I get that this was written to be like, “dish soap OMG!” But there is nothing in here explaining why that might be wrong or dangerous. Why not a sentence like, “instead X lubricant should have been used because Y according to Boeing”? Underground water and sewer pipes that fit together and continuously withstand a larger pressure differential than the aircraft portals in planes use “pipe soap” to help fit the bell and spigot together. If it’s wrong, tell us why! I thought the bolts were found to be the reason it failed anyway. Even if “Boeing assembly instructions thought to be insufficient by workers” is the main message, that doesn’t grab the clicks though, huh? I’m expecting too much from a business insider article I guess. [Inebriated internet grumbling]
Coupled with the fact that Boeing failed 33 of 89 audits during an examination conducted by the FAA, I think it’s pretty clear that whatever they’re doing is in fact wrong and dangerous. But hey if you want to get into a flying coffin, I ain’t gonna stop you.
Depressing that the line workers had to improvise as Boeing production engineers are too few to handle the workload
At least it wasn’t an off brand right?
If you’re not sure if this is bad or not, replace “Boeing” with “Comac”.
