Hacker News Reader

Comment by sverhagen | Hacker News Reader

You're defending the hotel card Dawn soap stuff, as long as it's documented. Got it!

I think you're assuming that those could never be valid tests or processes for the manufacturing process.

I'm not saying they are or defending Boeing by any stretch, but I know my knowledge of manufacturing details for aircraft is limited enough that I couldn't make that assumption.

> I think you're assuming that those could never be valid tests or processes for the manufacturing process.

Given that Dawn dish soap isn't manufactured to any kind of useful tolerance, purity or performance guarantee, I'd say that's a safe bet.

I really wonder what the effects of Dawn dish soap residue on doors that go through huge pressure and temperature cycles is.

This position makes sense. You do not have enough knowledge to assume that the Dawn soap thing is bad, only enough knowledge to discourage folks from pointing out that it sounds bad

Dish soap and baby powder are commonly used in aerospace maintenance for finding pressurization leaks.

That's quite different to using them as a lubricant. They're not applied to internal surfaces for one.

It very much sounds that parts are not manufactured to proper tolerances, and as a result Boeing uses undocumented lubricants to make things fit (badly). If this were anticipated there would be a documented process, but there isn't, and it means nothing good.

Ajax or Dawn? These things matter.

If it's safe for ducks it's safe for planes, right?

Because they both fly.

I honestly can't judge if that's bad or good to use those things. Just because it seems stupid from an initials laymen's glance certainty doesn't mean it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com