3 ms·

I understand what you mean, but airplanes aren’t the same as cars in this way. It’s in the manufacturer’s and airliner’s interests for the airplane to be as mai

I understand what you mean, but airplanes aren’t the same as cars in this way. It’s in the manufacturer’s and airliner’s interests for the airplane to be as maintainable as possible. Commercial airliners are designed to be used 24/7 for decades. These are long-term investments and idle time is expensive. Airplanes and cars are regulated as differently as cars and watermelons. If an airliner literally encountered phantom electrical issues it would be grounded immediately, and they’d be fixed — that’s the point of all the civilian infrastructure, like the FAA, that we’ve built up around air travel. I know, it’s not perfect, there are mistakes and sometimes corruption, but for the most part it works. Many parts of every airplane in the sky have been replaced multiple times. It’s the only way they work.

dieselgate 3y ago
Agree with this, the plane is relatively young as well only like 17 years old IIRC
ostbender 3y ago
You forget that Russia is under heavy sanctions (which likely lead to the accident in the first place), and they have a difficult time maintaining their normal planes, let alone those that crash land or take off from fields
- imp0cat 3y ago
  Oh, so is this one of the stolen planes? And so they are unable to get spare parts?
  - kergonath 3y ago
    Officially, no. In reality there are ways around it. There are always local or Chinese knockoffs, and other aircrafts that can be used as sources of spare parts. This one might well end up like this if too many things go wrong. It’s obviously suboptimal and a bit of a gamble.
  - rob74 3y ago
    According to https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/airbus-a320-200-ra-73807-ural-airlines/3v5wye https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/airbus-a320-200-ra-73..., the plane was leased from AerCap and registered as VQ-BFW (Bermuda) until 23 Mar 2022, and then re-registered as RA-73807 - so yes, this is one of the stolen planes. But the spare parts situation is not related to that... I have found an article https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/aircraft-lessor-aercap-settles-russia-aeroflot-claim-645-million-2023-09-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/aircraft-... about AerCap receiving 645 million dollars for 17 (or 18?) aircraft used by Aeroflot, but Ural Airlines being independent of Aeroflot, I don't think this plane is part of that agreement.
bentcorner 3y ago
> If an airliner literally encountered phantom electrical issues it would be grounded immediately, and they’d be fixed Not necessarily - I'm no aviator but from my understanding even if there are non-functioning systems the airplane can still fly: https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/inoperative-equipment/ https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/inoperative-... Here's an example of where that went wrong: https://youtu.be/iMMQ6-OfnL0?t=729 https://youtu.be/iMMQ6-OfnL0?t=729 Although I do agree that the aviation industry takes safety very seriously.
grishka 3y ago
The difference makes sense because if a car fails, it just stops and you tow it to get fixed. But if a plane fails, it falls out of the sky, killing everyone on board.
- networkchad 3y ago
  [dead]

dieselgate 3y ago

Agree with this, the plane is relatively young as well only like 17 years old IIRC

ostbender 3y ago

You forget that Russia is under heavy sanctions (which likely lead to the accident in the first place), and they have a difficult time maintaining their normal planes, let alone those that crash land or take off from fields

imp0cat 3y ago
Oh, so is this one of the stolen planes? And so they are unable to get spare parts?
- kergonath 3y ago
  Officially, no. In reality there are ways around it. There are always local or Chinese knockoffs, and other aircrafts that can be used as sources of spare parts. This one might well end up like this if too many things go wrong. It’s obviously suboptimal and a bit of a gamble.
- rob74 3y ago
  According to https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/airbus-a320-200-ra-73807-ural-airlines/3v5wye https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/airbus-a320-200-ra-73..., the plane was leased from AerCap and registered as VQ-BFW (Bermuda) until 23 Mar 2022, and then re-registered as RA-73807 - so yes, this is one of the stolen planes. But the spare parts situation is not related to that... I have found an article https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/aircraft-lessor-aercap-settles-russia-aeroflot-claim-645-million-2023-09-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/aircraft-... about AerCap receiving 645 million dollars for 17 (or 18?) aircraft used by Aeroflot, but Ural Airlines being independent of Aeroflot, I don't think this plane is part of that agreement.

bentcorner 3y ago

> If an airliner literally encountered phantom electrical issues it would be grounded immediately, and they’d be fixed Not necessarily - I'm no aviator but from my understanding even if there are non-functioning systems the airplane can still fly: https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/inoperative-equipment/ https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/inoperative-... Here's an example of where that went wrong: https://youtu.be/iMMQ6-OfnL0?t=729 https://youtu.be/iMMQ6-OfnL0?t=729 Although I do agree that the aviation industry takes safety very seriously.

grishka 3y ago

The difference makes sense because if a car fails, it just stops and you tow it to get fixed. But if a plane fails, it falls out of the sky, killing everyone on board.

networkchad 3y ago
[dead]