AT 6 mishap in dallas..

[Dave S]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/state/062405_APstate_vintageplane.html

What is interesting is I wonder if this plane had met compliance with
the recent emergency AD that effectively grounded ALL AT6's until a
fairly comprehensive removal, inspection and reinstallation of most if
not all of the wing attach fittings/bolts.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/20CD932B803FE0BC8625701B004E3716?OpenDocument

There was a one time 10 hour allowance to reposition, with many
limitations, including day, vfr, and no passenger carrying. There was a
passenger in this aircraft, per the news article.

The AD subject matter has nothing to do with the gear mishap, but I
would be surprised that one of these aircraft has already complied with
the AD fully this soon afterwards of the issue date..

IF this plane was in compliance, its a non-issue.. if it was NOT, would
the expected action be a slap on the wrist, or a full court public lynching?

What say ye?
Dave

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:19:56 GMT, Dave S >
wrote:

It did meet compliance with the AD prior to the flight in question.

A good number of T-6s were inspected right away and were up and flying
in a relatively short time. Anecdotal comment: No attach angle
fatigue cracks have been found in any of the T-6s inspected to date
(some attach angles with corrosion were found).

Bela P. Havasreti

>
>http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/state/062405_APstate_vintageplane.html
>
>What is interesting is I wonder if this plane had met compliance with
>the recent emergency AD that effectively grounded ALL AT6's until a
>fairly comprehensive removal, inspection and reinstallation of most if
>not all of the wing attach fittings/bolts.
>
>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/20CD932B803FE0BC8625701B004E3716?OpenDocument
>
>There was a one time 10 hour allowance to reposition, with many
>limitations, including day, vfr, and no passenger carrying. There was a
>passenger in this aircraft, per the news article.
>
>The AD subject matter has nothing to do with the gear mishap, but I
>would be surprised that one of these aircraft has already complied with
>the AD fully this soon afterwards of the issue date..
>
>IF this plane was in compliance, its a non-issue.. if it was NOT, would
>the expected action be a slap on the wrist, or a full court public lynching?
>
>What say ye?
>Dave

[snj-5]

It did meet compliance with the AD prior to the flight in question.

A good number of T-6s were inspected right away and were up and flying
in a relatively short time. Anecdotal comment: As of the last
communication I received, no attach angle fatigue cracks have been
found in any of the T-6s inspected to date (some attach angles with
corrosion were found).

Bela P. Havasreti

[Dave S]

Glad to hear that.. on BOTH counts.. and also that nobody was hurt in
the accident airplane in dallas..

Dave

snj-5 wrote:
> It did meet compliance with the AD prior to the flight in question.
>
> A good number of T-6s were inspected right away and were up and flying
> in a relatively short time. Anecdotal comment: As of the last
> communication I received, no attach angle fatigue cracks have been
> found in any of the T-6s inspected to date (some attach angles with
> corrosion were found).
>
> Bela P. Havasreti
>

[[email protected]]

Accident was due to a bit of overaggressiveness with the gear handle.
After takeoff, when the pilot went to put the gear up, the handle was
pulled a bit too much and went over the mechanical stop. After the
accident, from outside the aircraft the handle was able to be forced
out and back over the stop into the correct position. Bad thing about
it was the a/c was scheduled to get the attach angle skid plates during
the next maintenance session. NOw at least partof the attach angles are
going to have to be replaced.

BTW...both people onboard were part of the museum staff that owns the
aircraft.

Craig C.