----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
advice in this forum.]----
Bill,
My questions to John were in an optimistic vein, gotta
know the problem to implement a cure (in addition to SB - 32)
not in place of it.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: WILLIAM BIGGS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:33:43 -0600
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] RE: Digest list: Ercoupe Technical
Discussion (moderated)
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was rescinded and only aircraft in certain categories and over 6000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
==============================================================================
To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
