3 ms·

I worked in aviation for years when I was younger, specifically around aircraft maintenance. If you think 4 missing bolts out of 150 are a red flag then I recom

I worked in aviation for years when I was younger, specifically around aircraft maintenance. If you think 4 missing bolts out of 150 are a red flag then I recommend you do not look at what has to happen for a plane to be deemed not airworthy.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
The more pertinent question, for me, is where are those screws? Are they on the ramp waiting to get ingested into an engine? Are they jammed in the flap tracks? Are they embedded into the leading edge of tail surface after flying off in flight at cruise speed? Its one thing to say that you can fly without those screws on the MEL. Its a whole other thing for parts to be falling off of an airplane in operation, even if they aren't required. A single piece of metal that fell off of a different airplane is what caused Concorde to crash.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  How are those pertinent questions? Even with the answers, you (and I) would have no idea what we were talking about. The only pertinent question is: Do qualified mechanics certify that the plane is safe?
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    I’m a pilot, not an A&P, but I’ve seen what happens when a loose screw goes where it shouldn’t on an airframe. You should be very concerned about pieces of metal falling off of planes and going where they shouldn't. Its enough of a worry that just about every airport has procedures and a significant budget for managing FOD. Keeping screws (and other FOD) off the runway and taxiways is a multibillion dollar industry for a reason. A non-required screw that backs itself off and falls off in flight is a maintenance procedures failure (torque or locking compound was ignored). Screws don’t just fall off. Ignoring it because it is non-required is dangerous because it could possibly indicate that screws are being installed incorrectly, including required ones. Qualified mechanics certify every single non-experimental plane as safe. Yet somehow, planes still crash for mechanical reasons.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > You should be very concerned about pieces of metal falling off of planes and going where they shouldn't. What kind of risk are we talking about? When did that last happen on a commercial airliner? How many people have been injured that I should be 'very concerned'?
      - dghlsakjg 3y ago
        As I mentioned before the Concorde crash is the most famous example of a piece of FOD from a plane causing a crash. It’s a big enough issue that every airport is required to have a debris management program, and runways and taxiways are regularly swept by specialized equipment. FOD is estimated to be a multibillion dollar problem by more than one study.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        Right, but I don't need to be 'very concerned'; the airline industry is very effective at preventing it. If I was going to be 'very concerned' about potential risks without considering mitigation, there's fuel tanks exploding, running out of fuel, drunk pilots, hitting mountains, runway collisions, etc. etc. Pieces of FOD don't seem to rate ... My point is about risk, of course. FOD is not an effective risk to me.
- lupire 3y ago
  Wikipedia: "Whilst taking off from Charles de Gaulle Airport, the aircraft ran over debris on the runway, causing a tyre to explode and disintegrate. Tyre fragments, launched upwards at great speed by the rapidly spinning wheel, violently struck the underside of the wing, damaging parts of the landing gear – thus preventing its retraction – and causing the integral fuel tank to rupture. Large amounts of fuel leaking from the rupture ignited, " Concorde had decades of documented tyre problems. That was a flawed design (tyre and fuel tank) that allowed this crazy outcome.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    You’ve chosen a very selective quote. What caused the tire to explode in such spectacular fashion? It was a strip of metal that had fallen off of another airplane a few minutes before. Concorde did have a higher risk due to its higher takeoff speed, but the only fatal accident in the airframes history was directly caused by a piece of metal that fell off a different plane.

dghlsakjg 3y ago

The more pertinent question, for me, is where are those screws? Are they on the ramp waiting to get ingested into an engine? Are they jammed in the flap tracks? Are they embedded into the leading edge of tail surface after flying off in flight at cruise speed? Its one thing to say that you can fly without those screws on the MEL. Its a whole other thing for parts to be falling off of an airplane in operation, even if they aren't required. A single piece of metal that fell off of a different airplane is what caused Concorde to crash.

wolverine876 3y ago
How are those pertinent questions? Even with the answers, you (and I) would have no idea what we were talking about. The only pertinent question is: Do qualified mechanics certify that the plane is safe?
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  I’m a pilot, not an A&P, but I’ve seen what happens when a loose screw goes where it shouldn’t on an airframe. You should be very concerned about pieces of metal falling off of planes and going where they shouldn't. Its enough of a worry that just about every airport has procedures and a significant budget for managing FOD. Keeping screws (and other FOD) off the runway and taxiways is a multibillion dollar industry for a reason. A non-required screw that backs itself off and falls off in flight is a maintenance procedures failure (torque or locking compound was ignored). Screws don’t just fall off. Ignoring it because it is non-required is dangerous because it could possibly indicate that screws are being installed incorrectly, including required ones. Qualified mechanics certify every single non-experimental plane as safe. Yet somehow, planes still crash for mechanical reasons.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > You should be very concerned about pieces of metal falling off of planes and going where they shouldn't. What kind of risk are we talking about? When did that last happen on a commercial airliner? How many people have been injured that I should be 'very concerned'?
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      As I mentioned before the Concorde crash is the most famous example of a piece of FOD from a plane causing a crash. It’s a big enough issue that every airport is required to have a debris management program, and runways and taxiways are regularly swept by specialized equipment. FOD is estimated to be a multibillion dollar problem by more than one study.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Right, but I don't need to be 'very concerned'; the airline industry is very effective at preventing it. If I was going to be 'very concerned' about potential risks without considering mitigation, there's fuel tanks exploding, running out of fuel, drunk pilots, hitting mountains, runway collisions, etc. etc. Pieces of FOD don't seem to rate ... My point is about risk, of course. FOD is not an effective risk to me.
lupire 3y ago
Wikipedia: "Whilst taking off from Charles de Gaulle Airport, the aircraft ran over debris on the runway, causing a tyre to explode and disintegrate. Tyre fragments, launched upwards at great speed by the rapidly spinning wheel, violently struck the underside of the wing, damaging parts of the landing gear – thus preventing its retraction – and causing the integral fuel tank to rupture. Large amounts of fuel leaking from the rupture ignited, " Concorde had decades of documented tyre problems. That was a flawed design (tyre and fuel tank) that allowed this crazy outcome.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  You’ve chosen a very selective quote. What caused the tire to explode in such spectacular fashion? It was a strip of metal that had fallen off of another airplane a few minutes before. Concorde did have a higher risk due to its higher takeoff speed, but the only fatal accident in the airframes history was directly caused by a piece of metal that fell off a different plane.