Because Boeing were on such a good streak already

  • KptnAutismusEnglish
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    9 months ago
    edit-2
    9 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    i don’t work directly with these guidelines, but i’m told that whoever does maintenance has to follow the maintenance intervals dictated by boeing alone.

    if a plane doesn’t experience much wear, the intervals can be elongated. in addition, the maintenance company can change certain parts of the maintenance if they have the right qualifications.

    but no one really checks every single nut and bolt, so delta could’ve also been sloppy.

    • Aatube
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      9 months ago
      link
      fedilink

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

      • Int_not_foundEnglish
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        9 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        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.

      • KptnAutismusEnglish
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        9 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        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