experimental homebuilts???
you guys miss the point totally.
when aeroplanes are designed the designers don't go to basics and work out how the air loads will affect the flying.
air loads, gust considerations and such are built into the design and strength requirements which are typically FAR23.
pilots are limited to loads and forces known as the "limit load".
how do you keep an aeroplane light enough to fly well? well you only design it to be 50% stronger than the limit loads. this is known as the "ultimate strength".
an aeroplane is supposed to be able to be stressed to "limit" any number of times without failure. you only expect component failure to occur if the aircraft is loaded beyond its ultimate strength.
(btw I'm using Normal Category figures here, roughly)
ok so how does an aeroplane flown within limits by competent pilots suffer such catastrophic failure in the empennage that VARA are going to scrap the entire airframe.
something is drastically wrong here.
either something has been shonkied through the certification process
or
the design standards aren't up to snuff
or
the air has more energy in it than previously thought and the design standards relating to strengths need updating.
as I mentioned in my post on the truss thread I think the pilots were competent.
VARA are competently operating the aircraft.
ATR have designed the aircraft competently.
so either I am wrong in one of the three assumptions or the design standards are in need of urgent review.
aircraft components should never fail catastrophically while exposed to loads below "limit"
the authorities can bury this all they like but it will not go away.
VARA will end up with 163 ATR's.
if all the 163 had been flown identically through identical weather to the candidate aircraft. VARA would now have all 163 parked at Albury with catastrophic damage.
it is a part of the identical nature of certified aircraft. all have the same strengths and all have the same weaknesses.
thankfully there is lots of parking space at Albury.
