X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:09:15 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-684801@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <sportform@cox.net>
Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c1)
  with ESMTP id 684519 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:29:30 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.38; envelope-from=sportform@cox.net
Received: from [68.5.197.21] by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP
          id <20050828042841.DNFU19627.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@[68.5.197.21]>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:28:41 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
In-Reply-To: <list-683984@logan.com>
References: <list-683984@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-48-867231765
X-Original-Message-Id: <81719dba6e13d888413d727789f3885a@cox.net>
From: Barry Hancock <sportform@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair Accident Statistics
X-Original-Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:28:39 -0700
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622)


--Apple-Mail-48-867231765
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed


On Aug 27, 2005, at 9:41 AM, VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote:

>
> In a message dated 8/27/2005 10:05:11 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20
> MikeEasley@aol.com writes:
>> read an article the other day about some WW2 trainer (pardon my lack=20=

>> of detail, don't remember the model #) that is a popular plane for=20
>> restoration and flying to airshows, but a small percentage of the=20
>> fleet is used for air combat.=A0
>
> T-34

Actually, it's both the T-34 and the T-6 now.  The T-34 is not a WWII=20
trainer, BTW.  It is, for all practical purposes, a tandem seat=20
Debonaire...

Here's how crazy and knee jerk the FAA a can be.  The T-34's started=20
getting grounded and VERY expensive AD's issued several years ago=20
because one T-34 that was KNOWN to have been severely and constantly=20
over stressed pulled a wing off.  The outfit that did it even had pins=20=

that said "I pulled 7 G's!"...when the structural limit of the type is=20=

(well, was before this mess) 6 G's, say nothing of rolling G.  It has=20
happened 3 times since, and the spar inspections, groundings, and AD's=20=

have gotten completely ridiculous and not even in the same galaxy when=20=

it comes to reasonable solutions.

The T-6 mess was created by Warbird Adventures where ONE, yes ONE,=20
aircraft pulled a wing off...again on a KNOWN damaged airframe doing=20
commercial Air Combat.  Instead of holding the commercial ACM outfits=20
to a higher standard (which they should be), the FAA again knee-jerked=20=

by grounding the fleet and requiring a dye-penetrant inspection=20
($15,000+) before any plane could be flown again.

So yes, the FAA has the power and authority to make life unnecessarily=20=

difficult and expensive due to the irresponsible and reckless behaviors=20=

of just a few, if not just one, in the community.  The jury is still=20
out on who's more reckless, the FAA mandates, or the guys killing=20
innocent people through sheer stupidity...

<stepping off soap box>

Barry
122LL

--Apple-Mail-48-867231765
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1



On Aug 27, 2005, at 9:41 AM, VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote:


<excerpt>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>In a message dated 8/27/2005
10:05:11 A.M. Central Standard Time, MikeEasley@aol.com =
writes:</smaller></fontfamily>

<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>read an article the
other day about some WW2 trainer (pardon my lack of detail, don't
remember the model #) that is a popular plane for restoration and
flying to airshows, but a small percentage of the fleet is used for
air combat.=A0

</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt><smaller>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>T-34

</smaller></fontfamily></smaller></excerpt>

Actually, it's both the T-34 and the T-6 now.  The T-34 is not a WWII
trainer, BTW.  It is, for all practical purposes, a tandem seat
Debonaire...


Here's how crazy and knee jerk the FAA a can be.  The T-34's started
getting grounded and VERY expensive AD's issued several years ago
because one T-34 that was KNOWN to have been severely and constantly
over stressed pulled a wing off.  The outfit that did it even had pins
that said "I pulled 7 G's!"...when the structural limit of the type is
(well, was before this mess) 6 G's, say nothing of rolling G.  It has
happened 3 times since, and the spar inspections, groundings, and AD's
have gotten completely ridiculous and not even in the same galaxy when
it comes to reasonable solutions. =20


The T-6 mess was created by Warbird Adventures where ONE, yes ONE,
aircraft pulled a wing off...again on a KNOWN damaged airframe doing
commercial Air Combat.  Instead of holding the commercial ACM outfits
to a higher standard (which they should be), the FAA again knee-jerked
by grounding the fleet and requiring a dye-penetrant inspection
($15,000+) before any plane could be flown again.


So yes, the FAA has the power and authority to make life unnecessarily
difficult and expensive due to the irresponsible and reckless
behaviors of just a few, if not just one, in the community.  The jury
is still out on who's more reckless, the FAA mandates, or the guys
killing innocent people through sheer stupidity...=20


<<stepping off soap box>


Barry

122LL


--Apple-Mail-48-867231765--