The plane is 7 years old. This isn’t a Boeing issue, this is a Southwest maintenance issue. Engine cowlings are regularly removed for maintenance. If a latch or latches aren’t properly secured or suffer from excessive wear then this is the outcome. I get the disdain for Boeing, but it should be based on issues of their negligence, not the negligence of their customers.
Arguably. Reading the comments on avhearld, the cowling latches to each other rather than to the frame and the latches themselves are very low and easy to miss. Airbus has tried to eliminate this potential oversight, whereas Boeing has not. So yes, potentially missed non walk around, but also a possible systematic design failure.
The plane is 7 years old. This isn’t a Boeing issue, this is a Southwest maintenance issue. Engine cowlings are regularly removed for maintenance. If a latch or latches aren’t properly secured or suffer from excessive wear then this is the outcome. I get the disdain for Boeing, but it should be based on issues of their negligence, not the negligence of their customers.
Arguably. Reading the comments on avhearld, the cowling latches to each other rather than to the frame and the latches themselves are very low and easy to miss. Airbus has tried to eliminate this potential oversight, whereas Boeing has not. So yes, potentially missed non walk around, but also a possible systematic design failure.
https://avherald.com/h?article=51721379&opt=0
Not arguably, still a maintaine issue with the owner of the plane.
Failures of design can lead to maintenance failures. Where as maintenance failures do not always stem from failures of design.
So not mutually exclusive in this case.
First sentence is true. Last sentence is not. We’ll see.