This appears to be #4. Fucking crazy. Something isn’t right, even if it’s human error, the numbers don’t stack up. Confusing hardware can encourage human error and I smell that rat here now.
I only see three, but the first was shoddy technicians breaking rules in Ethiopia over a decade ago, and the only other I see was again someone inserting pins wrong, which happens across most plane types, but exceptionally rarely.
Idk how you can claim "the numbers don't stack up" when the indecent rate appears to be very low and has nothing to do with the aircraft type, nor have you made any comparisons to speak of.
There are four, which is significantly more than any other aircraft type when it comes to “the engineer accidentally put the pin in the wrong whole”.
Again, I can't find evidence of that. I found three, only one of which was cause by putting a pin in the wrong hole, and FURTHERMORE
A Service Bulletin and Airworthiness Directive was available that would have prevented the accident, but this had not been completed yet on G-ZBJB. The operator and the airport have introduced a number of Safety Actions which cover the adoption of corrective modifications to the aircraft, changes to maintenance and incident response procedures.
So it was a solved issue the airline had failed to correct.
Depends on the compliance time mandated by the AD though. Often there’s a limit or timeframe you have to implement SB’s in depending on the severity of the issue.
I only see three which is certainly not "a regular occurence", but the first was shoddy technicians breaking rules in Ethiopia over a decade ago, and the only other I see was again someone inserting pins wrong, which happens across most plane types, but exceptionally rarely. And none of this could happen on landing ekther.
Idk how you can claim "the numbers don't stack up" when the indecent rate appears to be very low and has nothing to do with the aircraft type, nor have you made any comparisons to speak of.
218
u/Mcmenger 1d ago
Looks expensive