if the "spoilers" weren't able to do the job.
The lateral control system was one of the Type's design strengths. Can anyone cite a similar-sized aircraft with similarly capable low speed handling ? One needs to keep in mind the original Military capability requirement which the beastie set out to satisfy.
Mind you, I saw some dreadful in-flight aileron failures as a consequence of cowboy operations overseas - quite amazing, really. I probably still have some photographs tucked away of some of them.
Heard an interesting tale on what went on with the tail
There were more than a few exaggerated tales about the tail - especially within ARMY's replacement gameplan and the Senate Enquiry.
As a consequence of Glen's death in -401 there was a little bit of ducking and weaving over who did what maintenance when during the post factory period. As far as I am aware, the last inspection done at the factory was by a colleague and mate no longer with us - a very thorough chap and I have no doubt that, had there been a detectable crack at that time, he would have picked it up.
Please do tell your tale and those within the PPRuNe community who know the inside story might be able to add some balance ...
Sure, there were some fatigue considerations with related inspection requirements. If the inspections were done correctly, the problems were able to be kept in the paddock as intended.
In addition, the frequency response was sufficiently low to allow one to see the tailplane do its shake, rattle and roll. However, similar things on other aircraft Types tend to be a little more difficult to see. Indeed, ASTA presented an interesting little video presentation at the Senate Enquiry which put paid to some of the wilder allegations about the tailplane's "unique" gyrations.