Folks,
Jon Modrey, an MD11 FO with Gemini Air Cargo from Orlando, FLA has done most of us a favour.
He has demonstrated that assertions of aviation "fact" will be tracked down and debated at length on these fora.
I was a little surprised that no one brought up the fact that the FAA varied the performance requirements of the B767-300 due to Vs1g testing rather tyhan Vs testing and the fact that it would be commercially unfortunate if the "new" aeroplane looked like having worse/different numbers to the -200. Furthermore, the changes made to accommodate the B777 were not a reflection of aerodynamic differences such as faced by DGAC/CAAUK with slender delta and supersonics - perhaps that may have been a more fruitful question for Jon to pursue.
Most importantly, as a consequence of his writings, I now know the name of TSS, the existence of which I was aware. I am also happy to know that WOK's assertion: "In terms of performance margins, TSS reqs exceed equivalent BCARs or whatever, and manoeuvre margins hugely so...The numbers emphatically are not fudged, and the fact remains that SSC has larger performance margins than subsonic long-haul aircraft." is relatively easily verified and, I think, very unlikely to be found untrue.
For all of that, I must thank Jon and his letter to the editor.
PS Perhaps after Jon has read FAR 25 and its amendment history, plus the squillions of ADs and other supporting documents about compliance with that FAR, he might get the most politically controlled and manipulated regulator outside the old Communist blocs to test real knowledge of the certification requirements of the aircraft in which he apparently occupies an important seat.