Eddie Dean is it a SB or an AD ? While it is comforting to know that there is an awareness of ageing aircraft, and a program specifically for the Islander, work done is only as good as those doing it and the components going in to it.
But the point I am attempting to make (but beyond the comprehension of some) is not that structural failure was the most likely cause, only that it - and any other equipment failure or design deficiency - must be eliminated by investigation before branding it as a CFIT and nothing but a CFIT.
Bent a lot out of shape seems to think that having expressed an opinion, and a concern that the investigation may rush to a conclusion, it is my job now to prove facts. He offers the ‘fact that trouble was far before the crash’ Que? Also that PPruNe is a reliable place for proof. As if...