Hacker News Reader

Comment by s_dev | Hacker News Reader

This incident isn't related to Boeing .. at all ... but when Airbus do it (which you assure it happens more frequently) it's related to whom exactly, and why did Airbus fix it if it wasn't related to them (modified the door latch)?

View on HN

Whoever did not latch the door properly after doing maintenance checks. Which is either a mechanic at the airline itself or someone at a maintenance hub that is contracted by the airline. Not the job of the manufacturer whatsoever.

So why did Airbus modify the door latch?

They were required to by an airworthiness directive. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/06/29/2017-13...

To make the plane more user friendly?

The point s_dev is trying to make is that the designer can (and should) design things so that the mechanic "doesn't have to think". Seems like Airbus has evolved their design accordingly.

The solution is actually quite elegant: a long tagged key required to open the door which remains in the lock until it's closed again. https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/preventing-fan-cowl-door-loss...

Worth noting that only a few weeks ago an Airbus A330 had a very similar engine-panel-coming-off issue, which I'm 99.9% sure you hadn't heard about at all until I pointed it out to you - unlike this incident, which will have hundreds of articles and blog posts written about it.

I'd like everyone here to consider just how much they are letting [social] media do their thinking for them.

(The incident I'm referring to: https://avherald.com/h?article=5169614a&opt=0)

The user I'm replying to is making contradictory statements -- I'm asking questions to try and illustrate the contradiction.

If this issue is unrelated to Boeing it's also unrelated to Airbus.

It's clearly not a manufacturer issue at all. This is just part of the normal incidents that happen in air travel that the public is normally not aware of.

That's fine then just don't blame Airbus for doing it even worse since you've already established the manufacturer isn't responsible. That's the original context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com