leaving ladders and other tools inside delivered 787s. I'm not sure what Boeing is good at anymore besides gaming regulatory systems.
maxden 7y ago
The US Air Force has/had problems with the KC-46 (767) being delivered from Boeing with FOD and tools left in the aircraft. So they could use some improvements in the quality control area.
- torgian 7y ago
  I remember something similar happening to my squadron; an unopened can of oil was sitting in the engine compartment and we found it during our acceptance inspection. We were all like, WTF. Photos were taken and sent; I really hope someone got fired. This also led us to taking the aircraft completely apart and checking every nook and cranny. Found FOD and such in random places.
  - moftz 7y ago
    Usually people don't get fired for stuff like that. It can almost always be traced back to a process, documentation, or training issue. It sounds insulting but you need to treat humans like dumb lazy animals that require strict guidance on how to get things done. Having safeguards like toolbox checks and FOD checks reinforce processes. Expecting technicians to police themselves is ridiculous so you need people who's sole job is to check paperwork and keep everyone else in line. When there are lives and loads of money on the line, there's little room for being lazy about things. There is just likely a culture of laziness at Boeing's plant that leads to things like this happening.
    - torgian 7y ago
      ""It sounds insulting but you need to treat humans like dumb lazy animals that require strict guidance on how to get things done."" As a vet, this frustrates the hell out of me. We are trained to look out for one another and, especially in the case of aircraft maintenance, we are trained to police ourselves and each other. Yes, we also had strict guidance and checklists, and we followed them (sometimes only as best as we could depending on the situation, like combat zones, lack of supplies, etc). But, paramount above all that was safety and making sure whatever we did impacted safety in a positive way. Going into the civilian world, it frustrates the hell out of me how lazy everyone could be with things that could literally kill somebody if maintained incorrectly. And honestly it really surprises me a little how much of this about Boeing is coming out into the lime light. I thought their standards would be higher.
MSeven 7y ago
Just last week i heard a story from an older friend about a fighter jet crash investigation he was involved in, where the cause basically was that an engineer wired down some bolts (as required) but trimmed the ends of the wires without recovering the trimmed part. That little piece eventually found its way into the main stick mechanics, causing enough resistance at the wrong moment, preventing the pilot from recovering from a tight dive and killing him.
- xwdv 7y ago
  Do you think the pilot had any idea what happened or did he simply die never knowing?
  - lisper 7y ago
    Almost certainly the latter. :-(
  - martin_a 7y ago
    I think at the speeds we are talking about here, it's just an "the plane is not reacting to control input" and nothing else. Probably not enough time to think about what exactly went wrong (and will kill you in seconds).
  - nolok 7y ago
    Its lack of relevance to the matter at hand not withstanding, I admit to be a bit bewildered by your question and thus feel the need to ask: what makes you think the pilot could possibly have any idea that trimmed parts from a bolt is what caused the stick resistance, or that he would spend the time thinking about that instead of recovering the aircraft in the few minutes he had at the most ...
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      He or she would spend time mentally running through the avionics system to think of what to trouble shoot. Experienced pilots know how their craft works just like you know how to debug a failing drive and not waste time looking at your network cable. My neighbor is a pilot and I asked him completely off hand how to troubleshoot non responsive flaps and he went into detail about the hydraulics system, where the pumps are and the steps he would take to troubleshoot. This was off the top of his head without a checklist.
fapjacks 7y ago
This is what happens when engineering decisions are ceded to marketing wanks and MBA bros.
GuB-42 7y ago
> the location of at least 53 "non-conforming" parts was unknown Just to make things clear since I also work in the field. Non conforming parts are not a problem, at least not from a safety perspective. It just means that the part is damaged (ex: scratched) or not up to specs, and that some analysis is required. A typical result is that the part is usable but with more frequent inspections and a reduced service life. It is more of a problem for the company because they are losing money fixing stuff instead of doing it right the first time. Not knowing where each part is, conforming or not, is a really big problem, as mentioned by other posters.

