21–30 of 109 posts
Talk about parties with vested interest in a “nothing to see here, keep moving” conclusion. The only opinion that actually matters here is that of the regulators.
Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…
This indicates a very superficial understanding of materials science. No, development of new processes and materials does not go faster than our understanding is progressing, they are progressing in lockstep.
The only thing that occasionally happens is that accelerated aging testing and lightning damage testing does not turn up issues soon enough for them not resulting in visible damage during operations. But aircraft are inspected with great regularity and such defects will almost always be noticed in time. To the best of my knowledge this particular defect has not resulted in any planes crashing.
There were some more substantial issues with early planes using composites but those were to the best of my knowledge resolved, it is of course entirely possible that as these airframes age that new issues will crop up. The main question around these is usually what was the cause, bad maintenance, bad process during application (for instance: a respray by another entity than the manufacturer) or a manufacturing error, and that in turn leads to the question of who will pay for the damage. It isn't rare for there to be additional factors involved, such as issues like these being used to pressure a manufacturer into absorbing costs or waiving cancellation fees on surplus orders.
So before jumping to conclusions about our ability to develop new materials you'd probably have to absorb a lot of information about this particular issue, it is likely a lot more complex than a superficial reading would tell.
Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…
Also if they didn't bother to test such relatively straight forward thing as paint for those conditions, what kind of confidence can one have that other parts have passed those kind of tests?
It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.
> Airbus says there is no risk to the A350's safety - a point echoed by the other airlines, which have not grounded any jets and describe the issue as "cosmetic." Talk about parties with vested interest in a “nothing to see here, keep moving” conclusion. The only opinion that actually matters here is that of the regulators.
It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.
That never made it to Europe to begin with.
Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…
I've read this paragraph a couple times - and what I find intriguing is how it's the sort of thing that GPT-3 can write based on the initial news statement. Every sentence in it is somewhat tautological. Maybe I'm just more suspicious, but I can envision a time (uh, maybe it's already here?) when forums like HN start to get peppered with AI commentary... This sentence, though - seems to be without any basis: "Current…
Not to mention that the current state of knowledge is based also on what we've learned so far about existing good and bad technologies.
Are the wings painted too? Would it result in detachment of the airflow?
Detachment of airflow across the whole wing would require a lot of damage, normal inspection would result in such a plane to be grounded well ahead of that happening.
Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…
Also if they didn't bother to test such relatively straight forward thing as paint for those conditions, what kind of confidence can one have that other parts have passed those kind of tests?
Think about high performance paint as a very thin surface that happens to be applied in liquid form.
I’m not even close to an aviation expert but I’m curious if we are reaching a point where aerospace tech is too complicated. Both major manufacturers are having issues with their latest generation of planes. I’m curious what someone with expertise thinks about Boeing and Airbus’ issues
But mistakes (such as the rectangular window problem with the de Havilland Comet, and more recently, the attempt to keep the same type certification for a completely redesigned airframe) do happen and when they do, unfortunately, the results can be terrible.