The T67 remains an excellent basic training aircraft. The JEFTS/DEFTS contract has more than met it's objectives for over 10 years.
Reverting to "safer" types has led to increased training costs further up the pipeline whether with students not passing the likes of BFT or taking longer to convert to helicopter types. Earlier pruning (excuse the pun) on slightly more complex equipment has proved worthwhile - testing capacity and honing useful skills.
The issues concerning the T3 variant were not accurately reported in the US press which in turn added fuel to the litigation fire.
The main ones:
1. Where the aircraft were used ? Clearly out of very hot and high airfields
2. How they were operated ? Pilot error is quoted as being the main cause of the spinning accidents. Did the instructors have a standardised spin training syllabus? Entry and recovery altitudes? Parachute option? During initial aircraft evaluation, Edwards test pilots even forced the T67 into inverted spins (which was prohibited elsewhere) with no recovery problems.
3. Engine reliability - the T3's American 6 cylinder is one of the most dependable engines in light aviation. If you are carrying out a PFL then your training should include what to do if it becomes a real FL. Was engine warming in the decent carried out? Test pilots at Edwards AFB completed a thorough post accident flight test programme including closing the throttle at high altitude and gliding to the runway threshold without warming the engine in the decent. Result? The engine went to full power on the go around without any problems - this was repeated many times without any engine hiccups.
All in all a very sad tale of unnecessary waste - both of precious human life and decent aeroplanes. The former caused by poor operation and the latter by media hype and unthinking politics.