>> They had been c. 3 pressurisation warnings on previous flights. The airline was concerned enough
>> to exclude the aircraft from flying over water.
>>
>> I expect questions as to why they thought it was ok to fly at all
>> before they had identified the cause of the warnings. Otherwise what is the point of
>> warnings. It wasn't going to mend itself.
>>
I believe they had carried out maintenance work after each warning. That's what the airline said in one of the news reports. The no one water flights may well have been a reasonable Lim with information at the time.
There's no information about the nature of the cabin pressurisation issues, they may have been linked or not. Three is the minimum to put a trend together, but cabin pressurisation is a big system so not always easy to make that trend.
|
