The jet had been prevented from making long-haul flights over water so that the plane "could return very quickly to an airport" in the event the warnings happened again, NTSB chief Jennifer Homendy said.

~~Which makes it sound like they couldn't find the source of that warning but weren't willing to completely write it off.~~

Nevermind:

"An additional maintenance look" was requested but "not completed" before the incident, Ms Homendy said.

[–] Darorad@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I mean I'd much prefer they didn't fly a plane that was repeatedly saying there's a serious issue with it.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So the blinking engine light in my car isn't just for festive vibes?

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

It's there to let you know that your damn O2 sensor is on the fritz again.

[–] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'll wait to pass judgement because, not being an expert, I have no idea what the standard procedure is for that warning appearing in 3 out of however many (hundreds of?) flights this plane engaged in over that period of time. With hindsight of course we can say "duh don't fly the plane with the door about to blow off if it says it has pressurization issues" but maybe this is not actually a particularly serious warning in different circumstances.

[–] unwillingsomnambulist@midwest.social 4 points 10 months ago

If I’m not mistaken, the Alaska Airlines accident aircraft completed 99 flights, as it went into service only a couple months ago.

Not an expert myself but I binge air crash investigation shows like nobody’s business, and this seems to speak to QC and maintenance workload/culture issues.