Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:24 pm
Scott WRG Editor wrote:...We are friggin adults here and I am getting sick and tired of having to deal with this over and over again.
Please be civil with each other. I don't want to have to lock this thread.
So Scott, you can say "friggin" but I can't?
I'm sorry, but civil only goes so far, especially in the face of misguided, misinformed, and mis-friggin-wrong opinions and information.
I see no reason why this person should be allowed to attack the motives and credibility of the FAA in this matter. It's childish and shortsighted to attack the very institution that allows us to fly these ex-military aircraft in the first place. And over what? For trying to keep airplanes from having the wings come off? Give me a friggin break.
Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:34 pm
Sr Patterson:
As free citizens we are allowed to speak freely against the President, and any gov't entity that we feel is performing poorly. This is not ChiCom.
As free citizens we are allowed to speak freely against the President, and any gov't entity that we feel is performing poorly. This is not ChiCom.
Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:52 pm
HarvardIV wrote:Sr Patterson:
This is not ChiCom.
Where the hell is Chicom?
Thing is Mr Harvard IV,
Steve Patterson and his little engineering team have probably forgotten more about T-6/Harvard engineering than you'll ever know.
So you'd do well to listen to what he has to say.
I think you'll also find he's flown a few too.
Ever considered that he might know what he's talking about?
Andy
Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:00 am
The EAA and myself wanted a 1 time dye penatrant inspection, there is NO data to justify a reoccuring AD. The FAA based the need for a reoccuring on a SAAF service bulletin, that they themselves admitted that they had NO data from backing up the bulletin. They have no idea how many cracked attach angles were found if any. There have been 2 failures in 65+ yrs, That is not a trend. Someone else brought up that there were alot of wing failures in WWII, That is new to me and I have been working on 6s for over 20yrs. The only damage I have found on attach angles were exfoliation corrosion, and I have inspected the angles very closely on all the 6s I have worked on.
One thing to consider also, in the eyes of the FAA, There are NO approved parts for the T-6, since all the parts were produced for the military they are UNAPPROVED parts since they were not produced under a production certificate, this is from the guy that wrote the rules, not my reading of them. The only parts they consider approved are those that came off another plane and has tracability. A new attach angle in a sealed NAA box is not good enough.
For those that do not work on airplanes of any type and think that the FAA is always right, I have lots of examples of them being wrong, and in this case, it is going after a gnat with a cannon
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Crew Chief of TBM-3E, DC-3C, B-25J, PBY-5a, T-28C, SNJ-4, PT-17
Riding member of the
2003 World Champion Motorcycle Drill Team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
One thing to consider also, in the eyes of the FAA, There are NO approved parts for the T-6, since all the parts were produced for the military they are UNAPPROVED parts since they were not produced under a production certificate, this is from the guy that wrote the rules, not my reading of them. The only parts they consider approved are those that came off another plane and has tracability. A new attach angle in a sealed NAA box is not good enough.
For those that do not work on airplanes of any type and think that the FAA is always right, I have lots of examples of them being wrong, and in this case, it is going after a gnat with a cannon
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Crew Chief of TBM-3E, DC-3C, B-25J, PBY-5a, T-28C, SNJ-4, PT-17
Riding member of the
2003 World Champion Motorcycle Drill Team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
posting
Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:03 am
Chris,
Yes, we have free speech. I know this because you've informed the board members of its existance 100's of times in the past.
My question is 'do you have anything relevent to share on the very serious matter being dicussed or are you just agrueing again just for the sake of doing so? If not please refrane from posting here.
Yes, we have free speech. I know this because you've informed the board members of its existance 100's of times in the past.
My question is 'do you have anything relevent to share on the very serious matter being dicussed or are you just agrueing again just for the sake of doing so? If not please refrane from posting here.
Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:25 am
Jack:
I'll say whatever I please; this is a duiscussion board. You can go elsewhere if you like.
Thank you Matt, and I'm glad somebody else steps forward.
Andy in Beds, I disagree with SRPatterson. I'd prefer to listen to my dad who is an IA w/ 30 yrs experience, and has more knowledge than most of the people on this board.
I'll say whatever I please; this is a duiscussion board. You can go elsewhere if you like.
For those that do not work on airplanes of any type and think that the FAA is always right, I have lots of examples of them being wrong, and in this case, it is going after a gnat with a cannon
Thank you Matt, and I'm glad somebody else steps forward.
Andy in Beds, I disagree with SRPatterson. I'd prefer to listen to my dad who is an IA w/ 30 yrs experience, and has more knowledge than most of the people on this board.
Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:36 am
Daaaad! Jack is touching me again!
