Originally Posted by
punkalouver
How hard is it to understand that PIA lack of following the maintenance was a direct contributing factor. PWC engine reliability may be an issue or may not depending on the reason for the failure which may have been an outside factor such as damage from FOD or engine abuse during operation. If it was a failure after normal operation over all those hours then there is a manufacturer issue.
You are a special person....
As I said in my post, it was wrong of PIA not to follow the recommended maintenance interval, so I acknowledged already that that was a direct contributing factor. The fact that the recommended maintenance could just as easy have been legally scheduled AFTER the crash is a bigger concern, because there is a lot of these engines flying around, and an engine failing less than 1% after its recommended life time is the real issue, not the fact that they operated the engine 97 hours over the 10.000 hour limit.
I suggest you read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
The air-frame failed after twice the cycles it was designed for, and it still lead to increased scrutiny to make sure this would not happen again. To even suggest that a 1% exceedance is a major factor is stupid.