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.
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
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.
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.
Could you elaborate? Why would maintenance guidelines havee clauses for money-making?
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.
So, you’re saying that the intervals set by Boeing are too long?
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
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.
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.