So the airline thought enough of the warning light that it did not allow the plane to fly over water.
Well that's great and all.......
@BlueWatermelon775 There's generally a couple of warning lights on almost every flight. The majority of them trigger an additional inspection (which it sounds like the airline complied with) based on guidance from the manufacturer and FAA. I'd be interested to know if the restriction on overwater flights was included in the maintenance guidance, or if Alaska's Quality Control inspectors (QC) added that as an additional safety measure.
@BlueWatermelon775 Yep. And I bet whoever came up with the maintenance checks for the plug is getting a strip torn off, with updated inspection requirements coming shortly. I remember coming back from a USO trip and Coach Harbaugh (the Baltimore one) was with us. We were chatting, and then he points forward and goes "Is that supposed to be like that?" I look, and the CP's window was cracked. I told him it was OK, 'cause it was the outside window, not the cabin side. 😏
@BlueWatermelon775 And speaking of inspections, that triggered a memory... took a bit, but I found the story I remembered reading from a few years ago...
@Synical
What a novel idea...
"...perform every task without defects."
That sounds.... great. In theory.
🙉
@BlueWatermelon775 Yep. Reminds me of the arguments business folks like to use, such as "We're going to replace X position with robots, to eliminate the risk of human factor errors." And the technical folks are all like "You mean, you're going to replace them with robots that are built and programmed... by humans?" 😈
@Synical
I think it was reasonable with further inspections. Now they have the door plug