Hartmut Beil

Document ID: FAA-2011-0360-0004
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration
Received Date: May 31 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Date Posted: June 2 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: April 14 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: May 31 2011, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80e34bf2
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

I seem to remember the comment the other day about 5/6 accidents in the last 60 years due to perceived aileron flutter. At the very most they should be sending a Service Bulletin out to check these items instead of a full blown AD. The number of in-flight break ups don't correspond to the required AD. The suggested action should be and can be only as per recommendation. The accident that the AD responds of is by no means clearly identified as a failure of the control system. All the suggested action are something that every aircraft owner should have in his mind, but by making it mandatory with unclear definitions, and a mandatory report - findings or not the FAA puts a financial burden onto the owners with little to no gain for safety. The Maintainance manual and SB's for Ercoupes already gives clear limits for the control system. The only thing to make mandatory is to have it check during an annual inspection. That alone would give the desired gain in safety. Hartmut

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 6
Linda Abrams
Public Submission    Posted: 06/02/2011     ID: FAA-2011-0360-0003

May 31,2011 11:59 PM ET
Hartmut Beil
Public Submission    Posted: 06/02/2011     ID: FAA-2011-0360-0004

May 31,2011 11:59 PM ET
Anonymous
Public Submission    Posted: 06/02/2011     ID: FAA-2011-0360-0006

May 31,2011 11:59 PM ET
William R. Bayne
Public Submission    Posted: 06/07/2011     ID: FAA-2011-0360-0008

May 31,2011 11:59 PM ET
William R. Bayne
Public Submission    Posted: 06/06/2011     ID: FAA-2011-0360-0007

May 31,2011 11:59 PM ET