Hacker News

Was it home built? This article says it was installed during a modification to the fuel line, but I didn’t see if it was the plane owner or a 3rd party install.

They should have not gone with the default 15% infill

well, somebody needed to watch more superfastmatt before using printed parts on a vehicle

specifically one in the fucking air

I thought people into avionics were kinda smart. Like there's no way the person with enough knowledge about the geometry and fastening fitment to print one of these, couldn't have known about the material shortcomings. I hope he's sees the inside of a jail cell for a little while. Not terribly long, but still they could've killed someone and likely will if they sold more of these.

Pilot and mechanic here. I'm American but this will apply in other countries too, just change to your language's acronyms.

On aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates, there'd be at least two people going to prison over this. Standard aircraft require approved parts that are identical to those the aircraft was manufactured with, or any modification from the original design must be done either under the signature of an aeronautical engineer, or much more likely per a Supplemental Type Certificate. If you want to put different sun visors in your Cessna 172, the manufacturer of those new sun visors has submitted paperwork with the FAA and gotten them to issue an addendum to the aircraft's type certificate to include that modification, which then must live with the airplane's logbooks for the rest of eternity. Getting that STC comes with some engineering and testing work, which obviously wasn't done here. If this were an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate, the person who sold the part, and the person who installed the part, have committed federal offenses.

This seems to be an Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, which is a Special airworthiness category and class. Most of the rules are out the window and basically anyone can do anything they want to with it, it's "Experimental." In exchange for limits on what the aircraft can be used for, generally Experimental aircraft cannot be used for commercial purposes, flight training of other than its owner, etc., the maintenance, inspection and sources of parts requirements are greatly relaxed. If they'd installed one 3D printed from a plastic with a higher glass transition temperature, there'd be an article somewhere praising this excellent application of this cutting edge technology.

When we say aviation is the safest mode of transport we mean commercial airliners.

General aviation is much more lax both due to some people's attitude and lack of resources.

Well, the article said it was a 3D Printed part bought at an airshow. Which I imagine is like a gun show, and you can buy as many add-ons as you want from individual people.

I would question whether or not they used high Temperature filament, like PETG or something better, Or if that shit is just thick PLA.

But I do agree that there should be 30 levels of checks and protocols to prevent anything like this from happening. I think if you attach something to the exterior of your airplane, it needs to be made by a manufacturer who knows what they’re doing.

"Bought at an air show." Read: flea market booth.

using something in a stupid way transcends any specific hobby.

they were idiots for doing it. although they can be strong in some usecases this is not that usecase