I don’t think you quite understand the level of rigor that these components are manufactured with. If the documents are not provided, or if they’re counterfeited, the parts are assumed to be out of spec. The precision required for these things, as well as the integrity analysis done after they’re completed, are absolutely critical, and can make the difference between 1000 and 10000 hours MTBF on something like a compressor stage.
I agree that the parts are probably out of spec and assuming they are, is definitely the way to go, but I am dissapointed by the lack of precision in articles like that.
This is the first (maybe the second) link in the chain of misinformation. Every time this article will get reposted, rewritten or reblogged the inaccuracies will move the baseline for the next one.
Fair, though keep in mind the intended audience is the average layperson, which means the bar is set pretty low in terms of the technical nuance of the writing.
Exactly. Try to explain that a .05 difference in carbon content can result in a substantial increase/decrease in tensile strength - eyes glaze over. When the right engine blows eyes unglaze.
That, or how quality analysis can detect things like improper metal crystal formation and other molecular-level defects that impact material integrity and suitability, amongst many other things.
I don’t think you quite understand the level of rigor that these components are manufactured with. If the documents are not provided, or if they’re counterfeited, the parts are assumed to be out of spec. The precision required for these things, as well as the integrity analysis done after they’re completed, are absolutely critical, and can make the difference between 1000 and 10000 hours MTBF on something like a compressor stage.
I agree that the parts are probably out of spec and assuming they are, is definitely the way to go, but I am dissapointed by the lack of precision in articles like that.
This is the first (maybe the second) link in the chain of misinformation. Every time this article will get reposted, rewritten or reblogged the inaccuracies will move the baseline for the next one.
Fair, though keep in mind the intended audience is the average layperson, which means the bar is set pretty low in terms of the technical nuance of the writing.
Exactly. Try to explain that a .05 difference in carbon content can result in a substantial increase/decrease in tensile strength - eyes glaze over. When the right engine blows eyes unglaze.
That, or how quality analysis can detect things like improper metal crystal formation and other molecular-level defects that impact material integrity and suitability, amongst many other things.
You two are not making me feel safer.
This falsification was identified because the system works. I would be far more concerned if they never found anything wrong.
Feel free to check my response below for a detailed answer.
You should. Even exposed to the absolute idiocy of some aircraft mechanics I still love to fly. Safety margins are pretty good.
The issue is that the article (and anybody else) CaN’T be more precise.
We don’t know if the parts are good because they faked the testing.
We can also almost guarantee that some are out of spec. ‘Simple’ things like screws even have fallout when tested.
Nahh dude you’ve just got this one wrong.