FW: [COUPERS-TECH] fuel pump

Ed Burkhead Mon, 06 Feb 2006 04:17:18 -0800

----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----

This message was automatically forwarded on behalf of Bill Bayne. Please address any responses to the mail list or directly to Bill at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

From: William R. Bayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 2:26 AM
To: Ed Burkhead
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] fuel pump

rlytech

On Feb 6, 2006, at 00:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 2/6/2006 12:25:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, WRB writes:

Until there is some specific directive prohibiting the use automotive parts sold in the USA for use in US-made automotive fuel pumps, the use of these parts in Ercoupes is as legal as it was the day Ercoupe fuel pumps were manufactured AS AUTOMOTIVE PUMPS.

Bill, First off, I'm absolutely not trying to ridicule anything that you wrote. I simply disagree with using parts purchased in an auto parts store in an aircraft fuel pump.

You're certainly entitled to disagree with anybody on anything, but such legitimate differing opinions deserve reasonable respect. Perhaps your opinion could have been expressed more objectively?

Legal or not, you have no proof of the quality of such parts.

And you have no "proof" of the quality of much of what you buy. You "trust" each source, which may or may not meet your standards.

I also challenge you to write a letter to your local FSDO and ask them if it is OK to go to an auto parts store and buy an after-market fuel pump diaphragm, and install it in a fuel pump on a certified engine installed in a certified airplane, when the FAA/PMA approved fuel pump, or FAA/PMA approved parts are available.

I'm waaaay to old to accept challenges anymore. I know what the manufacturer used and what they authorized. Why in the world would I ask an authority I seldom agree with (and do not basically trust to act in good faith) permission to do something the factory and the CAA/FAA (way back when) agreed is OK? Duh?

Like it or not, the FAA is the "law" when it comes to these questions. What they say, right or wrong, determines what is "legal". If they give you an answer that you don't like, I guess you can take them to court and argue the matter, but it's like taking the local sheriff to court and arguing a speeding ticket with him. The fact that you "disagree" with what the FAA says doesn't make what you think "legal". It just doesn't work that way. They have the authority to ground your airplane, take your pilot's license away, take your mechanic's license away, and close down repair stations. Yes, you can fight them. You can also fight the Highway Patrol.

But Wayne, you are the one that wants reality to change to your view. If you ask this question, the answer applies to YOU; and the FAA may watch you to make sure you comply. That's NOT necessary for a pilot exercising ownership privileges that are established and clear from the manufacturer. Yes, the FAA has the procedures and authority to invalidate ESM-42; but until they do, IT'S the "law" on this subject ("grandfathered" by both precedent and long practice).

Putting aside all the legal and technical considerations, do you really want to fly behind an engine that has parts of an unknown origin in it?

Let's be honest here. When you bought your plane, you didn't have the foggiest idea as to the origin or pedigree of all the engine's components unless you bought it new or immediately overhauled it. Owners, particularly when selling, lie. Their mechanics can also lie. There is the crash repaired and expunged from the record as soon as legally allowed, with the plane later representing as having "no damage history". This can be done without violating any law. There are coupes on federal registry that were earlier "destroyed", according to accident reports. They pop up again like the Energizer bunny, and I guess we should be glad they do.

You show me 2,000 active Ercoupes, and I'll show you 1,800+ of owners that "fly behind an engine that has parts of an unknown origin in it" every time they leave the ground. Take it from me, it's no big deal. Risk is relative, and personal judgement and knowledge is the "gold standard" for minimizing it. If I am satisfied with what I can tell about a coupe, its engine and its parts from the logs (and a thorough preflight), I'll fly it with a whole lot more confidence than another coupe just out of annual by a mechanic I know nothing about.

I have no interest in discussing this to death. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. And that's OK.

Agree completely.

I just have a problem informing newby pilots and owners that it is OK to put non-approved parts on certified airplanes.

But Wayne, our Ercoupes were MADE with auto fuel pumps, and the CAA approved that. They could be (always) be MAINTAINED with auto parts, and Erco clarified that beyond all possible doubt. THESE auto parts ARE "approved" on THESE "certified" airplanes, by both Erco and the CAA. If YOU want to change that, have at it. I won't withhold factual information from this list because YOU don't like the resulting "message".

I'll also be the first to admit that I have been known to be wrong, and I've also been accused of being hard headed - but that's usually coming from my wife, so I don't know if that counts.

We've ALL been wrong. Being hard-headed is "case-by-case" as to being good or bad. The "trick", each time, is to learn from the experience.

But none of this discussion is personal. So let's keep it friendly, OK?

I'll continue to do my best to do that.

Best Regards,

Wayne DelRossi
Alon N5618F

==============================================================================
To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm

FW: [COUPERS-TECH] fuel pump

Reply via email to