Daaaaad! Andy in Beds is looking at me!
Daaaaaad! Rob won't quit touching my things!
Daaaaaaad! Steve is calling me names!
Good Lord!!!! You remind me of a kid in my daughter's kindergarten class!
Ya know Chris, I've always thought you had the best intentions with your posts. I've now decided that you just type without thinking so you can argue. I'd never tell you to just avoid posting if you didn't know what the heck you were talking about, but I'm glad other people will.
Daaaaad! Andy in Beds is looking at me!
Daaaaaad! Rob won't quit touching my things!
Daaaaaaad! Steve is calling me names!
Good Lord!!!! You remind me of a kid in my daughter's kindergarten class!
Ya know Chris, I've always thought you had the best intentions with your posts. I've now decided that you just type without thinking so you can argue. I'd never tell you to just avoid posting if you didn't know what the heck you were talking about, but I'm glad other people will.
Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:26 am
Matt Gunsch wrote:The EAA and myself wanted a 1 time dye penatrant inspection, there is NO data to justify a reoccuring AD. The FAA based the need for a reoccuring on a SAAF service bulletin, that they themselves admitted that they had NO data from backing up the bulletin. They have no idea how many cracked attach angles were found if any. There have been 2 failures in 65+ yrs, That is not a trend. Someone else brought up that there were alot of wing failures in WWII, That is new to me and I have been working on 6s for over 20yrs. The only damage I have found on attach angles were exfoliation corrosion, and I have inspected the angles very closely on all the 6s I have worked on.
One thing to consider also, in the eyes of the FAA, There are NO approved parts for the T-6, since all the parts were produced for the military they are UNAPPROVED parts since they were not produced under a production certificate, this is from the guy that wrote the rules, not my reading of them. The only parts they consider approved are those that came off another plane and has tracability. A new attach angle in a sealed NAA box is not good enough.
For those that do not work on airplanes of any type and think that the FAA is always right, I have lots of examples of them being wrong, and in this case, it is going after a gnat with a cannon
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Crew Chief of TBM-3E, DC-3C, B-25J, PBY-5a, T-28C, SNJ-4, PT-17
Riding member of the
2003 World Champion Motorcycle Drill Team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
Thanks Matt.
I hesitate to even say this, but perhaps the "for-hire mock-air-combat"
type operations should be held to a higher standard (?) than the rest
of the privately owned fleet (I'm not just talking about T-6s, but
all the others... T-34 , SF-260, Extras, whatever). I realize the
logistics of trying to enforce something like this wouldn't be easy
(i.e., which airplanes used to be used for hire and are now in
private hands, etc.).
I'm just thinking out loud here, and asking for input/thoughts, not
trying to yell out my point of view. I can be as civil as the next
guy, while agreeing to disagree on this point or that.
The last thing I'd want to do is hurt the "fighter pilot for a day"
industry (I'm a customer for crying out loud! I flew with WA
in Kissimmee a few years ago). I just wonder if there's something
we can learn fom history... The military limited the G loads on these
aircraft towards the end of their service life. As someone pointed
out, not all of the fleet (more like a small percentage of same) has
been completely gone through (i.e., restored from the ground up).
Bela P. Havasreti
Common Sense
Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:00 am
May I interject a spectator comment here? I don't have a Warbird..nor
am I a pilot ....of aircraft. But it seems to me that common sense would
dictate that the "mock combat" operators would come under a tighter
scrutiny than the average owner performing aerobatics in their T-6. The "mock combat" guys would involve their machines in many more
frequent "cycles" of stress than the average weekender...therefore
would have to perform more frequent inspections.
Jason(jgrifft6),..brought up a point that has been ignored, and that is..this
200hr AD is an initial requirement. IT IS NOT FINAL! It was suggested
that data will be collected and amendments reflecting that will be made.
I don't understand how "young Harvard" can go off "half-cocked" attacking
the FAA for something which has not been determined yet...but Steve
Patterson's post was deleted. Harvard admitted losing his temper, but
Steve P is admonished for the same thing???
Steve may need to become a "little more graceful" in his wording...but
"young Harvard" could learn to stand aside...LISTEN !!!!...and then reply
with an informed opinion. Certainly, "stepping-up-to-the-plate" and
sending communiques for the "Warbird Community" from an ill-informed
incomplete understanding of the issue.....does the Warbird Community
no justice! Let the people who have the expertise and experience discuss
the problem, so those of us trying to learn something here get a full
consensus...please?