iagovar 7y ago

I would say, as european, that all this storm of shit is good news for Airbus, but I hop on Boeing planes too, and I think competition is good news. Boeing is maybe too big to fail, but the reputation hit they are taking may lead to companies not buying their planes, thus pushing for least competition, which is bad news for everyone. Airbus being the kind of behemoth company it is, I am convinced that without Boeing's competition, over time, they would end up with the same practices, convinced that their aircraft sell themselves.

sandworm101 7y ago
After the demise of the a380 project i doubt airbus will ever think again that the aircraft can sell themselves.
- salex89 7y ago
  The A380 might actually live the destiny of the 767 or 757. Sure, it was a handful for the manufacturer, luckily pulled it off, kinda broke even after some time. But it will be long gone when it will be really needed, when large hubs become even more congested or certain P2P lines heavily overgrow on themselves.
  - tormeh 7y ago
    Good riddance. Despite being so big, its fuel efficiency is unimpressive. Something must be wrong with the design.
    - TremendousJudge 7y ago
      Can you expand on that?
    - innocenat 7y ago
      Yeah, the A380 designed for a longer fuselage so it's inefficient in the -800 variant.
      - tormeh 7y ago
        Makes sense. It looks too bulky, and not slender enough.
    - wahern 7y ago
      It's engines are old, at least 1.5 generations behind the latest engines in production. Fuel efficiency only looks low when compared to aircraft using more modern engines. Unsurprisingly, Emirates canceled their order only after Rolls-Royce rescinded their plans for an engine upgrade. That's why there was the one year of waffling; Airbus and Emirates were trying secure a commitment from Rolls-Royce as everything turned on an upgraded engine. Even with the engine handicap the A380 was still generally competitive if fully loaded. And if not fully loaded it could still be competitive, as described by a recent story about the outsized role of the Dallas-Sydney route to Quantas' bottom line: https://simpleflying.com/dallas-sydney-qantas/ https://simpleflying.com/dallas-sydney-qantas/ (see also https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/10/28/this-once-a-day-flight-from-dfw-airport-brings-in-over-400-million-a-year/ https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/10/28/this...) Considering that engine efficiency is perhaps the biggest contributor to financial viability, that says something very positive about the A380 approach and design. But as engines continued to advance the A380 would have lost even that edge.
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  A380 is an amazing business case. Ask anyone who has flown on one what their favourite commercial plane is and I would bet the majority will say it's the A380. Despite that it was still a commercial failure.
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    Exactly. A good airplane isnt enough. The manufacturer has to follow the market, not expect that thier new aircraft will create that market.
    - neuronic 7y ago
      You can't just follow when R&D and production for a new aircraft take decades. First feasibility studies for a A380 type aircraft were done in the 1980s, expecting the market in the future. The first delivery to a customer was MSN 003 to Singapore Airlines in 2007. You need to plan ahead.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - coredog64 7y ago
    My wife surely wouldn’t. The upper deck lav leaked on our heads for half the flight from Sydney to LA. What’s worse than a 16 hour flight? A 16 hour flight where you have to stand in the aisles.
    - FabHK 7y ago
      I've frequently seen condensed water from the air conditioner leak in an A380 (sometimes quite voluminously during take-off), are you positive it was the lavatory? (FWIW, I think the A380 has superb pax comfort.)
      - crististm 7y ago
        So it's ok to have water dripping on your head as long as it's vapour condensation?
lawlessone 7y ago
>, but the reputation hit they are taking may lead to companies not buying their planes, thus pushing for least competition If the company doesn't suffer for such failures then competition doesn't matter.
kpU8efre7r 7y ago
Good for Airbus for putting out safer aircraft.
mrtksn 7y ago
Actually, there as an argument that it is not good for Airbus at all because it will risk the stability of duopoly between Boing and Airbus. The idea is that now Boing will be forced to actually invest tens of billions in new aircraft design, forcing Airbus to do the same instead of milking the current designs for as long as possible. Also, apparently the aircraft manufacturing is not a very flexible business and Airbus already produces as many planes as possible so other manufacturers(especially the Chinese) may actually use this as an opportunity to grab market share and destroying the comfortable duopoly.