I brought up that flight to highlight the importance of these paper trails, as defective titanium can fail catastrophically.
The engine exploded “in part due to” the engine manufacturer’s failure in quality control, but also the airline’s maintenance department failing to find the fatigue cracks during maintenance checks.
Boeing was not involved in flight 232, the plane was a DC-10.
Boeing was not involved in flight 232, the plane was a DC-10.
At the time no, but McDonnell-Douglas made the DC-10 and after their merger with Boeing in 1997 has been largely responsible for the downfall of Boeing, by bringing their corporate culture over.
The engine exploded “in part due to” the engine manufacturer’s failure in quality control, but also the airline’s maintenance department failing to find the fatigue cracks during maintenance checks.
IIRC the type of fatigue crack wouldn’t have been noticed by the inspection methods of the time during its last check. Inspections were improved as a result of the investigation into United 232.
I brought up that flight to highlight the importance of these paper trails, as defective titanium can fail catastrophically.
The engine exploded “in part due to” the engine manufacturer’s failure in quality control, but also the airline’s maintenance department failing to find the fatigue cracks during maintenance checks.
Boeing was not involved in flight 232, the plane was a DC-10.
At the time no, but McDonnell-Douglas made the DC-10 and after their merger with Boeing in 1997 has been largely responsible for the downfall of Boeing, by bringing their corporate culture over.
IIRC the type of fatigue crack wouldn’t have been noticed by the inspection methods of the time during its last check. Inspections were improved as a result of the investigation into United 232.