Examination finds multiple cracks in part of United jet's engine

Not the first time this has happened, so more frequent inspections sounds like a no-brainer. (Oh, and the inspectors themselves need to be better trained as to what to look for, exactly.)

so more frequent inspections sounds like a no-brainer.

Sigh, says someone without an aviation background. Those tests cost a lot of money to accomplish and shut the aircraft down for an extended period of time. One does not want to waste time and money on tests that never reveal a problem. Testing and all other maintenance is designed to occur as infrequently as possible consistent with safe flight. Shutting airliners down and losing their revenue for unnecessary tests is a poor way to do business. There is a balance between to little and too much maintenance (interestingly an idea based on an operations research study by the RAF during WWII on the optimum use, patrol length and basing of long range anti-submarine patrol aircraft that revealed that too much maintenance is almost as bad as too little, airplanes need to be flown to keep working propery). Your attack on the skills of the techs who conduct those tests is pure ad hominem based on no knowledge of the skills required of those who perform that sort of "NDI", Non Destructive Inspection testing.

Actually I read a long explanation of the deficiencies of the Pratt and Whitney testing facility. I am not blaming the staff working there, but the conditions they found/find themselves in. Link supplied if requested.

Here's the link. Quite a long and detailed article, but worth reading to the end. I hope you will agree that if my post sounded ad hominem, it was not meant to be.

http://aerossurance.com/safety-management/ndi-failures-b777-pw4077-fbo/

Surely there should be quick ways to check for signs of Metal Fatigue in the fan blades - particularly the older the engines are ? Something like an ultrasonic test shouldn't be too invasive - it could be recorded and if any deviations noted on successive tests then a more thorough investigation conducted. Though I'm sure there's other checks that could even be done, and as @nandakandamanda suggests more frequently, certainly for older aircraft.

@Desert Tortoise - The Aircraft used during WW2 were a lot simpler than today's modern Aircraft, and underwent a whole lot of different stresses than today's - like being shot at. They also generally, didn't have a much of a lifespan. Commercial Aircraft are being used around the clock day in day out, years on end - and if you think about the stresses those aircraft parts continually undergo, you then start to realize just how far things have progressed, and also the requirements to check those parts have had to adapt to modern day understandings.

The Aircraft used during WW2 were a lot simpler than today's modern Aircraft, and underwent a whole lot of different stresses than today's

The methodology used is valid today. In fact the methodology used was classified until the early 2000s but is basically a constrained maximization problem solved using LaGrangian multipliers. It was also used to determine the best positioning of mines in a mine field. Economists use the exact same methodology in their analyses which is where I first had to learn it, but also being a former Navy pilot I had to appreciate its use in military operations research. Likewise being a pilot I appreciate that aircraft operate best when flown regularly and that you don't want to over maintain them. There is a balance and the methods of operations research allow one to determine this balance with some precision rather than relying on guesswork.