View Single Post
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 18:04
  #76 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
Reminds one, somewhat, of UA232.

Except in that case, UA had a known-high-time piece of hardware, with a known vulnerability, and they placed in back into service with only a cursory inspection.

The present case is a newly-made piece, fresh from the vendor, passed with only cursory inspection.

The open question: How is this event different from QF74 31 Aug, or from the Trent 1000 testbench failure?
barit1 is offline