2 ms·
>Things that operate safely tend not require so much scrutiny. I don't understand this statement, it seems fundamentally wrong. Aviation is full of scrutiny. A
by 0xy 6y ago
>Things that operate safely tend not require so much scrutiny.
I don't understand this statement, it seems fundamentally wrong. Aviation is full of scrutiny. Aircraft maintenance checks happy every 500 flight hours. Engines get overhauled completely every 1,500 hours.
Maintenance and scrutiny ensure safety.
If the Max has received, at a guess, 200x the scrutiny of any other plane in history, then I'd wager it is the safest. And at this point, pilots will know the Max back to front and front to back in order to avoid issues. Do pilots have such deep knowledge of other planes which almost assuredly have latent bugs which rarely or never crop up due to exceedingly rare conditions?
- topspin 6y ago> Aircraft maintenance checks happy every 500 flight hours. Engines get overhauled completely every 1,500 hours. Maintenance and overhauls don't address design issues. Exactly the opposite; the people that perform checks and maintenance are expressly not supposed to deviate from approved designs and published processes. Conflating these tasks with regulatory scrutiny shows a fundamental misunderstanding about this discussion. And airliner engines are not 'completely overhauled' every 1,500 hours. Figures that low are related to small aircraft engines, usually piston engines.