Warbird Information Exchange

as Steve said I see no big deal in all of this..
Provided that the inspection of structural parts is obvious and vital for any aeroplane owner/mantainer, I wonder how the legislation in the US works for it.
I mean, does the legislation require qualified/certified ground crew for the inspection? Is there an official inspection checklist provided by FAA or other authorities? I ask so because since now I made the mistake of thinking with italian legislation in my mind..
In italy u can fly a plane in 2 ways:
1)the plane is still in the aviation register and has an official ground procedure, with given inspections, ADs and so on.
2)the plane is out of the aviation register (i.e. vintage, wartime or replica planes), and needs an amount of certifications and manual provided by the owner/builder.. Everything about this is under the responsability of the owner and of the Aviation Register engineer who will sign the airworthiness papers for it.
The third possibility (that many opt for) is to go registering the plane in a foreign country, expecially where the aviation authorities have experience on vintage or warbird planes.

Alex

"So anyone with half a brain will know to check their attach angles, after a wing came off an aircraft. So why do you insist we need the FAA to tell us that? Anyone with common sense can watch their own wings, and check for cracks. I guess we can have the FAA call me every morning to remind me to go to work too, and hey remind me to eat lunch as well."


I must have worked with everyone of those brainless lack of common sense types because there are alot of A&Ps I wouldn't let them fix me a Peanut butter and Jelly sandwich let alone an airplane. I think it is a good Idea to inspect the angles and it is not that much trouble considering what could happen. I thank God we have FAA that will try to protect us from those that compromise safety to save a buck or those that just don't care.

Hey Col. where do you find those WW II accident reports?

Here's a link to the AD on the FAAs site, for those of you who need to print this out.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... enDocument

asfl;j

I wasn't going to post on this topic anymore because the reactions to my last post were so stupid as to not warrant a response back. But sanity eludes me so here goes:

1) None of the guys who reacted negatively actually fly T-6's. I guess it is ok to bitch and whine when your ass is not at risk. I do not have any problem with this relatively simple inspection. Yes, stripping the paint is going to be a pain, but it is worth not dying for.

2) The compliance mimics the SAAF inspection someone posted last week. Gee, you mean we are supposed to support the wing so the attach angles don't crack with a few bolts holding them in, instead of jacking the wing like the Florida website suggested??? Imagine that...

I think I will take a break from this here computer deal and go get to some paint stripping, so you needn't bother posting a reply for my sake.

_________________
Rob C

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. “

– Michael Crichton

asfl;eij

Since we fly less than ten hours every year with the Harvard, we'll do it this year, and next time it'll be in 20 years.

Things could be worst you know!

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

that's another point Ollie: is it right to consider only the "flying hours"? Corrosions dont develope only during flying hours, I guess we should consider the variables that cause corrosion and give a deadline like annual inspection or similar, not just flying hours.

Alex

We check everything every year, be worried not my friend.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

I'm sure u guys do it
but what about the other owners? If u have the time, could u please explain me how the warbird registration works there? Maybe with a private message.

Thanks in advance!

Alex

I understand your point, but remember, with any group or people you have the good ones, and the not so good ones. It's the not so good ones I'm worried about that pushes things too far. Also, keep in mind that its not just you (meaning T-6 owners) that have to be considered. Its also the Elementary school the wreckage of your aircraft smashes into that needs to be considered.

I know things are tough and these things can be expensive, but compared to grounding the type (which I'm sure some politicians want to happen) its a small price to pay.

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.



Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

..and u guys can consider yourself lucky, if u only knew the costs of avgas and oil here in europe... The maintenance in itself is an expensive business, we should try to focus our efforts in having the governments recognizing the activities that we do and obtain some drastic cuts of expenses. Unfortunately we seem to head in the opposite direction
Going off topic, sorry chaps..

Alex

Well Said Scott! I have been pushed to do the wrong thing by the owners to save money several times! I would reply "let's call the Feds and see what they say." and they would shut their clam. Mechanics like the Feds have a duty to protect the crew and inocent bystanders. Thank God we have Maintenance Feds!

deleted

_________________
Brad