HazelNuts39
"test on Wing". I think my comment was a bit flippant, I did not mean there was an actual recognized and formal test. I meant to characterise what some may see as a "De Facto" situation. A regime of rigid inspections enforced in an attempt to "monitor" known and potentially disastrous "unknown" conditions. The potential for disaster is patent in EASA's description of the "conditions". Down to a ten cycle inspection, known and very troubling wear could result in "Loss of the Aircraft".
I remain troubled by what I see as distraction; an attempt to sever the "Oil Pipe" fiasco from the AD, a "May have resulted in..." going unaddressed (at least here), and data and comment by the manufacturer at fault taken at face value.
Perhaps I am completely off base. There may be too much discussion? I am simply mystified at some of what I am reading, and by the apparent lack of concern. This flight came within a speck of going down, and for reasons that were addressed by AD's in an ongoing and co-operative manner for an entire year.