Hacker News Reader

> The investigation continues to determine what manufacturing documents were used to authorize the opening and closing of the left MED plug during the rivet rework.

I mean, there is already a ton of documentation and process surrounding the construction of an airplane. Adding more process doesn't safety make. Having a safety culture without the fear of retaliation, on the other hand, makes a world of difference.

View on HN

If the door was removed (which the NTSB report and the whistleblower post linked elsewhere around here say must have happened) there should be documentation for, at minimum, the removal and reattachment. If the door was not removed but was opened and closed, there should be documentation for both of those actions instead.

I don't know if this should be considered "adding more process" because it has been standard process for a very long time. All work done on an airplane is authorized, by someone, and after completion is recorded, by someone. Discrepancies and deviations from this standard operating procedure are a big deal.

That line stood out to me, because it implies that no proper "manufacturing document" was used for the work. If that's true, that's very bad; unapproved maintenance procedures have been the cause of multiple crashes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com