Originally Posted by
ashill
AFAIK, there was evidence of a fault with a non-critical component: a redundant pressure regulator. There is no clear evidence of any reason to believe that this was evidence of something potentially catastrophic. This is the totals classic case of hindsight being 20/20; non-critical components go out of order all the time. That’s why “critical” is very much not a judgement call but a carefully assessed list of components.
Very obviously, the list of critical components will need to be reassessed in light of this, and I would bet dollars to doughnuts that that reassessment is part of the reason the FAA is taking their time approving an inspection procedure that would allow MAX-9s to fly again. And the NTSB investigation will surely shed light on whether AS mechanics should have recognized warning signs based on this pressurization system light. But this really seems like something we don’t have the evidence to speculate about here.
Speculation, No. Possibility Yes. My experience in the AF again if I walk out to a plane looking at the maintenance logs seeing multiple write-ups for the same issue raises my caution level and discussion with the line chief while maybe not a "red X" certainly pressurization is not to be taken lightly. Now I agree that the FAA will document all this in their final report and issue the proper fix (s). Meanwhile if the merger with HA goes through I suggest Alaska keep the Neo's and look into more clearly Boeing is not getting it and won't for anytime soon.