4 ms·
Well mistakes happen. I wouldn't assume that my main supplier is malicious, because then you have much bigger issues than just a single defective part. The issu
by mardifoufs 3y ago
Well mistakes happen. I wouldn't assume that my main supplier is malicious, because then you have much bigger issues than just a single defective part. The issue isn't that a part was defective here, the thing I have a hard time believing is that the part was not just defective, but that spirit just didn't do the job, knowingly. They didn't have the parts that an actual legit repair/rebuild would have required so they didn't do it. To me that makes very little sense, especially since they apparently tried to just lie about it first too, and then no systems or QA did anything about it.
Raw meat can happen, you catch it before you start eating it. In this case, it's more like you got a pack of used needles instead (pretty much equivalent to a non installed door in an airplane) because the chef didn't want to wait 5mins for the meat to cook, you basically just acknowledge the needles and start eating. That what is hard for me to believe. The original 737max controversy made sense, shortcuts were taken, and it made sense why that sort of disfunction would slowly creep into the design process. It also makes sense that some believed that the redesign would still work since hey, pilots just have to handle the errors if they happen! But in this case? The motivations don't make sense, especially since it apparently wasn't just a mishap or a failure, but intentional fraud.