A well thought-out question is far better recieved than a brash, uninformed
declaration! This is no attack Harvard...just an appeal to allow this
discussion to continue without the "thought-line interruptions" hiding
behind issues of freedom of speech!
Thank-you Gentlemen..I'll go back to spectating in peace...I hope!
am I a pilot ....of aircraft. But it seems to me that common sense would
dictate that the "mock combat" operators would come under a tighter
scrutiny than the average owner performing aerobatics in their T-6. The "mock combat" guys would involve their machines in many more
frequent "cycles" of stress than the average weekender...therefore
would have to perform more frequent inspections.
Jason(jgrifft6),..brought up a point that has been ignored, and that is..this
200hr AD is an initial requirement. IT IS NOT FINAL! It was suggested
that data will be collected and amendments reflecting that will be made.
I don't understand how "young Harvard" can go off "half-cocked" attacking
the FAA for something which has not been determined yet...but Steve
Patterson's post was deleted. Harvard admitted losing his temper, but
Steve P is admonished for the same thing???
Steve may need to become a "little more graceful" in his wording...but
"young Harvard" could learn to stand aside...LISTEN !!!!...and then reply
with an informed opinion. Certainly, "stepping-up-to-the-plate" and
sending communiques for the "Warbird Community" from an ill-informed
incomplete understanding of the issue.....does the Warbird Community
no justice! Let the people who have the expertise and experience discuss
the problem, so those of us trying to learn something here get a full
consensus...please?
A well thought-out question is far better recieved than a brash, uninformed
declaration! This is no attack Harvard...just an appeal to allow this
discussion to continue without the "thought-line interruptions" hiding
behind issues of freedom of speech!
Thank-you Gentlemen..I'll go back to spectating in peace...I hope!
Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:23 am
I dont want to take any position, Harvard IV's comment might be light hearted at some times, but calling someone a "frigging idiot" and re-nicking him "smoking hole" is not really nice to read either, is it? We read and hear so much crap outside everyday, I'd like a place of warbird enthusiasts to be a quiet and helpful place, not another boring and vulgar talk show.. yes, there's freedom, but there's politeness too..
Alex
Alex
Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:56 am
Have been paying very close attention to this thread (in regards to the technical content) and thought that I might add a few general comments based on what's been posted.
Firstly, there's been some VERY useful and informative discussion about the FAA's reaction to the recent unfortunate T-6 crash and also about what might have influenced the failure.
Unfortunately I believe that some people have then gone a bit over the top in their posts. We don't always agree with something that someone else has said. If there are grounds of precedent to prove that they're incorrect, maybe they can be informed (we can all learn from others) however make sure it's not in an aggressive way.
The historic aviation scene around the world needs to be welcoming to people so that newcomers will join our ranks and if not support growth of the movement then at least maintain the current level of activity. Forums such as this are a great way of attracting new people. We've got enough issues to contest (insurance, regulatory bodies, etc) as is without having to have arguments on here. Besides, wouldn't the time and effort spent arguing be put to better use on that restoration project or adding new entries to the log book? Keep the constructive and polite energies flowing when posts are made though. Apologies for using analogies that are for such specific activities.
We're all lucky that Scott operates this forum for us to use. I've got to know some great people over time and hope to meet more of them in the flesh when the opportunity permits. One great person I was able to meet earlier this year was Steve Patterson. From the short time that I spent with him, it seems like he wears his passion (warbirds) on his sleeve and that's great. I mightn't necessarily agree with everything that Steve posts on here but that's fine. We're all different.
The above is probably a bunch of complete crap and I hope that no one is offended by anything that I've written. If anyone does have any issues relating to it, please feel free to contact me, either through a post of your own or by PM.
Have a great weekend everybody.
Cheers,
Matt
Firstly, there's been some VERY useful and informative discussion about the FAA's reaction to the recent unfortunate T-6 crash and also about what might have influenced the failure.
Unfortunately I believe that some people have then gone a bit over the top in their posts. We don't always agree with something that someone else has said. If there are grounds of precedent to prove that they're incorrect, maybe they can be informed (we can all learn from others) however make sure it's not in an aggressive way.
The historic aviation scene around the world needs to be welcoming to people so that newcomers will join our ranks and if not support growth of the movement then at least maintain the current level of activity. Forums such as this are a great way of attracting new people. We've got enough issues to contest (insurance, regulatory bodies, etc) as is without having to have arguments on here. Besides, wouldn't the time and effort spent arguing be put to better use on that restoration project or adding new entries to the log book? Keep the constructive and polite energies flowing when posts are made though. Apologies for using analogies that are for such specific activities.
