| > Between 043 and 610, there was further maintenance that included flushing the pilot valves and cleaning electrical connectors, but the AoA sensor was not replaced between 043 and 610. They followed Boeing's procedure in attempting to address the issue again (after already replacing the sensor). That's a completely appropriate action. > the next flight should definitely be aware of the incident on the flight prior. It is in the log book. Is this a reference to something particular? > 043 faced and overcame the exact same malfunction as 610 - to me that indicates a clear failure. I agree, that's why maintenance conducted a repair. > If you keep flying an aircraft that malfunctions on each flight, you're pressing your luck. They attempted two repairs in accordance to the manufacturer's procedures within that time in order to resolve the malfunctions. This post references the report and you clearly read it enough to know your original conclusion was mistaken, but are still arguing you're right by trying to shift the discussion. You've gone from "they flew a broken aircraft" to "alight, so they repaired it twice, but you cannot ever trust a malfunctioning aircraft again." By that logic every single commercial aircraft would be in the junkyard... Repairing malfunctioning systems is normal, attempting two different repairs isn't uncommon either. |
I understand that with physical systems, the cost and complexity of detecting is higher, but if you're putting other people on the line, you damn well better do a live test of your vehicle before another living soul not certified as a pilot or flight engineer is allowed on board.
The more I read about this, the more it appears to me that excessive trust is placed on filed paperwork. Nothing says a fix is done like a successful test flight that specifically attempts to recreate the conditions surrounding the original failure.