Paul Phelan’s article in The Australian on Fri 10 Aug.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.....who knows
.
Will have to see what the ATSB find, either way it seems the extra weight is not the only factor, and all it may do is accelerate the cracking.
I do think the earlier comment about if the manufacturer felt it was capable of it and they would have tested and had it certified, they would have done so and sold more aircraft as a result, was quite relevant.
J
.Will have to see what the ATSB find, either way it seems the extra weight is not the only factor, and all it may do is accelerate the cracking.
I do think the earlier comment about if the manufacturer felt it was capable of it and they would have tested and had it certified, they would have done so and sold more aircraft as a result, was quite relevant.
J
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As thinking people and passionate about our craft Mr Phelan and I don't always see eye to eye, but whether I agree with him or not I do respect his views.
He is absolutely spot on in regard to this subject.
is game set and match, thank you umpires, thank you ball boys.
I hope someone who was around then can help me out with my increasingly cranky memory but I have an recollection?? that the increased GW was a result of the then DCA who had ordered a swag of the 680E?? for "liason" finding that this fine aircraft did not quite come up to "Australian" expectations. Simple really as the certifying authority you simply change the rules to make em fit. There is no other rational explanation.
In any event the "history" of the type is not exactly news and I have wept on more than one occasion when I hear the young tyro (younger even than the aircraft) proclaim,.............. exultantly even.................."I'd fly her to hell and back, she's built like a brick one mate".
He is absolutely spot on in regard to this subject.
"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.
I hope someone who was around then can help me out with my increasingly cranky memory but I have an recollection?? that the increased GW was a result of the then DCA who had ordered a swag of the 680E?? for "liason" finding that this fine aircraft did not quite come up to "Australian" expectations. Simple really as the certifying authority you simply change the rules to make em fit. There is no other rational explanation.
In any event the "history" of the type is not exactly news and I have wept on more than one occasion when I hear the young tyro (younger even than the aircraft) proclaim,.............. exultantly even.................."I'd fly her to hell and back, she's built like a brick one mate".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
I bet it was, as were all the imports by that company.
For once I agree with him!
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.
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.
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...
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.
