> I’m not sure where you’re getting these conclusions from
I'm not sure how to say this in a way that does not come across as rude, and I apologise in advance if it does, but I got those conclusions (in actuality, statements of fact) from actually reading the reports and understanding the terms and diagrams in them, where it is pretty clearly detailed that the sequence of events does not start with engine separation? You can quite literally read for yourself in both reports (as opposed to relying on a shallow pop culture understanding of the parts involved) the differences in the initial damage to the pylon.
Like, it is understandable that not everyone is an aviation nerd, but it is quite a bit silly to go "the engine separated so they're the same thing which should have been fixed by now". Or to put it another way - do you drive a car? Do you understand the car you drive, as well as cars in general - do you understand that e.g. there are many different things that can cause a flat tyre and so it makes little sense to point to two road accidents as being the same because they both "start" with a flat tyre, even if they involve the same vehicle + tyre manufacturer?
> My point - and from what I see in the report, a grievance shared by the NTSB, given their citation of AA191
I feel quite comfortable in saying that you are projecting your grievance on the investigating body, actually, especially considering that you've manufactured a narrative out of whole cloth where "all involved parties [threw] up their hands and [swore] they followed all the rules and maintenance schedules". In reality, the investigation detailed within about a month that American Airlines (as well as Continental Airlines and United) was most decidedly not following the maintenance guidance from McDonnell Douglas, which had directly led to the fracture of the aft pylon bulkhead (again, a different part from the one that failed in the UPS crash). But of course, that does not fit into the easy-to-swallow "McDonnell Douglas bad" story that people prefer over actually reading and understanding these reports for themselves.
I'm not sure how to say this in a way that does not come across as rude, and I apologise in advance if it does, but I got those conclusions (in actuality, statements of fact) from actually reading the reports and understanding the terms and diagrams in them, where it is pretty clearly detailed that the sequence of events does not start with engine separation? You can quite literally read for yourself in both reports (as opposed to relying on a shallow pop culture understanding of the parts involved) the differences in the initial damage to the pylon.
Like, it is understandable that not everyone is an aviation nerd, but it is quite a bit silly to go "the engine separated so they're the same thing which should have been fixed by now". Or to put it another way - do you drive a car? Do you understand the car you drive, as well as cars in general - do you understand that e.g. there are many different things that can cause a flat tyre and so it makes little sense to point to two road accidents as being the same because they both "start" with a flat tyre, even if they involve the same vehicle + tyre manufacturer?
> My point - and from what I see in the report, a grievance shared by the NTSB, given their citation of AA191
I feel quite comfortable in saying that you are projecting your grievance on the investigating body, actually, especially considering that you've manufactured a narrative out of whole cloth where "all involved parties [threw] up their hands and [swore] they followed all the rules and maintenance schedules". In reality, the investigation detailed within about a month that American Airlines (as well as Continental Airlines and United) was most decidedly not following the maintenance guidance from McDonnell Douglas, which had directly led to the fracture of the aft pylon bulkhead (again, a different part from the one that failed in the UPS crash). But of course, that does not fit into the easy-to-swallow "McDonnell Douglas bad" story that people prefer over actually reading and understanding these reports for themselves.