Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) program for air carrier

Which Came First?
We’ve all heard the age-old question: “Which came first – the chicken or the egg?” The question itself seems simple enough, but is it really? How can one happen without the other? Like life in general, it’s complicated and not so straightforward. Similar circumstances can pose difficulties for the accident investigator, too. Which came first the fatigue-cracking or the corrosion? For example, take a look at the Atlantic Southeast Flight 529, Embraer EMB 120RT, N256AS/FAA (Links to an external site.) accident to see their result, based on evidence.

Assume you are the Director of Quality at No-Name Airlines. You are tasked to manage the Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) program for this air carrier. No-Name Airlines operates the same make and model aircraft (Embraer EMB-120RT) as the one in this fatal accident. Your goal is to prevent any such occurrence at No-Name Airlines. You have some searing questions regarding this accident since you are looking at this event as an outsider (i.e., no first-hand experience at Atlantic Southeast Airlines or the accident investigation). Some questions that come to mind might include the following:

Was there a manufacturing flaw?
Did the maintenance team perform a flaw or failed to follow procedures or work processes?
Did the inspection department fail to detect an anomaly during the component inspection/overhaul?
Was the failure due to fatigue that led to corrosion that exacerbated the article in question?
Did corrosion lead to fatigue cracking of the related component?