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > Actually, there as an argument that it is not good for Airbus at all because it will risk the stability of duopoly between Boing and Airbus. I like thinking about this in a sort of hypothetical Sparta. Sparta had two kings from two different royal lines. Suppose you're one of two kings, and the other royal line experiences some sort of dynastic hiccup. This inevitably happens to everyone. A popular strategy throughout history is to capitalize on that hiccup by exterminating the existing royal line, or at least driving them out of power so you can take it yourself. As a king, you are ideally positioned to do this. Maybe you can take both thrones and be the double-king. Maybe you can put your cousin on the second throne. Maybe you can put a flunky on the second throne. Maybe you can get rid of the second throne, leaving yourself as sole king. But once you do that, a precedent has been set. Your line will eventually stumble too, and it is likely to suffer whatever fate befell the other line the first time. Another strategy you have, back when the rival line first shows weakness, is to stake everything you have on your commitment to upholding the Spartan way of life as expressed in the dual kingship. Give rousing speeches on how unthinkable it would be for anything about the current setup to change. Throw all your considerable resources into supporting the king on the other throne, no matter how weak his position might look. If that sticks, the other line is likely to remember that you were there when they needed you. But even more than that, you've just established that the dual kingship, and the two families who fill it, are an integral part of the culture, never to be questioned. That tradition may ultimately prove more helpful to you than any personal support. And it has such obvious benefits to the other royal line that, going forward, they will likely support it just as strongly as you do. On this analogy, the problem with disturbing the Airbus / Boeing duopoly isn't that Boeing might start to compete with Airbus, provoking an arms race. The bigger problem is that (as you mention) some other company might start thinking they can make airplanes too, and who knows what could happen then.
mopsi 7y ago
Airbus is no better. Investigation report about an incident in 2018 was just released: https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd/0000&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd/0000&opt=0 What happened there: wrong kind of oil was used in elevator and it went unnoticed because maintenance guides did not require any inspections of affected parts. Wrong oil caused delays in sensor triggering, which led to primary computers shutting down, believing that there was a problem with elevator. Backup computers didn't detect gear compression correctly when the aicraft bounced on the runway (one computer believed it was on the ground, the other that it was airborne) and also shut down and locked the elevator in neutral (zero) position as a safety measure. This happened during a touch-and-go landing on a training flight. The A320 touched down, bounced, elevator got locked, the aircraft climbed a bit, then fell down on the runway scraping and damaging engines (due to loss of control), then took off again (not enough runway left for stopping) and was now flying with no elevator and with engines about to shut down. It's a miracle that pilots managed to turn around and land safely. In 1993, Lufthansa A320 crashed under similar conditions: landed in poor conditions, computers didn't think it was on the ground and didn't allow braking until it was too late https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_2904 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_2904
- the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
  > Airbus is no better. Maybe, but the report you linked does not show that. The issue with Boeing is not that a plane crashed but that planes crashed despite earlier reports that people considered these planes unsafe. No such reports came out of Airbus about the A320 as far as I'm aware. Also the regulators did not delegate certification to Airbus.
  - mopsi 7y ago
    Airbus has similar long-standing issues. On ground / airborne detection logic was broken in 1993 and is still broken in 2019, to a point that it can cause loss of flight controls. Boeing, in contrast, uses simple radar altimeter. Whenever altitude reads 10 feet or less, the aircraft is considered to be "on ground" and things like thrust reversers become available. I personally avoid praising or preferring Airbus when bashing Boeing. Who knows what else is under that rock too.
iamtheworstdev 7y ago
You shouldn't have anymore confidence in them then Boeing. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2923861/Airbus-whistleblower-faces-prison.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2923861/Airbus-whistlebl...
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  Everything’s coming up Bombardier? Haha.. oh...
hourislate 7y ago
It is worthwhile mentioning that the Airbus A320 wing was designed 35 years ago for a 70t platform, and has remained the same on all versions, from the A318 through to the A321. While unchanged, the wing has seen a steady loading increase: to 83t on the first A321, then 89t and 93.5t, and is finally expected to go up to 101t on the A321XLR. This increased wing loading has meant higher take-off speeds, reaching close to the maximum tire speed limits, and a lower safety margin at altitude – in other words, a tighter “coffin corner”, and lower stability protection. Airbus just hasn't had it's day yet.

