Hacker News Reader

Comment by trklausss | Hacker News Reader

Partly yes. Safety should come in first line from design, second from maintenance. If an airframe is not able to safely fly anymore, it’s airworthiness certificate should be removed by the issuer, which in the era of self-certification is the manufacturer.

View on HN

> it’s airworthiness certificate should be removed by the issuer, which in the era of self-certification is the manufacturer.

Where did you get that idea? The airworthiness certificate is issued by the FAA and is conditioned on maintenance, among other things.

It’s issued by the FAA based on the reports from the manufacturer, which can collude, falsify or mislead the authorities. The FAA does 0 testing on the airplanes, it is all done and documented by the manufacturer.

I think you're misunderstanding what an airworthiness certificate is. It is a document issued by the FAA to the registered owner of the plane. The manufacturer is not involved.

I'd guess you're thinking of the type certificate.

Type certificates are for the whole type, but you are right in that I got it wrong that airworthiness is done by the manufacturer: it’s actually done by CAMOs. In any case, FAA just gives the paper, but does not go around checking bolts and nuts.

Delta has its own CAMO (Delta TechOps), which I assume has done the maintenance of this aircraft, but it is yet to be seen whether they followed everything to the T or is there something missing from Boeing’s part.

As I said in another comment, I doubt everyone here (which is not bad, it’s just not assuming by default that everything is well done everywhere) and will wait for the FAA report.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com