|
I personally believe that blind advocacy is as unwarranted as rampant villification. Neither are supported. Neither are deserved.
Lets review, shall we:
I offered to fly Owen, Chris, Dave, or anyone they liked to inspect my plane, themselves since they know far more about SkyMasters than ANYONE else I know (thats a compliment). Owen eventually replied that I should take it to any local A&P since a "wing is a wing" and anybody should be able to perform the inspection. That kinda implies that common wisdom and common practices are in effect. Hold that thought....
So when I have three different A&P's (two are AI) look at it and they dont like what they see...I gotta wonder. And in case anyone is doubting their veracity because they think the Tech's might be trying to make work for themselves...they refused to do anything beyond the inspection....before I asked them.
It further complicates that particular aspect when the FAA inspectors and Engineers are so concerned that they are investigating if the STC was approved for stacking, if the mods are installed in compliance with the STC, as approved, and exactly how the STC(s) were revied and approved to begin with. In short....there's a lot going on behind the scenes. A WHOLE lot more than merely the issue of "to nut or not to nut".
So it might just be a bit more than mere semantics or a difference in opinions.
The next point Randy Makes is that the accident plane "was loaded 500 lbs over zero fuel weight and at least that much over gross weight". Let's do the math: I looked at a Super Skyrocket before I bought N5ZX. It had a useful load of 2000#. So in theory the accident A/C had a useful load of 2000# If we assume the plane had full fuel (and thus eliminate the zero fuel weight arguement) then we subtract 190 gallons (150 in mains, 40 in tips) which is 1140# leaving us with 860# payload. Divide that by the 5 passengers on board and you come out to 172# per person. Bearing in mind that three of the passengers were children, I have trouble imagining the A/C being 500# over gross.....that would require EACH passenger to average of 272#....that's a lot of tater-chips! I dont think the cabin has enough volume to fit that much meat without the copious application of vasceline.
And that's based on the assumption that they had full fuel. It can be deduced that they did NOT have full fuel. They put on 90 gallons immediately prior to their take-off. In order to support the "full fuel theory", that means they had 100 gallons on board prior to adding the 90 gallons. Since the witnesses (family of the deceased) say that the flight was supposed to be a short sight seeing flight....it is difficult to imagine why he would add an additional 3 hours of fuel the 3.3 hours of fuel already on board...for a short sight seeing flight. it is much more likely that he would add 45 per side in the mains and leave the tips empty since they are less convenient to fill (precisely why I try to leave mine full). That, and the lack of a giant fireball, makes me think the tanks probably were not topped off.
Basically, its really REALLY hard to overload a SkyMaster...part of the appeal.
There is no question...no doubt...no debate...that AIRSPEED caused the wing to fail. I think that point has been made MANY times and I dont recall reading any arguement against that fairly apparent conclusion. But as has been repeatedly cautioned...it is not our place to make a decision of any sort on a matter in which we have minimal information.
Which is a perfect segue into the topic of needing/having/wanting information.
After many attempts to reach Owen, I finally received a reply to one of my private messages (sent via this board) saying that Owen hadn't replied because he was ill. Thats understandable. Then I hear that Owen is in NJ helping with the investigation. Thats understandable. What is more difficult to understand is that according to a Linkedin reference on Owen's "Aviation Enterprises: in Whites Church, TN.....he reports having 50 employees. Based on the reply to my forum message, at least one of those employees is monitoring these threads. Seems like it would be helpful to all if ONE person were to give us a standard line of non-committa,l hand-holding BS and just let us know that they aren't just hoping this all blows over.
At issue is Managing Expectations. They could easily abate perceptions by creating the impression of doing something proactive AND MAKING THEIR EFFORTS WELL KNOWN. People, by nature, are lazy. If they see that someone else is "handling" a problem, they are far less likely to want to do it themselves. By failing to keep the stakeholders marginally informed, it makes us want to take matters into our own hands so that we can SEE something being done. While it is likely not the case....it APPEARS that Owne's approach has been, "Let them eat cake.".....and I think that ended badly. People like to feel involved. Especially when their investments (or lives) are in the balance...it kinda makes them feel important...and valued.
The FAA SAIB said to pay particular attention to Smoking Rivets at the Aileron mount....they didnt say ignore everything else. Since in my wing the smoking rivets were a few inches from the aileron mount, I thought it was worth mentioning. Since the mechanics found many more smoking rivets on the inside, I thought that was worth mentioning. And since I personally have never seen an airplane that did NOT have smoking rivets somewhere, I left it as a comment and not a complaint. Merely something of note.
But when I supplied my findings and photos of the various problems to the FAA and they said "That is exactly what we are looking for and is the same as what's being reported by many other operators..." I think perhaps it is pertenant. and not limited to my planes past or present operation.
I'm selfish. I dont want anything negative to happen to Owen or "Aviation Enterprises". About half of my airplane was built by them and I'd like for someone to be around to support the work (key phrase being SUPPORT). Owen, and Chris, and Dave are all remarkably knowledgable. Chris did a damn good job teaching me how to fly the 337. Dave allowed me to watch over his shoulder when they installed the new engines and props and taught me a great deal along the way.
My only complaint about "Aviation Enterprises" has been the perception of inaction. And having been an investigator, I can say without question, that perceptions of the parties involved are what drives the intensity of the investigation. If you look like you are doing the right thing, odds are they wont dig too deep. If you look like you are trying to do the right thing, odds are they will poke at it with a shovel and try to get you headed the right direction. If you look like you are oblivious, they'll dig deep enough to take you out of the game. And if you look deceptive....they'll being in a back-hoe.
Hopefully he has given the investigators a better impression than he has given those who have commented in a variety of threads on this forum.
Personally, I just hope for an early, easy, and affordable solution to this mess. I'd love to have Cessna or someone say: "Oh, that little thing? No worries. Get the (heck) outta here and go fly!"
Because, again, I'm selfish. All I want to do is fly. I invested a lot of time and effort into finding THE one, perfect plane for our purposes. I love my plane and I want it out of the shop and in the air. But now I'm unemployed because the plane's owner is so enraged at having spent $160k to buy the plane, $100k on the best avionics package imaginable, $70k on engines, and $25k on props. And with this latest drama he's told me to part it out, and scrap the rest. He's had it. And while my tone has struggled to remain objective and moderating....it can be very fairly said that, "The Emporer is not as forgiving as I am."
So.... I'd really like this all to get better PDQ so that we can all live happily ever after and go back to bitching about the SID.
Ahhh... those were the good ole days...
Later, yall
Cole
|