Hey guys, were on the same side - arent we?
The PFA are on our side too in case anyone thought otherwise! I agree
they are doing a lot of guessing but at least its educated as opposed to
the speculation that has been going on in this forum (and I include
myself in that category).
Its understandable that we all want answers but taking exception at what
someone has said is pointless and unecessary.
It would be better if we all shut up and waited till the AIIB publishes
its findings but that aint going to happen - is it?
----- Original Message -----
From: TELEDYNMCS@aol.com
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: Europa-List: Re: Hole Enlongation vs. Landing Gear Type
In a message dated 6/26/2007 2:59:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
europa-list@matronics.com writes:
At this time, we don't know that any wear (if it was actually
present) did cause
the flutter. The AAIB/PFA may decide that the evidence shows that it
did but
they haven't, to my knowledge, announced that yet.
Please don't missunderstand me, I am all for improving the integrity
of the Europa
tailplane system but let's base the discussion on known facts rather
than
guesses.
Mark,
I'm not guessing about anything here. The purpose of the question I
posed was entirely aimed at obtaining facts about whether or not there
anyone had noticed a correlation between torque tube wear and landing
gear type, not to guess whether or not tailplane flutter caused the
accident. It's the PFA that is all hot and bothered about associating
pitch system wear and tailplane flutter, not me. It's the PFA that has
issued documents that infer a link to sloppiness in the pitch system to
tailplane flutter based on a single, isolated incident, and the notion
(or guess if you will) that tailplane flutter is what caused the crash,
not me. It's the PFA that seems to be the one that is doing the guessing
here, not me. All I did was read the documents the PFA released
regarding this incident and, based on their commentary, asked a
legitimate question about whether anyone had noticed a correlation
between landing gear type and torque tube wear. Although it seems like
an obvious question to me, judging by the responses thus far, apparently
no one has bothered to look for a correlation.
If Europa 04 keeps records on who they've sold Mod 62 kits to and what
kind of landing gear the aircraft uses, it would be easy to see if the
wear on the torque tube(s) is more prevalent in mono's, trigears or
neither. Since the PFA seems to be suggesting (guessing) that wear in
the pitch system possibly lead to tailplane flutter which resulted in
the recent crash in the UK, it stands to reason that the PFA would want
to isolate those aircraft where the wear is more likely to occur, if
indeed wear is more prevalent in one type of landing gear as opposed to
another and if sloppiness in the pitch system lead to tailplane flutter
and if that flutter caused the crash. If indeed this is the case, the
focus of any corrective action should be directed where it is most
needed. What the PFA has done so far is the scatter-gun approach.
Regards,
John Lawton
Whitwell, TN (TN89)
N245E - Flying
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
|