Gaunty, we have partly to disagree on this one.
Whilst Paul has been writing about aviation matters for some time, and I always like to see what he has to say, on this occasion
he got it wrong and to top matters off he had a rogue sub-editor and the timing was disgusting.
He is absolutely spot on in regard to this subject.
Quote:
"If we thought it would fly 10 per cent heavier, we'd have certified it at that weight, sold a lot more planes, and made a lot more money," said a Gulfstream engineer.
is game set and match, thank you umpires, thank you ball boys.
Only on the assumption that the quote from the engineer was correct and that he was indeed representing the manufacturer (??) My understanding is that much of the work carried out on the model 500 in Australia was known to the manufacturer and in at least some areas supported and perhaps 'admired'.
The STC for the increase in gross weight was undertaken by an organisation in Melbourne that did all the structural justification and the appropriate test flying and as mentioned in previous posts, it met the requirement of the day to suit the regulator.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with the DCA Aero Commanders. To my knowledge, DCA never owned a Shrike. And yes, those early 560/680 models were not so brilliant performers.
If my memory serves me correctly much of the justification for the IGW was the result of the difference between the 'Normal' and 'Utility' category (as per FAA guidelines). Again if my memory serves me correctly the structural justification for the model 500S/U was up to around 7800lb on that basis.
That would give some margin above the 7150lb for IFR ops that the STC permitted when approved.
To date there is no proven link between the Australian STC and either of the in flight failures in this country. And as I said in a previous post, the failures in Australia were I understand in the outer wing, whereas the known problem areas were the inner wing. YJB had less than 5000hrs and had not been in the country for that long, so to assume that the IGW STC was a factor is nothing other than a wild guess.
I am sure the ATSB are very much aware of these issues and they will obviously investigate these apparent ‘links’ as part of their investigations. Obviously CASA will take an interest in the proceedings. At this time there is no link, and we will all have to wait for the experts to deliberate.
Jabawocky
Maybe not, but its brothers and sisters seem to have a history or serious cracks, and maybe this one has not been as carefully checked as others...
I bet it was, as were all the imports by that company.
But Mr Gibson said, at this stage, there was no need to ground the fleet -- most of which were more than 30 years old. "We are aware of the similarities (between the accidents) but we need evidence of a real problem and at this stage we don't have that," Mr Gibson said.
For once I agree with him!