Because Boeing were on such a good streak already…

  • athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    9 months ago

    Clickbait. The FAA lists the plane number as N672DL and a quick flight registry check says that plane was made in 1992. This is a maintenance issue with Delta.

    • Deebster@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      98
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      The title is “Nose wheel falls off Boeing 757 airliner waiting for takeoff” and that’s exactly what happened. That’s not clickbait, since it’s not deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading. It’s just news.

    • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

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

        • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          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 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.

            • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              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

            • Int_not_found@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              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.

        • pajn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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.

    • 7heo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Isn’t Boeing QA supposed to inspect the plane and sign it off after maintenance?

      • Aatube@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, they make the guides but don’t monitor them, which would be too costly (so much employees needed) and bureaucratic

        • 7heo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I thought that there were specific “critical” operations that would require them (Delta, Boeing, or both) to record an entry in Boeing’s Collaborative Manufacturing Execution Systems (CMES) database. But I’m discovering this field, so I don’t know if they make a difference in this context between before and after delivery, and if the normal plane maintenance is covered by the same processes or not, and that’s why I’m asking, and not stating.

          However, if one doesn’t know more than me, stating isn’t more correct.

          • Aatube@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Well, they probably register repairs in databases, but they definitely don’t send people to check every single thing. Airlines also might contract Boeing to do some bigger repairs.

            • 7heo@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I don’t see how a repair that causes the nose of a plane to “fall off” would not be considered a “bigger repair”…

              I’m not saying that Boeing would be involved in the replacement of a tire from the landing gear. But something major enough to make the actual nose of the plane to literally fall off? That sounds important enough to me.

                • 7heo@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  OK I’m officially too tired to actually contribute to Lemmy. I’ll be on my way… 😭

        • 7heo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Because of regulations, because of contracts, because of a myriad reasons I won’t waste my time listing here.

          The point is that they have been in business for over a century, that the aerospace industry is heavily regulated, and so I somewhat expect them to have processes in place and responsibilities to make sure the planes are delivered and remain according to their design specification.

          And you don’t strike me as someone who knows more than me (a total newbie) on the matter, so maybe we stop wasting each other’s time on a pointless argument about shit that is absolutely beyond us both. Yeah?