It must a sign that the Europa is dearer to our hearts than we care to admit
that
any talk of changing an accepted design evokes such emotional and polarised
reaction. (.....and I would rather experience this than an apathetic silence!)
As I see it there are two distinct issues:
1) Identifying and remedying the specific cause(s) of the G-HOFC incident.
2) Addressing the three design/assembly weaknesses in the Europa tail (yes 3
....we
have only discussed two so far, I'll save the third for later) that will
guarantee a trustworthy and re-saleable aircraft.
None of us knows for certain the cause of the accident, but we have identified
definite design weaknesses during the search, TP5/TP6/pip-pin retention and
secure
locking of TP9/TP12.
It is not unreasonable or in any way "knee jerk" engineering for members the
group
to consider the problems and proffer ideas for solutions. This is healthy
discussion and some pretty good ideas have emerged. In any other situation, this
would be called "brainstorming" and would be considered good. It is the nature
of the beast that you will rarely get everyone to agree.
The fact that the aircraft has flown for thousands of hours without incident is
in no way an indication that there is no problem, (talk to anybody at
Moreton-Thiakol
about Space Shuttle propulsion systems) all it takes is the right (wrong)
conditions.
The nature of failures so far is directly related to the pattern/frequency of
aircraft
use. High-time aircraft or those used on rough strips run an increased
risk of something in the tail failing.
Ultimately, the regulating authorities will mandate changes considered "mission
critical", and every individual has the freedom to invent his own solution and
submit it to his regulator for approval.
Nigel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Carl
Pattinson
Sent: 17 July 2007 11:27
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
Hear, Hear - I couldnt agree more.
What will prevent future accidents is vigilance and care, not knee jerk
redesigns.
The current PFA solution may not be perfect but it is simply intended to
bring ALL Europas up to a safe standad. The likelyhood is that 99% of
Europas are safe anyway (but we just dont know).
I just dont see the need for mass paranoia. How many of us have checked th
security of our TP6 joints recently? How many of us found faulty bonds. I
suspect the answer is Zero. If I am wrong, Mod73 will fix that.
I agree that a more robust fix should be implemented in the future but IMHO
this would be more about confidence in the Europa fleet then increasing the
safety factor.
You cant get away from the fact that the Europa has shown itself to be a
very safe aircraft over the last 10 years.
Carl Pattinson
G-LABS
Still Flying (the Europa !!!)
>
> Jos made the point. Hundreds of Europas have flown tens of
> thousands of hours without any previous sign of any
> serious problems in the elevator fixing.
>
> The AAIB have NOT yet reported (the interim report said
> nothing) and it may not have been the TP6 that was the
> primary cause of the accident.
>
> Why go for belt, braces and piece of string solutions to a
> problem that may not exist ?
>
> Any long term fix should be required not instantly but in
> the course of a reasonable period. But we do need a final
> solution not a series of solutions, each more onerous and
> complicated and expensive than the previous.
>
> Richard Holder
> G-OWWW High Cross
>
>
>
|