Originally Posted by
Mach E Avelli
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...
It is a SB mandated by an Airworthiness Directive. Sorry if that confused you.
Should you care to read SB 190 you will see that it is quite extensive, I would take exception to your implication that maintainers would not comply completely with the requirements therein.
I agree with with your comment that operators "force" inexperienced pilots to fly when perhaps the conditions are not conducive to safe flight.
Have seen this in PNG and Australia and have lost several young pilots due to this issue.
You have made several statements that Bend A Lot has listed and simply asked for substantiation of the same.
FWIW