snj-5 wrote:
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
Bela,
I do agree with you to a point on this. But, the true "Air Combat" providers are not T-6 operators. During my time at WA (2001-2003), maybe less than 1% of our flights were of the BFM catagory.
I do agree that operators doing prolonged aerobatics (90% of my flights in the T-6 were aerobatic), that a recurring inspection be done. I think the 200 hour interval is a bit too much, but not a lot I can do on that one.
The 200 hour interval the SAAF was a no brainer, as the cost was picked up by the SA gov't. 200 hours for civilian use is a little overkill. I think 500 hours or a set period of time (like every 12 months or so) would be a good compromise until more data is obtained. This would cover the guys who fly a lot and who fly a little (like the 40 hour a year operator).
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
