4 ms·

Approval != safe. Some authentic parts break, some inauthentic parts don't. There is probably a correlation, but it's not immediately clear what it is in most l

Approval != safe. Some authentic parts break, some inauthentic parts don't. There is probably a correlation, but it's not immediately clear what it is in most let alone all circumstances. The aero parts business is supposed to be a chain of trust, similar to the chain of custody you'd have for court evidence. It's there so you can ascertain provenance of parts in case something goes wrong. Inspections are there to "prove" that parts are safe to fly, or at least as close as you can get vs the cost to inspect, overhaul, replace etc. Any level of certainty has a cost attached to it. The fact that they found these parts and that investigations are ongoing is certain level of proof that the system works. The other, more drastic, form of proof is that the number of crashes per year due to faulty parts is kept low. As to "fake" parts, we don't know the whole situation yet; they may be genuine parts but just may lack certification. This is what the investigation is for.

mywacaday 3y ago
Authentic parts are appropriately tested, have known tested failure modes and well understood lifespans that are built into maintenance schedules. If a fake part fails outside of the known failure scenarios there is a cost in investigating that issue and resolving it even if the failure is not catastrophic.
vineyardmike 3y ago
This is a bad take. “Real” parts are known. Real parts are tested, and their failure modes are understood in relation to each other. Yea you can get lucky on a fake or a bad apple on a real one but that’s just luck. The story surely would be “delta accidentally has been buying a superior part” if the parts were more reliable. > As to "fake" parts, we don't know the whole situation yet; they may be genuine parts but just may lack certification If this was the case it wouldn’t have forged certification. The only way this would be true is if delta was buying genuine parts from sketchy resellers and distributors which doesn’t make them look much better. The damning evidence to all this is the forgery. If you buy “off brand” generic parts, you should know that you are. To forge a document is a deliberate, non accidental, action to lie and deceive. Why would anyone do that unless the part was inferior?
- mulmen 3y ago
  > Why would anyone do that unless the part was inferior? Could be refurbished or used parts being sold with or without inspection to save cost on (re)certification. We just don’t know at this point.
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    > Could be refurbished or used parts That is inferior to new, considering physical goods have a limited mechanical lifespan. Either way, it misses the point that the product is a lie sold on false pretenses. Lying about what you sell is not a good sign. There is no world, no product conditions, no anything, where a lie about what’s being sold should be tolerated. Fraud a crime for a reason. > We just don’t know at this point. At this point I already know I’d pick the plane with genuine certified parts if I had the choice.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      > That is inferior to new, considering physical goods have a limited mechanical lifespan. Maybe. The bathtub curve exists. I trust the certification process. I’m sure used parts are serviceable in some cases. > Either way, it misses the point that the product is a lie sold on false pretenses. It doesn’t because I am only offering an explanation of why someone would lie. > At this point I already know I’d pick the plane with genuine certified parts if I had the choice. Of course. It seems like you interpreted my comment as some kind of defense of these parts or the people selling them. That was not my intent.
  - MereInterest 3y ago
    That isn’t any better. Mechanical parts have finite lifetimes for a reason. If a part is known to develop stress fractures after 5000 hours, it may have be required to replace that part after 3000 hours, even if there are no visible signs of wear at that point. If that part is then re-sold as new with a forged history, that’s a problem.
    - mulmen 3y ago
ploum 3y ago
If anything, the past years has demonstrated that crashes are now caused by "certified software upgrade" (I’m refering to the 737-MAX fiasco)
yason 3y ago
> Some authentic parts break, some inauthentic parts don't. When authentic parts break they can be traced back to the origin, investigated why did they break and what changes are needed in manufacturing to prevent future parts from also breaking, and whether the process could mean other planes need to be grounded before the part fails on them too. With inauthentic parts you don't know why it works and you don't know how it fails and you can't track back anything in the chain of manufacturing because you don't know who you're dealing with. Which is why aerospace industry doesn't use anything but original parts with tractable history.

mywacaday 3y ago

Authentic parts are appropriately tested, have known tested failure modes and well understood lifespans that are built into maintenance schedules. If a fake part fails outside of the known failure scenarios there is a cost in investigating that issue and resolving it even if the failure is not catastrophic.

vineyardmike 3y ago

This is a bad take. “Real” parts are known. Real parts are tested, and their failure modes are understood in relation to each other. Yea you can get lucky on a fake or a bad apple on a real one but that’s just luck. The story surely would be “delta accidentally has been buying a superior part” if the parts were more reliable. > As to "fake" parts, we don't know the whole situation yet; they may be genuine parts but just may lack certification If this was the case it wouldn’t have forged certification. The only way this would be true is if delta was buying genuine parts from sketchy resellers and distributors which doesn’t make them look much better. The damning evidence to all this is the forgery. If you buy “off brand” generic parts, you should know that you are. To forge a document is a deliberate, non accidental, action to lie and deceive. Why would anyone do that unless the part was inferior?

mulmen 3y ago
> Why would anyone do that unless the part was inferior? Could be refurbished or used parts being sold with or without inspection to save cost on (re)certification. We just don’t know at this point.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  > Could be refurbished or used parts That is inferior to new, considering physical goods have a limited mechanical lifespan. Either way, it misses the point that the product is a lie sold on false pretenses. Lying about what you sell is not a good sign. There is no world, no product conditions, no anything, where a lie about what’s being sold should be tolerated. Fraud a crime for a reason. > We just don’t know at this point. At this point I already know I’d pick the plane with genuine certified parts if I had the choice.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    > That is inferior to new, considering physical goods have a limited mechanical lifespan. Maybe. The bathtub curve exists. I trust the certification process. I’m sure used parts are serviceable in some cases. > Either way, it misses the point that the product is a lie sold on false pretenses. It doesn’t because I am only offering an explanation of why someone would lie. > At this point I already know I’d pick the plane with genuine certified parts if I had the choice. Of course. It seems like you interpreted my comment as some kind of defense of these parts or the people selling them. That was not my intent.
- MereInterest 3y ago
  That isn’t any better. Mechanical parts have finite lifetimes for a reason. If a part is known to develop stress fractures after 5000 hours, it may have be required to replace that part after 3000 hours, even if there are no visible signs of wear at that point. If that part is then re-sold as new with a forged history, that’s a problem.
  - mulmen 3y ago

ploum 3y ago

If anything, the past years has demonstrated that crashes are now caused by "certified software upgrade" (I’m refering to the 737-MAX fiasco)

yason 3y ago

> Some authentic parts break, some inauthentic parts don't. When authentic parts break they can be traced back to the origin, investigated why did they break and what changes are needed in manufacturing to prevent future parts from also breaking, and whether the process could mean other planes need to be grounded before the part fails on them too. With inauthentic parts you don't know why it works and you don't know how it fails and you can't track back anything in the chain of manufacturing because you don't know who you're dealing with. Which is why aerospace industry doesn't use anything but original parts with tractable history.