----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Yea, but Lloyd, how much can you do for free? I'm sure a few things, but not a whole bunch. ----- Original Message ----- From: "eagleavn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Richard Wilkens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:20 PM Subject: RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Paperwork > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- > > > The fact that the paperwork is not correct is no indication that the > airplane is a BAD airplane......just that it is not legal from a technical > stand point. I inspect airplanes all the time with deficiencies in their > paper work, I just straighten them out if I can. > > Lloyd Perkins > Eagle Aviation of Virginia > A&P I/A...CFII...ATP...etc, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Wilkens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Paperwork > > > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any > advice in this forum.]---- > > > You know we haven't had lively discussion on this list in years, so let's > start one. > > We just had a member use the following phase ".Too many Ercoupes have poor > paperwork, undocumented mods." > > As many of you know I collect Ercoupe records and have probability read as > many individual Ercoupe FAA airworthiness records as anyone. Take for > example the clock in the middle of my panel, I think it was put there in > 1965, but there is no 337 for it. Oh dear the world will come to an > end! Our Leader will be unhappy! In the 17 years I have had my Coupe not a > single AP has said anything about it. Does that mean the 16 annuals I have > had were done by BAD APs? (That would mean ten out of ten APs I have used > over the years are all bad. If we go back the full 40 years since the > clock was put in, who knows how many bad APs have worked on my Coupe. That > even includes Skyport--many years before John owned it.) > > When I flow 904 over an 11,000 foot pass with the ceiling low enough you > couldn't see the top of the mountains, I didn't care that the clock doesn't > have a 337 on file with the FAA. What I cared about is that my AP just > finished an annual and 904 was running great with all gauges in the > green. If I had put it into the mountain that day, do you think the FAA > would have checked for the 337 on my clock? > > I have noticed reading FAA airworthiness files all one has to do is ask his > current AP to check the installation of the "mods" and they will file a 337 > for the "mod" saying "I have inspected the previously installed 'mod' and > it was done in accordance with FAA rule XXXX.xxx." So what is the big > deal? I don't think that because the FAA doesn't have a piece of paper on > file makes an airplane something to worry about or "...pay scrap > prices...". If you have bad paperwork and want scrap prices give me a call, > I have money in the bank. > > I firmly agree with one letter I read in a FAA registration file. The guy > was having a problem getting his registration done with the FAA. He wrote > them saying something like "If you don't send me the registration, my > airplane will fly just as well without it." > > Richard > N99904 > > > > ========================================================================== == > == > To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm > Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/ > > > > > > ========================================================================== == == > To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm > Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/ > > > > ========================================================================== ==== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
