Are there ANY optimists in this group?
Bill
From: "Jim Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Jim Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ronald Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Ercoupe Technical Discussion (moderated)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] RE: Digest list: Ercoupe Technical Discussion (moderated)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:00:28 -0700
>----[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was rescinded and only aircraft in certain categories and over 6000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
>
>
>
