----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
advice in this forum.]----
Not only do I second it but would like to add this...An Ercoupe has always
been a rich mans plane if kept up as should be.. but with what coming down
the tube it is getting to be out of my reach to keep up. I can't pedal with
the rich any more so I guess I'll consider selling my coupe and let
someelse spend their fortune on it. My annuals have cost me over $1000 per
yr. the last five yrs. with this now it will top $2000 easily. With flying
only 20 to 30 hrs a yr. it's a NO-NO... and think the plane sold new for
$3100 in Nov. of 1946.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ercoupe Technical Discussion (moderated)" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:13 AM
Subject: [COUPERS-TECH] RE: Digest list: Ercoupe Technical Discussion
(moderated)
----[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was rescinded and only aircraft in certain categories and over 6000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
==============================================================================
To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
