----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
-----Original Message----- From: William R. Bayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:14 PM To: Ed Burkhead Subject: WRB Re: [COUPERS-TECH] Verify inlet/outlet on Fuel Pump RLYTECH Hi John, On Oct 31, 2005, at 2:13 PM, John Cooper wrote: > At 01:11 PM 10/31/2005, you wrote: >> I simply do not believe parts and/or pumps from Tractor Supply" NEED >> to be approved for use on aircraft to be installed on an Ercoupe or >> other such early airframe design. > > Unfortunately, believing it to be so does not make it so. Well, let's go through the process... > >> Where is that written? > > Part 21.303 Afraid not, John. This is part of Subpart K - Approval of Materials, Parts, Processes, and Applications, and the "Source" is Docket No. 5085, 29 FR 14574, Oct. 24, 1964...which states: "(b) This section does not apply to the following: (2) Parts produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering his own product. (4) Standard parts (such as bolts and nuts) conforming to established industry or U.S. specifications. In the first regard, "produced" can be reasonably interpreted as "provided" independent of the manufacturing process. It does NOT say "manufactured" or "fabricated" by the owner or operator just as "his own product" is usually understood to refer to the airframe owned and not one that he personally built. In the second example, the auto fuel pump utilized by Continental is clearly a "standard part" deemed suitable by Continental and ERCO for the intended purpose as selected from the (then existing) auto industry. ERCO's own Ercoupe Service Memorandum No. 42, in 3.a.2. states, in part,: All fuel pump parts necessary for repair are available from the Continental Motors Corporation, and AC Automotive Service Stations. If Continental had been the sole acceptable source to the CAA and/or to ERCO, this would have been so stated. In fact such was NOT the case then. Language of FAR 21.303 does not not retroactively change applicable facts universally acceptable prior to October 24, 1964. > Erco determined that the pump as produced by Delco was suitable for > their application. Actually, they chose from pumps determined by > Continental to be suitable for use on the engines Erco selected. Going > forward, only parts manufactured by Delco and/or sold by Continental > were suitable for repair of these pumps. Where is this written? ESM-42 WAS 'going forward"! That's ERCO speaking in 1947 or 1948! 4500+ Ercoupes were already out in the field from which real-world reliability data was coming in. Auto fuel pumps and parts were NOT a problem. > Delco and Continental were responsible for determining that parts > continued to meet the requirements initially set forth. Any > production changes made by Delco had to be proven to be compatible > with the applications. Where is this written? The "applications" pertaining to the Ercoupe airworthiness with the AC automobile pump design NEVER changed! > None of these are known to be true of parts manufactured today by the > Chin Wah Auto Parts Company and marketed by Tractor Supply or Pep Boys > or NAPA or whomever. And you can be sure that if the Chin Wah Auto > Parts Company determines that they let a bad batch of diaphragms > (100,000 pieces, no doubt) slip through, they are not going to inform > Continental, Univair, the FAA or you. Ditto if they make a production > change that, coincidentally, is fine for every automotive application, > but causes the pump used on the C90-14F to break off at the drive end > and send a big chunk of metal through the oil pump gears. Well, considering that Ford, General Motors, et al continue to have automotive recalls involving life and death matters almost yearly, I just don't get the warm and fuzzy feeling you seem to think the FAA's involvement brings to the table. > > Fuel pump parts from the Chin Wah Auto Parts Company COULD be legal > for use on Ercoupes IFF someone like Skyport were to provide the FAA > with engineering data indicating their suitability and establish a > quality assurance program to ensure that they continue to meet those > requirements (and sufficient product liability insurance to CMA). > Skyport then becomes the PMA holder for that part. The approval > process is arduous and even worse when the part is manufactured > outside the US and even more so if the manufacturer is a foreign > entity. You are a Wag-Aero dealer, and presumably sell all the "brand X" stuff they do with the clear understanding that anyone that puts it on an aircraft is on their own. Many have and many do use such parts on Ercoupes safely. Why not auto fuel pump parts? They might even be better for..guess what...auto fuel, since the original 80/87 isn't available any more. What does Univair say? Per ESB No. 28 of 10/12/87, when you can't get 80/87 octane aviation gasoline, don't fly the Ercoupe any more. Park it. We don't have generic drug manufacturers report to the original patent holder to do business, because all involved know that the process would be intentionally made so complex that the generics would cost as much as the original. If a PMA process originated and imposed in 1964 was intended to apply retroactively to parts designed, produced and established as totally reliable two decades earlier I think the "retroactive" applicability would have to be absolutely clear in the source document. Further, ยง21.305. Approval of materials, parts, processes and appliances states: (as of 5/26/72 and 6/9/80) "Whenever a material, part, process or appliance is required to be approved under this chapter, it may be approved- (c) In conjunction with type certificate procedures for a product; or (d) In any other manner approved by the Administrator" Well, these things WERE approved when the Ercoupe was manufactured in procedures in effect at the time upon acceptance as performing the intended function by CAA (later "the Administrator") designees. Note that no prior approved process or procedure is purportedly and retroactively rendered null and void by any of these new regulations. Even the FAA has to give "reasonable notice" of such far-reaching change. Without that, regulations take effect and go forward. Nothing says they reach back in any way to change prior practice. Prior acceptable practice is ALWAYS "grandfathered" absent words to the contrary. Building codes are NOT applied retroactively to an older house you own except for a very few specific exceptions. > > Note that the identical part purchased from Pep Boys STILL is not > legal for use on an Ercoupe. > > John Cooper > Skyport Services > And again, this is because the FAA, a totally uninterested and impartial party, would make this "interpretation"...right? LOL Regards, William R. Bayne <____|-(o)-|____> (Copyright 2004) ============================================================================== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers-tech/
