----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
|
Now that in the US there is this new economic venture [read that as the potential to make more money from the people ] called the sport aircraft thing, it would not be surprising to me that a real strong effort would be attempted to get rid of all of the older aircraft so that new business can be generated by the few who can manage to control .
Lets face it, Ercoupes, and all the other older light aircraft may be standing in the way of some peoples' financial progress. When was the last time that you actually were fully aware of all the circumstances, not just what was placed in front of our noses by those with their own agenda.
-------Original Message-------
From: Ronald Black
Date: 02/10/06 01:17:39
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was rescinded and only aircraft in certain categories and over 6000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
