T-34 crash

On 13 Dec 2004 14:08:10 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

Richard Russell wrote:
AVWeb has a story out today saying that the wing failed in an area
that was totally different from any of the previous failures and
different from the fix the AD covered.

That's not good news for T-34 owners.

The only good news for T-34 owners would be if the FAA recognized the
real problem. The real problem has nothing to do with the airplane.

The T-34 is not a fighter. It is not designed to take the stresses of
ACM. It is designed to perform some limited aerobatics, and if flown
within those limitations it will never have a problem - or at least
none ever has been a problem.

The Baron spar modification makes the airplane a little stronger in a
crucial area - but it does not turn what is a limited-capability
aerobatic trainer into a fighter. It can't be done. Unfortunately,
given the way these planes are flown, nothing less will do.

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but in this case there is no
alternative. Anyone who has ever observed these weekend warrior antics
and knows anything at all about aerobatic flight can easily see that
these planes are ROUTINELY flown outside the design envelope. It's the
responsibility of the safety pilot in the back to keep the plane within
the envelope, but that doesn't happen. In fact, in the first (US)
accident, there is actually a voice recording of the safety pilot
encouraging the pilot up front to be more agressive - seconds before
the wing came off.

Unfortunately, the FAA insists on treating the weekend warrior
operators and the private owners the same. All T-34's are now grounded
because of the antics of a few who should have (and probably did) know
better.

Michael

I agree. The Air & Space article acknowledged the efforts that many
made to separate "normal" flying from the combat simulation programs.
The FAA was not receptive to that argument. I don't know any of the
victims of these events but I have to wonder how, in light of the
history of these wing departures in high stress situations, they could
continue to expose themselves and their clients to this unacceptable
(to me) risk. I understand that my observations are not based upon
scientific data but it seems clear that the planes are not up to the
task.
Rich Russell

The Air & Space article acknowledged the efforts that many
made to separate "normal" flying from the combat simulation programs.
The FAA was not receptive to that argument.

The FAA is, unfortunately, pretty top-heavy with retired military -
especially in the airworthiness portions of it. The operators of these
weekend warrior operations are also mostly retired military. Because
of this, the FAA is reluctant to take action against the weekend
warrior operations, and instread blames the plane.

The second crash (first at Texas Air Aces) was a particularly egregious
example of this. It was well known (based on maintenance records) that
the plane did not have the AD complied with, and while at first some
claimed aerobatics were not being done, the video from the other plane
put paid to that - the plane was being overstressed. Despite this, the
entire fleet was hit with additional (and unnecessary) AD compliance
burdens while Texas Air Aces continued to operate.

This was followed by an investigation at the Houston FSDO, alleging
that Texas Air Aces was operating improperly and that the Houston FSDO
knew about it. Some people were fired or reassigned over this, but in
the end it was just another FAA investigation, followed by business as
usual. I caused the one person at the FSDO who actually knew something
about aerobatics to quit in disgust.

If the FAA were to separate out the T-34's being used for ACM as a
separate group (the one responsible for all the accidents) this would
be tantamount to shutting down the weekend warrior operations that use
it. The pool of T-34 owners might be big enough (or not) to support
the development costs of a 'fix' but the much-smaller pool of weekend
warrior operations certainly isn't big enough. Also, since everyone
knows this sort of damage is cumulative (especially with Aluminum
spars) their planes would be pretty much worthless. That would be a
big enough hit to bankrupt most of them.

Because my home field is also home to the acknowledged T-34 expert
mechanic in the area (he also owns his own T-34), I've met quite a few
T-34 owners and know a couple of them fairly well. Their planes all
had their spars inspected after the first accident, and everyone knows
there's nothing wrong with them. Let's just say these weekend warrior
operations are not exactly popular in the T-34 community.

Michael