*6.1. Rational*

The results of the quantitative analysis produce findings that lack of context. While a trend over time can be shown to be statistically significant, further questions involving question of 'why' cannot be answered. Using the results of the quantitative analysis, a 'typical' case, however, can be identified. A case study of 'typical' accidents provides contextualization and helps to explain why the observed quantitative results exist. While a perfectly 'average' case would be ideal (embodying all modes), finding such as case is unrealistic. Even a study of "the average man" [32], with normally distributed anthropometry characteristics allowing average to mean within 0.3 standard deviations, after 10 characteristics out of 132 [33], there was no "average man" [34]. As such, we consider an indicative case here; this case is non-fatal, occurred in Europe with a European FSNC operator, during climb, that was a system component failure non-powerplant, for a twin engine jet aircraft in mass category 4, and is a general maintenance issue. The case is not Boeing (it is Airbus), not domestic (it is international), and is to a gear issue. That is, there are 10 'average' or important characteristics and 3 that are not. The specific case involves a failure to follow Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) procedures and an inadvertent aircraft swap by maintenance technicians led to the A319 aircraft, shortly after take-o ff, experiencing a detachment of fan cowl doors leading to hydraulic loss, fuel leak, and an engine fire.
