Hacker News Reader

Comment by trklausss | Hacker News Reader

We are talking safety here. Even if it is a 30yo plane, and Delta is in charge of maintenance, Boeing as manufacturer should release a TN to mitigate the issue. If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it.

This should all come from Boeing _before_ it reaches the FAA. That’s the meaning of self-certification through AMCs.

I’m assuming here however that there are no TNs associated with this particular issue with the landing gear.

View on HN

You’re talking about something in a high touch area (thanks to tyre changes) that’s under a lot of stress and is made up of replaceable parts - landing gear is surely not expected to last the life of a plane without having parts replaced.

I agree 100% with you. That’s why you as a manufacturer release proper TNs, maintenance procedures, and inspection intervals, train maintenance crew, etc.

I will wait for the FAAs final report, I’m definitely not blaming Boeing here yet, but their bad press is surely a bias point against them and giving a second thought about whether they are doing things right…

No plane is going to remain airworthy for long without proper maintenance. Does that mean all planned should be retired immediately?

I did not imply that, and what you are asking there is a fallacy. Maintenance is a core part of airworthiness, and the only way you can mitigate design flaws.

But at the same time, if you had a running processor with a known side channel vulnerability, and you know the manufacturer doesn’t release a mitigation or doesn’t really care that much about security, would you still use it? Is the manufacturer liable for not releasing mitigations or not caring that much about security?

If the airframe is not airworthy after inspections and there is no maintenance remedy that can be applied to it at an economical cost, then that airplane shall be scrapped… Even before it reaches the FAA. So in a way yes, if you can’t apply maintenance the way it is supposed to be, then it is not airworthy, and if the manufacturer does not release proper TNs to mitigate design flaws, then it is also not airworthy. I will wait to the report from the FAA and see what they find out.

This is again presupposing a design or maintenance instruction flaw.

There's a thousand of these aircraft, and they've each been through multiple D checks where all of this is completely disassembled and put back together; then there's other maintenance that causes disassembly and reassembly, too. In tens of thousands of opportunities, it looks like one time a wheel assembly was not fastened adequately.

It's possible procedures can be improved to make this even less likely. But maybe not: people make mistakes. Sometimes someone signs the line saying that something was torqued and didn't realize they had torqued something different.

I am not presupposing anything, I am laying out a _possible_ scenario (see all the ifs?). I am just doubting safety procedures where followed as they should, which is the same thing the FAA is doing and that’s why they are investigating. If they were sure everything was fine, they wouldn’t do it.

Doubting, and scrutiny in safety-critical environments is not a bad thing, it is what makes things safer. I won’t defend Delta nor Boeing until the FAA sees the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted, and neither should you.

> If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it.

Now -that- is a hot take. LOL

Would you prefer that the manufacturer lets it fly while it is not safe like the Mad Dog? That’s exactly what gliders go through, every 3000 hours they get a complete check of the structure, if it can’t be repaired or are too expensive to repair, they get scrapped… I don’t know why do you think it’s a hot take when that’s standard practice.

> If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it.

... or, you know, sometimes mishaps happen that are not the manufacturer's fault and aren't likely to be mitigated by more manufacturer documentations. You presume a lot.

Totally true! That’s why I don’t blame Boeing yet, but their bad press and mishaps in safety tend to make a bias towards thinking there is something here.

I will wait for the FAA report on that :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com