3 ms·

I did not imply that, and what you are asking there is a fallacy. Maintenance is a core part of airworthiness, and the only way you can mitigate design flaws.

I did not imply that, and what you are asking there is a fallacy. Maintenance is a core part of airworthiness, and the only way you can mitigate design flaws. But at the same time, if you had a running processor with a known side channel vulnerability, and you know the manufacturer doesn’t release a mitigation or doesn’t really care that much about security, would you still use it? Is the manufacturer liable for not releasing mitigations or not caring that much about security? If the airframe is not airworthy after inspections and there is no maintenance remedy that can be applied to it at an economical cost, then that airplane shall be scrapped… Even before it reaches the FAA. So in a way yes, if you can’t apply maintenance the way it is supposed to be, then it is not airworthy, and if the manufacturer does not release proper TNs to mitigate design flaws, then it is also not airworthy. I will wait to the report from the FAA and see what they find out.

mlyle 3y ago
This is again presupposing a design or maintenance instruction flaw. There's a thousand of these aircraft, and they've each been through multiple D checks where all of this is completely disassembled and put back together; then there's other maintenance that causes disassembly and reassembly, too. In tens of thousands of opportunities, it looks like one time a wheel assembly was not fastened adequately. It's possible procedures can be improved to make this even less likely. But maybe not: people make mistakes. Sometimes someone signs the line saying that something was torqued and didn't realize they had torqued something different.
- trklausss 3y ago
  I am not presupposing anything, I am laying out a _possible_ scenario (see all the ifs?). I am just doubting safety procedures where followed as they should, which is the same thing the FAA is doing and that’s why they are investigating. If they were sure everything was fine, they wouldn’t do it. Doubting, and scrutiny in safety-critical environments is not a bad thing, it is what makes things safer. I won’t defend Delta nor Boeing until the FAA sees the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted, and neither should you.

mlyle 3y ago

This is again presupposing a design or maintenance instruction flaw. There's a thousand of these aircraft, and they've each been through multiple D checks where all of this is completely disassembled and put back together; then there's other maintenance that causes disassembly and reassembly, too. In tens of thousands of opportunities, it looks like one time a wheel assembly was not fastened adequately. It's possible procedures can be improved to make this even less likely. But maybe not: people make mistakes. Sometimes someone signs the line saying that something was torqued and didn't realize they had torqued something different.

trklausss 3y ago
I am not presupposing anything, I am laying out a _possible_ scenario (see all the ifs?). I am just doubting safety procedures where followed as they should, which is the same thing the FAA is doing and that’s why they are investigating. If they were sure everything was fine, they wouldn’t do it. Doubting, and scrutiny in safety-critical environments is not a bad thing, it is what makes things safer. I won’t defend Delta nor Boeing until the FAA sees the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted, and neither should you.