----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Hi Gang: As an ex Couper but still very interested allow me to add a word or two to the profusion of writings about the proposed AD.If my memory serves me correctly about 12 or 13 years ago the FAA, in all its wisdom (or the lack thereof!) issued a wing Ad relevant to Piper low wing aircraft and "assumed" corrosion. At that time I owned a Cherokee 180 and the resultant cost of about $1500 plus to remove the wings, buy new wing bolts, and reassemble the bird put a serious dent in the money my budget allowed for aviation. The AD was predi-cated on wing failure in two Cherokees flying low level pipeline inspections in Alaska....a strain not ordinarily encountered in average flying. After innumerable Cherokee owners spent vast sums of money complying with the AD (and endless protests) the FAA said "OOPS fellows" and cancelled the AD. I believe this is one of the very rare instances when the wise men of the FAA ever admitted that they'd goofed. Is it possible that the proposed AD relative to Ercoupes could be the forerunner of similar proportions? With this historical perspective in mind I want to mention the "other side of the news (coin)"...i.e., the purpor-ted purpose of the proposed Ercoupe AD....safety!No one can reasonably oppose measures designed to promote that purpose....and corrosion inspections of any part of mostly over 50 year old flying machines should not be automatically rejected on such silly grounds as the one recently put forth that "it would make swiss cheese of the bottom" and so forth. The Ercoupe which I recently sold to the local designated FAA inspector has fabric wings and therefore has at least 14 inspec-tion holes on the bottom of the wings (courtesy of ear-lier AD's). That "swiss cheese" certainly didn't make the plane less attractive....quite the contrary, it provided the new owner the reasonable assurance that the wicked demon of wing corrosion was readily ascertainable for inspection and, if present, treated.I guess what I'm trying to say is...if you can't beat 'em join 'em. The expense of class action lawsuits against a governmental agency is terrific and time consuming, even if a court could be found which MIGHT grant a temporary injunction against the FAA, as to render such a course impractical. While the method of dissemination of the proposed AD to Ercoupe owners is open to serious question and the short time for response thereto is inadequate I would strongly re-commend continued approaches to AOPA and other flying organizations as well as direct appeals to members of Congress for, at a minimum, adequate time for further representations to the FAA. If these efforts fail, well....there's only the acknowledgement that compliance with the AD gives just one more assurance that the wonderful Ercoupe you're flying is safe! HERB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiLm.aVzvvT Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
