5 ms·

Even if it was some more critical part it could just mean that it has a lifetime of 10 years instead of 15 or 20. Or just needs to be checked more often so addi

by doikor 5y ago

Even if it was some more critical part it could just mean that it has a lifetime of 10 years instead of 15 or 20. Or just needs to be checked more often so adding a bit to the maintenance costs until it is replaced. Worst case is that it is some really important part that is not designed to be changed during the lifetime of the plane making fixing it really hard (or impossible)

kova12 5y ago
Or it could mean that a wing might fall off next time plane is under stress. We don't know, and since it's our life on the line, we do deserve to know
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  If the damn FAA hasn't issued a AirWorthiness Directive, you'll be fine. 99.999999999999% of people have no idea what any of this info actually means or how to process it. COVID has proven this fact
  - kova12 5y ago
    based on FAA stellar record in that matters, I'd say we still better be informed
  - dahart 5y ago
    The FAA failed to issue an Air Worthiness directive until after both 737 Max crashes. We have to hope that’s fixed, but until there’s more evidence, the FAA’s failure to ground a plane doesn’t give me much comfort.
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      Bullshit. The FAA issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive a week and a half after the first crash, and grounded the entire 737 MAX fleet three days after the second.
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Bullshit. Their job was to check the design and make sure it doesnt have glaring flaws. If they did their job, and didn't hire part-time engineers who worked for boeing at the same time, 500 people would still be alive.
        jaywalk 5y ago
        That has nothing to do with what I said or the comment I was responding to. That being said, yes I think everyone agrees that the FAA was far too lax in the certification process. Doesn't change the fact that the post I replied to contained objectively false information that I corrected.
      - rafale 5y ago
        Is the final accident report out yet? I wonder if they are gonna blame the pilots for failing to handle a runaway trim situation regardless of what caused it (the infamous MCAS in this situation). It's a memory checklist item, they should have cut the electric trim motors and trimmed manually (assuming the plane hasn't gone in a deep dive at that point,the forces on the control surface would make it impossible to trim manually).
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        They're probably gonna blame the airlines, Boeing and the pilots. Planes don't crash unless damn near every party involved does something wrong. Boeing has a responsibility to not build hard to operate junk. Failing that the airlines have a responsibility to train the pilots on said junk. Failing that the pilots still have a responsibility to to understand how the junk works. They probably will minimize the blame on the pilots since both Boeing and the airlines were pretending that the new plane was the same as the old plane for regulatory compliance reasons and in light of that messaging you can't really expect people to learn about the differences themselves. What they won't blame at all but probably deserves a mention is a long and expensive type certification process that provided the incentives for all the dominoes on the Boeing and airline side of things to line up the way they did. Nobody at Boeing or the airlines was attempting to achieve this outcome. They were trying to achieve a marginally better 737 within the bounds of the existing regulation.
nolok 5y ago
You say "just" as if it wasn't important. I understand why you say that, but you clearly don't realise how much % of airplanes crash ends up being caused by maintenance skipping a beat. Shorter beats means a lot more skips.

by doikor 5y ago

kova12 5y ago

Or it could mean that a wing might fall off next time plane is under stress. We don't know, and since it's our life on the line, we do deserve to know

NikolaeVarius 5y ago
If the damn FAA hasn't issued a AirWorthiness Directive, you'll be fine. 99.999999999999% of people have no idea what any of this info actually means or how to process it. COVID has proven this fact
- kova12 5y ago
  based on FAA stellar record in that matters, I'd say we still better be informed
- dahart 5y ago
  The FAA failed to issue an Air Worthiness directive until after both 737 Max crashes. We have to hope that’s fixed, but until there’s more evidence, the FAA’s failure to ground a plane doesn’t give me much comfort.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    Bullshit. The FAA issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive a week and a half after the first crash, and grounded the entire 737 MAX fleet three days after the second.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Bullshit. Their job was to check the design and make sure it doesnt have glaring flaws. If they did their job, and didn't hire part-time engineers who worked for boeing at the same time, 500 people would still be alive.
      - jaywalk 5y ago
        That has nothing to do with what I said or the comment I was responding to. That being said, yes I think everyone agrees that the FAA was far too lax in the certification process. Doesn't change the fact that the post I replied to contained objectively false information that I corrected.
    - rafale 5y ago
      Is the final accident report out yet? I wonder if they are gonna blame the pilots for failing to handle a runaway trim situation regardless of what caused it (the infamous MCAS in this situation). It's a memory checklist item, they should have cut the electric trim motors and trimmed manually (assuming the plane hasn't gone in a deep dive at that point,the forces on the control surface would make it impossible to trim manually).
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        They're probably gonna blame the airlines, Boeing and the pilots. Planes don't crash unless damn near every party involved does something wrong. Boeing has a responsibility to not build hard to operate junk. Failing that the airlines have a responsibility to train the pilots on said junk. Failing that the pilots still have a responsibility to to understand how the junk works. They probably will minimize the blame on the pilots since both Boeing and the airlines were pretending that the new plane was the same as the old plane for regulatory compliance reasons and in light of that messaging you can't really expect people to learn about the differences themselves. What they won't blame at all but probably deserves a mention is a long and expensive type certification process that provided the incentives for all the dominoes on the Boeing and airline side of things to line up the way they did. Nobody at Boeing or the airlines was attempting to achieve this outcome. They were trying to achieve a marginally better 737 within the bounds of the existing regulation.

nolok 5y ago

You say "just" as if it wasn't important. I understand why you say that, but you clearly don't realise how much % of airplanes crash ends up being caused by maintenance skipping a beat. Shorter beats means a lot more skips.