situational87 7y ago

There has already been reporting on people leaving ladders and other tools inside delivered 787s. I'm not sure what Boeing is good at anymore besides gaming regulatory systems.

maxden 7y ago

The US Air Force has/had problems with the KC-46 (767) being delivered from Boeing with FOD and tools left in the aircraft. So they could use some improvements in the quality control area.

torgian 7y ago
I remember something similar happening to my squadron; an unopened can of oil was sitting in the engine compartment and we found it during our acceptance inspection. We were all like, WTF. Photos were taken and sent; I really hope someone got fired. This also led us to taking the aircraft completely apart and checking every nook and cranny. Found FOD and such in random places.
- moftz 7y ago
  Usually people don't get fired for stuff like that. It can almost always be traced back to a process, documentation, or training issue. It sounds insulting but you need to treat humans like dumb lazy animals that require strict guidance on how to get things done. Having safeguards like toolbox checks and FOD checks reinforce processes. Expecting technicians to police themselves is ridiculous so you need people who's sole job is to check paperwork and keep everyone else in line. When there are lives and loads of money on the line, there's little room for being lazy about things. There is just likely a culture of laziness at Boeing's plant that leads to things like this happening.
  - torgian 7y ago
    ""It sounds insulting but you need to treat humans like dumb lazy animals that require strict guidance on how to get things done."" As a vet, this frustrates the hell out of me. We are trained to look out for one another and, especially in the case of aircraft maintenance, we are trained to police ourselves and each other. Yes, we also had strict guidance and checklists, and we followed them (sometimes only as best as we could depending on the situation, like combat zones, lack of supplies, etc). But, paramount above all that was safety and making sure whatever we did impacted safety in a positive way. Going into the civilian world, it frustrates the hell out of me how lazy everyone could be with things that could literally kill somebody if maintained incorrectly. And honestly it really surprises me a little how much of this about Boeing is coming out into the lime light. I thought their standards would be higher.

MSeven 7y ago

Just last week i heard a story from an older friend about a fighter jet crash investigation he was involved in, where the cause basically was that an engineer wired down some bolts (as required) but trimmed the ends of the wires without recovering the trimmed part. That little piece eventually found its way into the main stick mechanics, causing enough resistance at the wrong moment, preventing the pilot from recovering from a tight dive and killing him.

xwdv 7y ago
Do you think the pilot had any idea what happened or did he simply die never knowing?
- lisper 7y ago
  Almost certainly the latter. :-(
- martin_a 7y ago
  I think at the speeds we are talking about here, it's just an "the plane is not reacting to control input" and nothing else. Probably not enough time to think about what exactly went wrong (and will kill you in seconds).
- nolok 7y ago
  Its lack of relevance to the matter at hand not withstanding, I admit to be a bit bewildered by your question and thus feel the need to ask: what makes you think the pilot could possibly have any idea that trimmed parts from a bolt is what caused the stick resistance, or that he would spend the time thinking about that instead of recovering the aircraft in the few minutes he had at the most ...
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    He or she would spend time mentally running through the avionics system to think of what to trouble shoot. Experienced pilots know how their craft works just like you know how to debug a failing drive and not waste time looking at your network cable. My neighbor is a pilot and I asked him completely off hand how to troubleshoot non responsive flaps and he went into detail about the hydraulics system, where the pumps are and the steps he would take to troubleshoot. This was off the top of his head without a checklist.

fapjacks 7y ago

This is what happens when engineering decisions are ceded to marketing wanks and MBA bros.

GuB-42 7y ago

> the location of at least 53 "non-conforming" parts was unknown Just to make things clear since I also work in the field. Non conforming parts are not a problem, at least not from a safety perspective. It just means that the part is damaged (ex: scratched) or not up to specs, and that some analysis is required. A typical result is that the part is usable but with more frequent inspections and a reduced service life. It is more of a problem for the company because they are losing money fixing stuff instead of doing it right the first time. Not knowing where each part is, conforming or not, is a really big problem, as mentioned by other posters.