In what way is this like vibe-coding -- or do you just mean both are bad?

According to the report:

> The aircraft owner who installed the modified fuel system stated that the 3D-printed induction elbow was purchased in the USA at an airshow, and he understood from the vendor that it was printed from CF-ABS (carbon fibre – acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) filament material, with a glass transition temperature3 of 105°C.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69297a4e345e3...

Isn't this simply a part that shouldn't have been allowed to be sold based on it being both faulty and also misleading?

I think a more useful definition of vibe coding is "something you can do when it really doesn't matter". Which requires a hell of a lot of judgement to know when it doesn't.

Installing life-critical parts of shoddy engineering into a vital system of your airplane is a good example of when things do matter.

> blame ... the negligence of the company that created and sold this part

That should be so obvious that I wonder if it was DIY by the pilot.

>> This part could have likely been fine if it used a different material such as Ultem.

Maybe, but FDM printed parts are still much weaker than molded parts. We tried printing some coolant pump housings once during development. They worked fine until the pressure went up and then layers separated and someone got to clean the lab. At least an air intake is gonna have negative pressure which might help hold the layers together.

It’s also a validation failure as well, because somebody assumed that the 3d-printed part could work as intended without validating it under various use-cases and situations.

Looks like they would like to make the early flight mistakes themselves instead of following air worthiness guidelines.

Vibe coding can make code that is suitable for production. 3d printed plastic can not be a substitute for a fiberglass-metal part.