>>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...

<stepping off soap box>

Barry

122LL<<

 

Barry,

 

As seductive and  “nice” as it might be to bash the FAA on this one,  the truth of the matter is that the problems are NOT  totally confined to the aircraft used and abused (seriously abused) in the commercial mock aerial combat.

For example,  in doing eddy current inspections,  we have found two aircraft out of about 150 inspected that had cracks in the relevant area - - that are not and have never been used in mock aerial combat operations.

This is true for the T-34s.  From what I understand,  the South Africans had a wing come off in the mid-1970s on their T-6 fleet - - same place same crack.

Fatigue is a serious issue for  older aircraft.    The FAA has taken a lot of abuse over these - - when the  reality is that the problem needed to be addressed.

I disagree with the approach the FAA has taken to the problem in many ways,  but the problem needed to be addressed.

 

Regards,  George Braly