>Time for an expression of concern - and a moan - first real moan I think
>- primarily caused by Ivans letter of 22nd October which did not seem to
>be written with his usual diplomacy(?). To quote loosely " we pulled
>OTI into the workshop, simply removed - whole operation took one day"
>I'm sure it did - trouble is I'm a me not a we and the workshop has been
>given over to another project. I reckon on between one to two weeks. So
>that's the moan.
>The concern however is this. None of Europa's tests apparently caused
>failure even at "reserve energy". The cause of the "few" failures would
>therefore not seem to have been established (how many is "few" ? - there
>are only a "few" flying). How much confidence is there that the
>mandatory modifications will eliminate what appears to be a problem of
>undefined magnitude with an indeterminate cause?
>I'd appreciate it, ifwhoever is reading this at Europa would pass a copy
>of this (forget the moan by all means) on to Ivan for his comments.
>--
>Rolph Muller
>
There have been two cases of landing gear frames breaking and one of a
partial failure. There are three further reports of frames with cracks in
them. In one other case, cracks were reported but have since been found to
be in the coating only.
When we say that none of our test frames failed even at reserve energy,
this means no catastrophic failures. The frames were certainly damaged, but
had they been on aircraft you'd still have your prop in one piece.
Our comprehensive testing has left us with the confidence that we will be
able to determine whether or not an aircraft has experienced an excessively
heavy landing as defined by JAR-VLA, by inspection of certain parts which
will indicate the severity of a landing.
Regards
Andy
>
|