[P7_TOM]

Oh: My wing fell off - I wonder why?

“The ATSB’s analysis showed that cyclic loads induced by the low-level survey flight profile were significantly greater than those associated with the higher-level flight profile originally intended for the aircraft type, and this probably increased the risk of a fatigue-related structural failure,” Mr Mitchell said. Oh, so Troo dat!



Well; duck me! - Finally, 'someone' has at least, although somewhat belatedly,  recognised that the airframe was not designed, built and certified to sustain the insistent pounding of high speed cruise in low level turbulence, particularly in Australia.

When young (and hungry for hours) after one particular survey (frontal research and thunderstorm survey) I did ask that question. I also asked the same question after some low level survey operations 'down in the valleys' for a forestry gig. Silence the stern reply. So I did the unthinkable; I examined the certification data.

Not Cessna's fault. Not one of the 200 series or even the 300 series, (nor the Partenavia) were ever subjected to 'testing' the hammering the airframe gets on low level survey; particularly - most particularly - when a quote has been given and accepted based on a 'time' frame. Not one of the aircraft I ever used had manufacturers specification for time spent operating in 'uncomfortable' conditions..Yet the 'push' to complete a 'run' within budget and time frame was, and remains, a big part of the profitless 'prosperity' to be gained from such ventures.

You do see the problem; me, I walked away with no idea of what residual damage the airframe had sustained. Metal does have a memory - and even within a tough old bird, like a 210, there are limits, that holds true.

So, why do CASA 'approve' operations which, had the homework been properly done, allow, despite the 'data' attached to design, test flight and certification standards the continued operation of air frames which, with just a little more 'pounding' outside of certification data continue to operate 'in the grey zone'?

I thought CASA were supposed to be a 'safety' oriented crew. The specification are there. the design philosophy is there, the test flight data is there, the engineering specifications are there, the 'holes' in the cheese are very clearly apparent.

No good blaming the maker - they were honest to certification demands. The big question is why there is not a mandated log on "G" and a CASA engineering codicil related to just how much, and for how long can the airframe sustain integrity operating in conditions for which it's certification data has neither been tested, approved or validated with 'time in service' data?

Nice aircraft - but designed, tested, certified and built for the repeated low level hammering? No CASA it was not - do your bloody homework FCOL. Hint - Ag aircraft can and do this type of work all day every day - a 210 is for 'cruise' operations - not being belted about at high speed at low level. CASA purblind ignorance on display - once again. No surprise there, hardly a 'professional' feeding at the GA trough. Rank amateurs rule = OK. Bull Pooh....