Three incidents I believe were attributed to this phenomena (and a further 4-5 suspected), and in the end it was the PCU from the Pittsburgh accident which investigators finally managed to get to jam through extensive testing.
It appears to me (a layman, mind you) that the tests they did to the PCU perhaps didn't correctly represent the actual conditions of the accidents. They basically froze the PCU and then injected it with super-hot hydraulic fluid, and while it's great that hardware modifications were made to prevent that event from occuring again, the feeling I get is that perhaps they were barking up the wrong tree.
I know for a fact that Parker Hannifin (the manufacturer of the PCU) as well as "people within the industry" (quoted from a documentary I saw) claim they didn't get it right. It's understandable that the PH would take this stance, but still...
Thoughts?
It appears to me (a layman, mind you) that the tests they did to the PCU perhaps didn't correctly represent the actual conditions of the accidents. They basically froze the PCU and then injected it with super-hot hydraulic fluid, and while it's great that hardware modifications were made to prevent that event from occuring again, the feeling I get is that perhaps they were barking up the wrong tree.
I know for a fact that Parker Hannifin (the manufacturer of the PCU) as well as "people within the industry" (quoted from a documentary I saw) claim they didn't get it right. It's understandable that the PH would take this stance, but still...
Thoughts?
Comment