----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Hello Herb, As the member who put forth the suggestion that it would add to the "swiss cheese" look, I take exception that you consider this silly. First, I did not base my opinion as being against this proposed AD solely on that ground as you infer. I only added that, in my opinion, it is worse than the cost of complying with the AD. No, I do not like the looks of the inspection plates. No just because of cosmetic reasons, but more importantly they decrease performance as would anything that impedes smooth airflow. Having fabric wings myself, I would much prefer to recover them every ten years or so for inspections, rather than have the swiss cheese look. But that's my opinion only. I live with how things are. But, anytime that we have to cut into the fuselage to create an inspection panel, we are going to create a source of further problems. We are inviting moisture inside by snow, slush, and mud being thrown against the underbelly in off-concrete landings. And there has to be some weakness created in the structural integrity of the hull. I'm no engineer, but common sense seems to bear this out - If I took a sheet of aluminum and bent it in from both sides, you would require x amount of force to do so, yet if you drilled a six inch hole and bent it in from the side, I believe the force required would be less to bend, and it seems reasonable that the break would be in the center of the hole. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. All that aside, you indicate we should look at the side of safety and that no one can reasonably oppose that. You are right, no one wants to fly an unsafe plane. But safety does not mean "free of Risk." Even John King went on record as saying our passion of flying has inherent risks. We drive safely, but we can still get creamed by a drunk. We fly safely, but we can still suffer an engine out over a forest, and we can even get eaten by a shark -although we were swimming "safely." More freedom has been lost in this country due to "our safety" than any other concept. It is the government trying to protect us from ourselves, so they can be our saviour. I, for one, do not need this. And when the research is carried out, the rhetoric used to substantiate the terrible risk we have been saved from is almost always flawed. Consider the quotes used for gun control: "one half of those vendors at gun shows do NOT have federal firearms licenses," and "A child is killed every day with a handgun." On the face of it, it sounds pretty bad. The TRUTH is: One half of those at gun shows are selling books, t-shirts, soda pop, etc. and, these "children" are 18-21 years of age - killing each other over crack cocaine, etc. Not accidental shootings. I'm not even a proponent of everyone having a gun. But I'm a bigger advocate of having truthful data to base my opinions on. And I know we are lied to daily! And you may be surprised to learn that the reason you have to "buckle up" has less to do with your safety, and more to do with the anti-Japanese sentiment of the 1980's car-makers. Our "safety" is usally touted by those with a social agenda, or those who can financially gain. Every now and then a Ralph Nader comes along who genuinely seems to be concerned about the greater good. However, I do not wish to to start a debate along these lines. The point is that our "safety" has to be counter-balanced with common sense and correct decision-making - based upon facts. And the facts do not substantiate the need for this AD. I thing Harry's letter was excellent. Quite frankly, as has been pointed out, the wings are just not falling off - and the spar has not been breaking in flight. Does anyone have any data showing how pervasive the corrosion was when the "swiss cheese" Ad was initiated? How many wings were bad? Were ANY planes grounded? I may be wrong, but at least the FAA needs to show more substantive proof than they have so far. And they need to permit a proper amount of time for owners to evaluate and respond properly to the problem. sincerely, Rick Green N93686 South Haven MI H. Sloane wrote: > > 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>>