We're all lucky that Scott operates this forum for us to use. I've got to know some great people over time and hope to meet more of them in the flesh when the opportunity permits. One great person I was able to meet earlier this year was Steve Patterson. From the short time that I spent with him, it seems like he wears his passion (warbirds) on his sleeve and that's great. I mightn't necessarily agree with everything that Steve posts on here but that's fine. We're all different.
The above is probably a bunch of complete crap and I hope that no one is offended by anything that I've written. If anyone does have any issues relating to it, please feel free to contact me, either through a post of your own or by PM.
Have a great weekend everybody.
Cheers,
Matt
Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:21 am
This is way out of control! As far as the FAA is concerned , It is what it is! You can elect to pencil wip your AD if you wish but please fly alone in the Desert so if you kill yourself and you don't take someone with you.
Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:42 am
If I may add an observation from over our side of the pond...?
The accident happened on 9th May. 31 days later, an AD comes out from the FAA.
During that time, the FAA / NTSB? have investigated the accident, found the likely cause, determined upon a solution, decided upon a preventative maintenance schedule, and communicated it out.
That seems pretty slick to me. And carrying out a check every 200 hours seems to be a small price to pay for the knowledge that your aeroplane's wings aren't likely to come off.
Over here, we bitch and whine about the CAA, EASA, and just about everyone else. Over there, you guys bitch and whine about the FAA. It's the way of life. But ultimately, these organisations are concerned with flight safety, and in that respect, I really cannot see how or why so many folks are getting hot under the collar about this.
Just my 2p's worth (or as I'm on a US forum, should that be 4c ?
)
Regards to all,
Steve
The accident happened on 9th May. 31 days later, an AD comes out from the FAA.
During that time, the FAA / NTSB? have investigated the accident, found the likely cause, determined upon a solution, decided upon a preventative maintenance schedule, and communicated it out.
That seems pretty slick to me. And carrying out a check every 200 hours seems to be a small price to pay for the knowledge that your aeroplane's wings aren't likely to come off.
Over here, we bitch and whine about the CAA, EASA, and just about everyone else. Over there, you guys bitch and whine about the FAA. It's the way of life. But ultimately, these organisations are concerned with flight safety, and in that respect, I really cannot see how or why so many folks are getting hot under the collar about this.
Just my 2p's worth (or as I'm on a US forum, should that be 4c ?
)
Regards to all,
Steve
Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:51 am
I'm not a "BIG gov't" supporter, and FAA expert or even a pilot, but I believe that the FAA in this case (and probably in most) is providing for the safety and well being of the citizens. See the preamble to the U.S. Constitution below:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I have no problem w/a pilot taking a chance on an aircraft that has many hours/time. The issue I have is when if that aircraft breaks up and lands on my house for a known reason that largely could have been prevented. If a pilot wants to assume that risk, he or she should have the right to do so providing it doesn't adversely impact others (ie. on the ground). Personally, if it were my aircraft, I would want to be aware of any weak points and address them for my safety as well as others.
Do these directives hurt the little guys pocket book like Chris? You betcha! Do these directives "carried out" help protect others? Absolutely!
There are risks associated w/aircraft that are not with other modes of transportation. As in investing w/risk can come the expense. If you want to play, you have to pay. Unfortunately, flying and maintaining your own aircraft is an expensive way of life.
That said, I hope all will comply and benefit from this directive.
regards,
~t
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I have no problem w/a pilot taking a chance on an aircraft that has many hours/time. The issue I have is when if that aircraft breaks up and lands on my house for a known reason that largely could have been prevented. If a pilot wants to assume that risk, he or she should have the right to do so providing it doesn't adversely impact others (ie. on the ground). Personally, if it were my aircraft, I would want to be aware of any weak points and address them for my safety as well as others.
Do these directives hurt the little guys pocket book like Chris? You betcha! Do these directives "carried out" help protect others? Absolutely!
There are risks associated w/aircraft that are not with other modes of transportation. As in investing w/risk can come the expense. If you want to play, you have to pay. Unfortunately, flying and maintaining your own aircraft is an expensive way of life.
That said, I hope all will comply and benefit from this directive.
regards,
~t
Aerobatic Inspections
Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:03 am
A friend of mine who flies a Christen Eagle, and is admittedly a very anal repairman when it comes to his airplane, has told me that any aerobatic airplane flown at any type of G loads needs more stringent inspections and that the inspections usually find things that need to be addressed. My question- are the air combat people doing heavier inspections on the aircraft than normal? Are the 50 and 100 hour inspections more like annuals? What is really going on out there in that regard? And further, what do the Aerobatic associations say about inspections? How about some perspective from them?