----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
MSB 32 Now What? I really get sick of the attitude that I should just jump to whatever action somebody decides is in my best interest. Few years ago my Cherokee was under an AD to jerk the wings off every 12 months for inspection of the main spar due to six aircraft having been found with cracks in Alaska. After 130 inspections across the U.S., at half the cost of the value of the airplanes, and NO cracks being found, someone revisited the cause and found that these aircraft were often used in bush operations and were regularly landed in rocky stream beds when they were dried up. Guess what? The AD was rescinded and only aircraft in certain categories and over 6000 airframe hours had to get this inspection after that. I have NO problem with a legitimate problem being brought to my attention. But as several of you have asked, just how many Ercoupes have had their wings come off? Looks mightily like - NONE - that have not been damaged & abused. The earlier AD for center section inspection procedures would seem to be at the very least, adequate to meet the problem. OK, would it not seem reasonable for the requester of a service bulletin to at least attempt to go find a few airframes in his or other areas and do the testing he is about to propose to see if a problem - fleetwide - exists? If such samples testing did not turn up the feared problem, then he should send out an advisory only, maybe - pending further fleetwide research to find out if the problem exists other than upon an abused airframe? If a finding DID turn up more of the problem, THEN, you have legitimate and valid grounds for a mandatory service bulletin that would be considered for an AD. Has any of this been done? Are there further positive findings of center section corrosion not detectable by the already in place inspection procedures? If not, why not? Is Univair the party requesting (issuing) the mandatory service bulletin? Should they not be held accountable for the costs we incur if no problems are subesequently found? (There are laws on the books against shouting "FIRE!" in a gathering when no fire exists.) I for one would like Univair to answer the above questions -and on their grounds for issuing SB 32 -This forum would be a good place to start. So, for now, I move that Univair rescind SB 32 pending further explanation to affected parties and/or show evidence contrary to the findings at Plain Parts in Sacramento, CA and subsequently written up in the Safety Board report on the accident. Do I hear a second? -Ron > ============================================================================== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
