Bad pilots, bad maintenance ruining general aviation

tom418 writes:

Too bad you weren't aboard United 232 back in 1989. I'm sure you could have
averted the disaster.

United 232 was faulty maintenance. There was a crack in the engine that had
gone undetected, even though it had been inspected. If it had been properly
maintained, there would have been no crash.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

United 232 was faulty maintenance. There was a crack in the engine that
had
gone undetected, even though it had been inspected. If it had been
properly
maintained, there would have been no crash.

You really are clueless. How, specifically, did mantenance fail 232?

Maxwell writes:

You really are clueless. How, specifically, did mantenance fail 232?

They performed multiple FPIs on the failed fan disk (proved by the presence of
traces of the dye on the part that failed) without actually noticing that the
results indicated a problem.

See NTSB/AAR-90/06 for details.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

You really are clueless. How, specifically, did mantenance fail 232?

They performed multiple FPIs on the failed fan disk (proved by the
presence of
traces of the dye on the part that failed) without actually noticing that
the
results indicated a problem.

See NTSB/AAR-90/06 for details.

How do you know their results indicated a problem?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Maxwell writes:

You really are clueless. How, specifically, did mantenance fail 232?

They performed multiple FPIs on the failed fan disk (proved by the
presence of traces of the dye on the part that failed) without
actually noticing that the results indicated a problem.

That's right fjukktard, but the conclusion you draw from it means you have
no more understanding of what the real problem was than you have of
anyhitng else.


Zippo, fjukkwit.


Bertie

On Jun 6, 12:02 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
tom418 writes:
Too bad you weren't aboard United 232 back in 1989. I'm sure you could have
averted the disaster.

United 232 was faulty maintenance. There was a crack in the engine that had
gone undetected, even though it had been inspected. If it had been properly
maintained, there would have been no crash.

Bull****! The crack in the engine had absolutely nothing to do with
maintenance. It was a flaw that existed when the turbine blade was
fabricated. It was not detected in initial inspections of the parts
by the manufacturer, and there was no way that maintenance could have
ever detected it until it failed due to its microscopic nature. If
the manufacturer couldn't see it, what makes you think that Joe
mechanic should have tools that would allow him to see it?

writes:

Bull****! The crack in the engine had absolutely nothing to do with
maintenance. It was a flaw that existed when the turbine blade was
fabricated. It was not detected in initial inspections of the parts
by the manufacturer, and there was no way that maintenance could have
ever detected it until it failed due to its microscopic nature. If
the manufacturer couldn't see it, what makes you think that Joe
mechanic should have tools that would allow him to see it?

A failure to see it is a failure to see it. It's not excusable.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

Bull****! The crack in the engine had absolutely nothing to do with
maintenance. It was a flaw that existed when the turbine blade was
fabricated. It was not detected in initial inspections of the parts
by the manufacturer, and there was no way that maintenance could have
ever detected it until it failed due to its microscopic nature. If
the manufacturer couldn't see it, what makes you think that Joe
mechanic should have tools that would allow him to see it?

A failure to see it is a failure to see it. It's not excusable.

Then you acknowled your failure to realize your own limitations, is indeed
your failure?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Bull****! The crack in the engine had absolutely nothing to do with
maintenance. It was a flaw that existed when the turbine blade was
fabricated. It was not detected in initial inspections of the parts
by the manufacturer, and there was no way that maintenance could have
ever detected it until it failed due to its microscopic nature. If
the manufacturer couldn't see it, what makes you think that Joe
mechanic should have tools that would allow him to see it?

A failure to see it is a failure to see it. It's not excusable.


Nope,


Wrong again fjukktard.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

I certainly never tire of you being wrong.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

tom418 writes:

Too bad you weren't aboard United 232 back in 1989. I'm sure you
could have averted the disaster.

United 232 was faulty maintenance. There was a crack in the engine
that had gone undetected, even though it had been inspected. If it
had been properly maintained, there would have been no crash.


Nope, wrong again, fjukkktard


Bertie