3 ms·
I included it because in theory it shows that the windshield was either overdue for replacement or it wasn't an original windshield, so it's not evidence of fai
by lolinder 3y ago
I included it because in theory it shows that the windshield was either overdue for replacement or it wasn't an original windshield, so it's not evidence of failure on Boeing's part in the initial manufacture of the plane.
Admittedly, I don't know much about how maintenance works for these planes, so there could be something I'm missing.
- jacquesm 3y agoI'd wait with any judgment until the inevitable investigation has run its course because there are just as many ways in which it could be a Boeing issue as there are ways in which it can't. Anything specific about this failure is right now mostly speculation. Also, and maybe surprisingly to some, cracked cockpit windows are not a big deal as long as they stay in place until the landing because they are multi-layered and ridiculously strong to begin with.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> or it wasn't an original windshield Put another way, it’s a recently-fabricated windshield. Which could be read as it being less resilient than the original. That’s not how I’m reading it, absent further information. L