325 points by 1659447091 2 days ago | 171 comments | View on ycombinator
12_throw_away 1 day ago |
CGMthrowaway 2 days ago |
Boeing knew of the flaw, and sent a letter to airlines about it. In 2011.
mmooss 2 days ago |
To reduce negative outcomes, we use risk management: assessing the likely lifetime cost of the flaw, and taking cost-effective measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. As a familiar example, redundant mass storage drives are much more cost-effective than high-reliability mass storage drives.
jacquesm 2 days ago |
Even now there is a lot of uncertainty around this crash, maintenance - or lack thereof - or even wrong maintenance could still be a factor. But given the location of the part asking for a 'visual inspection' is a pretty strange move, the part is all but inaccessible when it is in its normal position and even with an endoscope it would be pretty hard to determine whether or not the part had weakened. That's just not going to show up visually until it is way too late unless the part has been especially prepared to announce the presence of hairline cracks.
You'd have to disassemble a good chunk of the wing to gain access to the part based on the pictures I've seen of how it all holds together when assembled.
lashingflank 2 days ago |
genghisjahn 2 days ago |
rob74 2 days ago |
toomuchtodo 2 days ago |
stevenjgarner 2 days ago |
androiddrew 1 day ago |
DoesntMatter22 2 days ago |
SilverElfin 2 days ago |
I am not an expert, however. Can metal fatigue be detected with such infrequent inspection?
burnt-resistor 1 day ago |
The part was redesigned without the groove but wasn't mandated because Boeing said even the old part could be used, which is insane. Clearly, the new part wasn't installed and likely 1-2 inspections failed to notice it was broken.
vsgherzi 2 days ago |
[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA26MA024%20I...