Quote:
Originally Posted by nekokami
Regarding the planes with the 30 year old design problems, is it reasonable to keep a plane in service without continuing to evaluate its suitability according to current engineering knowledge?
Complicated stuff....
|
An excellent question about the planes. But note that the manufacturer has no choice about whether or not the planes stay in service. The owner and end-user get to make that decision. It's also worth noting that there are plenty of DC-3s in service around the world (now! 70+ years after they were built!), hauling both cargo and passengers. They stay in service because they are an efficient and reliable choice for certain uses. Just don't try using them in one of the (now documented) flight regimes that are guaranteed to get them into trouble.
Should the manufacturer be liable for design problems that they could not possibly have foreseen at the time of design and manufacture? Especially given that they manufacturer does not have the power to remove the product from service? Whose responsibility should it be?
It's also interesting to note that NASA and the NTSB routinely rent* a DC-3 cargo plane that serves parts of Alaska so that they can study how its structure is holding up for metal fatigue and the like. It's the world leader in both flight hours and take-off-and-landing cycles, so it's a very interesting artifact for studying the long-term performance of various materials.
Xenophon
*It flies commercially all summer. NASA and the NTSB study it most of the winter. The owners get lease payments in the winter when they wouldn't be using it anyway. NASA and the NTSB get data that would be otherwise unavailable. Everybody wins!