Originally Posted by
punkalouver
If the blades that flew apart had been changed, they wouldn't have flown apart. How can that not make a real difference.
The blades were supposed to be changed at the first opportunity after passing 10.000 hours. The aircraft had an inspection at 10.004 hours and the blades were not changed. Yes that is wrong. The blades failed at 10.097 hours. The first maintenance inspection could have been at 10.099 hours, and the aircraft would have crashed even though all the required maintenance would have been complied with. How hard is it to understand that although in this case they would have saved the day by replacing the blades at 99.9% of the time before failure, that is not acceptable. I would like to think there is at least a 30% to 50% margin, if the blades fail in the test phase at 10.097 hours, they should be removed/inspected before reaching 5.000 - 7.000 hours, not 10.000 + the first scheduled inspection interval.
Originally Posted by
Intrance
The aircraft flew about 100hrs over that 10000hrs replacement limit. That’s a damn narrow margin of 1%... so what if the failure happens at 9900hrs instead? Seems like that limit might have to be looked at and adjusted.
Exactly!