For those having a pop at whirly, if an FI was supposed to be the source of all knowledge including engineering where would there be a place for engineers? Genghis would have to take to posting on Pprune all day instead of doing any work
I should just like to point out that my average is 1½ posts a day (exactly the same as the poster of the above), so I do get some work done in between. Or at-least no less than bose-X
Back on topic, I did early on ask Whirly several questions; she's not answered them yet (probably still recovering) and a lot of people have made assumptions about the answers. Those questions were...
- Were vacuum indications normal ?
- Were there any airspeed problems?
- Did you really mean the slip-ball or the turn needle?
And another that's just occurred to me
- Apart from the normal wing points, at what points on the airframe was the aircraft tied down?
Whilst there's some good advice here, particularly from
Airbedane and
mad_jock (the latter is making assumptions about the answers to the above, but nonetheless I think is probably right), there are a lot of people making assumptions on incomplete evidence. Whilst that's the case, there will be plenty of work for both FIs and Engineers - of whatever variety.
Whilst waiting for Whirly to come back on those couple of points I'd make two points.
(1) Criticism has no place in this thread. Somebody has openly admitted to perhaps flying an aircraft that they shouldn't, and to not entirely understanding the problems. If we criticise anybody who has, after all brought the aircraft back in one piece, for being open about that then we've undermined the whole basis for aviation safety - at least in a civilised and (relatively) nonjudgmental country like the UK.
(2) I'd guess that most of us fly, or have flown, aircraft that are stored outdoors. Can we any of us put our hands on our hearts and say that every pre-flight has covered everything that either the weather or the passing public could possibly have done to that aircraft. I thought not!
G