Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is a bad take. “Real” parts are known. Real parts are tested, and their failure modes are understood in relation to each other. Yea you can get lucky on a fake or a bad apple on a real one but that’s just luck. The story surely would be “delta accidentally has been buying a superior part” if the parts were more reliable.

> As to "fake" parts, we don't know the whole situation yet; they may be genuine parts but just may lack certification

If this was the case it wouldn’t have forged certification. The only way this would be true is if delta was buying genuine parts from sketchy resellers and distributors which doesn’t make them look much better.

The damning evidence to all this is the forgery. If you buy “off brand” generic parts, you should know that you are. To forge a document is a deliberate, non accidental, action to lie and deceive. Why would anyone do that unless the part was inferior?



> Why would anyone do that unless the part was inferior?

To save certification costs. For many safety critical parts, the actual manufacturing is a small part of the cost - the testing / certification process is the bulk of it.

(This is no excuse, natch - the part may or may not be inferior, but without the process we have no way to know; and for safety critical applications WE NEED TO KNOW.)


> Why would anyone do that unless the part was inferior?

Could be refurbished or used parts being sold with or without inspection to save cost on (re)certification.

We just don’t know at this point.


That isn’t any better. Mechanical parts have finite lifetimes for a reason. If a part is known to develop stress fractures after 5000 hours, it may have be required to replace that part after 3000 hours, even if there are no visible signs of wear at that point. If that part is then re-sold as new with a forged history, that’s a problem.


You’re right, it’s not better. That’s why I didn’t say it was. I’m just offering another possible motivation.


> Could be refurbished or used parts

That is inferior to new, considering physical goods have a limited mechanical lifespan.

Either way, it misses the point that the product is a lie sold on false pretenses. Lying about what you sell is not a good sign. There is no world, no product conditions, no anything, where a lie about what’s being sold should be tolerated. Fraud a crime for a reason.

> We just don’t know at this point.

At this point I already know I’d pick the plane with genuine certified parts if I had the choice.


> That is inferior to new, considering physical goods have a limited mechanical lifespan.

Maybe. The bathtub curve exists. I trust the certification process. I’m sure used parts are serviceable in some cases.

> Either way, it misses the point that the product is a lie sold on false pretenses.

It doesn’t because I am only offering an explanation of why someone would lie.

> At this point I already know I’d pick the plane with genuine certified parts if I had the choice.

Of course.

It seems like you interpreted my comment as some kind of defense of these parts or the people selling them. That was not my intent.


If itnis the same UK based company, we do know: criminal fraud and intentionally selling counterfeit parts.


> and their failure modes are understood in relation to each other.

This is super important and why the other poster really doesn't know what they're talking about.

These things are most definitely tracked, anyone who thinks otherwise is encouraged to do a search for MTBF, MTTR, etc. Even the most simple manufacturing plant will track these and do things like keep parts on hand or not based upon them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: