posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:45 PM
I have a sneaking suspicion that the story is being overblown.
I don't see anywhere a definition of "cut and shut" on the article, so it's hard to say what they mean exactly. But the idea of taking a blowtorch
or a big saw to an aircraft and then patching two halves together seems incredibly difficult due to dealing with structural components and other
difficulties that arise from the destructive nature of "cutting".
What the article does say is that two halves of aircraft that were serviceable were attached and used as one functional unit. For the record, this is
not overly dangerous, and it's not even new. I do work on an Avro Lancaster bomber from time to time and it was pointed out to me that certain
sections of the fuselage were designed to be held together by bolts. This allowed you to just undo sections from each other in case parts of the
aircraft were shot up but others unharmed. This is a very useful capability for aircraft, and I have little doubt that a similar trait would be
present in modern aircraft, including helicopters. If that's the case, then this aircraft was no more dangerous than any other, and the lives lost in
the accident were due to really bad luck than any bad practices.
It's been pointed out the aircraft might have been damaged or aged differently, but in both cases where the salvageable parts were identified you
would have had technicians inspect the aircraft inside and out to make sure certain things were present or not present. Since the aircraft were then
combined it's highly likely that they found that the joined sections were independently airworthy and putting them together is not the stupid idea as
presented by the article, but a very shrewd one. I find it unlikely that the techs would have falsely passed the parts off as serviceable since, in
the event of a failure that can be traced to non-airworthiness from the start, the mechanics themselves are liable for the fault. And we all know that
techs aren't paid based on how many aircraft they put back in the air.
Take the article with a grain of salt. Unless it's proven that the reattachment failed or damage from the crash was much greater than the techs
claimed, I say that this was just a really nasty accident.