this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
334 points (99.1% liked)

Not The Onion

12118 readers
1830 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@lemmy.today 35 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (3 children)

For its part, Boeing representatives announced they are “reviewing the report, which appears to be based on an inapt comparison of the prices paid for parts that meet aircraft and contract specifications and designs versus basic commercial items that would not be qualified or approved for use on the C-17,” the company said in a statement.

looks dubiously at dispenser

In what way is the right-hand soap dispenser not adequately qualified?

EDIT: It looks like the C-17 can fly pressurized, so I don't think that it can be undergoing pressure changes, which is the one thing that I could think of.

[–] Pyotr@lemmy.world 32 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

The COTS unit shown there is not tested and certified to the contract requirements Boeing was working to. Simple as. If the price ridiculous? Absolutely yes. But you cannot go to a home hardware store and slap one in a plane.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 12 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If I can slap it in a collapsible sub, I can slap it in an airplane!

Besides, it's not like it's supposed to be what's holding the door plug on.

[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Everyone single part on a plane has to be certified and from a certified supplier that goes through a stupid process to be certified.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

Well, some of it ain't stupid.

Imagine the shortcuts Boeing would take if they were beholden to no certifications at all.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

Well ya can but you’re taking some risks if you do. Your soap dispenser might not work worth a shit if you haven’t tested it.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 20 points 8 hours ago

I'm 90% sure these deals are a way to funnel money into defense contractors without having a suspicious paper trail.

Overcharge a bit here and there, and by sheer volume you get a nice shadow budget to build and operate things that aren't even supposed to exist.

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 13 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The cabin is usually pressurized to the equivalent of 8000 ft asl. So the dispenser does have to deal with pressure changes. A simple vent hole aught to take care of that though.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 15 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Also, as the safety briefing says, "we do not anticipate a change in cabin pressure," but if a rapid decompression should occur, there was probably some provision made so that the soap dispenser doesn't just shatter or explode or something.

[–] y0din@lemmy.world 1 points 9 minutes ago

I would hate not to be able to use the dispenser if the plane lost cabin pressure.. how would I ever survive dying if I had dirty hands when it happened?..