this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
735 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

59696 readers
2741 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Because Boeing were on such a good streak already...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aatube@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So, you’re saying that the intervals set by Boeing are too long?

[–] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

may be, it could also mean that boeing didn't adequately specify the kind and amount of maintenance that has to be done. it could also mean that delta changed the maintenance procedure so much that this failure could occur.

there have been many cases where either has led to catastrophic failure

[–] Int_not_found@feddit.de 2 points 10 months ago

He does and he is pretty much talking out of his arse. Every thing that is written down In aviation usually has a really solid foundation, on why it is written down in that way.

I don't say that a plainly wrong maintenance guide is not to blame here. I'm saying that the much more likely reason, lies in less definable areas. Like bad maintenance crew training or undiscovered faults in the maintance processes, like storing badly labeled bolts with similar threading but different tolerances near each other.