Originally Posted by
AIRTAM
The Australian article says the Rex aircraft was 26 years old - am I correct in saying the part that failed could have been only, say 10 years old - engines hours, or age surely can be vastly different to airframe hours or age. If a new engine fails on an older airframe and an accident ensures, the airframes age surely can't be the cause of the accident?
For starters, the accident airplane, VH-NRX, is 25 years (and one month and seven days) old; not 26 years old as claimed in the article. NRX is Saab 340B serial number 291 - its first flight was 25 February 1992 and it entered commercial service with the US regional operator, Business Express Airlines, a month later on 25 March 1992.
Paul Cleary seems to have perfected the journalistic version of the double-tap; you get two stories based on essentially the same "facts" (and I use that word advisedly) undr different headlines in rapid succession.
How Rex pilots narrowly avoided disaster after plane lost propeller and
Engine crisis as REX propeller dropped is just one example; he follows the same approach with stories on in-flight wi fi and Sydney Airport's CEO.