725
submitted 9 months ago by Womble@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

i work in aerospace, and that's not delta's fault. delta is trying to save money according to boeings maintenance guidelines.

(although i'm not 100% sure about that either)

[-] Aatube@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

Could you elaborate? Why would maintenance guidelines havee clauses for money-making?

[-] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

i don't work directly with these guidelines, but i'm told that whoever does maintenance has to follow the maintenance intervals.

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@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Int_not_found@feddit.de 2 points 9 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.

[-] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 2 points 9 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

[-] pajn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 months ago

Because otherwise airlines buy different planes. All airplane models have extremely detailed maintenance schemas with alternative procedures described where possible. And minimum equipment lists that describes exactly what must work and what is "okay" to be broken to still fly. And it's on FAA to make sure Delta is following these manuals. So in the end the blame is on Boeing for either bad parts, lasting shorter than required or prescribing insufficient maintenance procedures. Or it's on FAA for not doing ther duty in making sure the procedures are followed. Of course if Delta hasn't followed the procedures, blame is on them too, but only ever in combination with either Boeing or FAA.

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

Technology

59340 readers
2302 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