Originally Posted by
john_tullamarine
As the OEM POH/AFM were, for all examined, more restrictive than the DCA books
Some differences were due to differences in rules, eg the 500S GW change. In general, though, I think I have to continue to disagree with your overall assessment. I thought the local product generally was pretty reasonable for operational use. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree ?
He made pretty nice violins as well.
.
JT,
I am/was not really making of a relative quality assessment of either.
Our concern, at the time, was that, as the DCA et al Flight Manuals would no longer have a legal existence, that OEM data didn't present any bear traps. It was an instructive exercise all round. We had had some concerns that some thought that marketing departments of at least one US OEM "created" the performance number, with the assistance of their legal departments.
Re. violins, probably not a surprising interest, his father was first violin in the SSO for many years.
Re. the Aero Commander 500S ---- I can advise you, from personal experience, the current TC holder doesn't want to know about Australian airframes that have been operating at "Australian" weights --- that even "thinking" about it could generate a liability. Personally, I do not believe the operation at increased weight was significant in the two AU losses due wing structural failure in the air, outboard of the engines.
DL does do a very good presentation on the root cause of the AC wing root cracking and subsequent ADs.
Tootle pip!!