Good observation, Mike. That would broaden their fears of disapproving anything. My contention is that if they wanted to be lawyers or they think that they would like to use Law as a hobby and make determinations regarding what is legal and what is not, they need to have studied law in college and law school. Also given the fact that if they make an educated determination based on the engineering drawings/explanations provided to them and the mod fails, they ARE NOT HELD LIABLE. If by malice they approve a mod (on the take) and it fails, then they become liable and can't rest under the shield of the US Government.
I know of a company that makes the environmental seals (door, hatch, window) for the space shuttle, NASA contract. They're made out of some new poly razzmatazz and he's beginning to make door and window seals for G.A. We in the Bonanza world have tasked him with making seals for us utilizing this great new stuff. All the molds are complete, the product is produced and he's in the approval process as we speak. Last I heard (yesterday's report) the fed asked him to do a CO test to determine if CO was leaking in through the seals (screw the 60 year old technology of sealing the firewall) along with a pressurization test. When he told the fed that the Bonanza was not pressurized, the fed asked him if he was certain about that. Another dumbbell gets a paycheck. This is the main reason there are very few new products and STC's coming down the pike. The manufacturers can get rich on the homebuilt market and spend their winnings in the GA market. This needs to be stopped! Off the soapbox! Al DeMarzo Visit the Ercoupe Swap Page - Free and Easy http://www.ercoupeowners.com/swap/swapbook.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: mbpowell To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:12 AM Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Re: C-85 with O-200 crankshaft and the FAA Al, Yes, the "old guys" are going and the new ones are not as knowledgeable. They are afraid of libelous problems. It is my opinion that this is an opportunity in a small way. All you have to do is make every issue or change a safety issue. It makes it a little more difficult for them to reject something that purports to make the plane safer. JMO. Mike @C35 --- In [email protected], "AJ DeMarzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When I first read this post I figured it was a Halloween thing. "We're from the FAA and we're here to help. Trick or Treat!" But I guess it's unfortunately real. Okay, I know some have responded and everyone calls the first guy correct and second incorrect, but the lesson here is DO NOT CALL THE FAA IN FOR ANYTHING unless they are delivering your lottery winnings, and even then just meet them at the Burger King for the transaction. They are not your friend, and generally most of the new breed will not usually help unless you've developed a good working relationship. Their ranks have swollen, filled with political hacks who just need to justify their jobs, as is evident by this incident. > > Number 1, an LSA "specialist" has no business there, the Ercoupe is a fully certificated aircraft and the LSA regs are pretty straight forward. If you can't read, ask a teacher. Number 2, the second inspector didn't need to be there because he's obviously a dimwit. If the O-200 crank was installed with the STC, it doesn't change the engine displacement. Further, there just may be an STC to convert a C or CD to an O-200. The problem now is that #2 can't justify his employment and will do everything short of saying "I was mistaken" to keep the paycheck coming. Your friend deserves the hassle he's gotten himself into. > > Remember the FAA's slogan "We're Not Happy Until You're Not Happy." And yes, I'll sign my name to this. I believe an idiot has no business working within a regulatory body. > > Al DeMarzo > Visit the Ercoupe Swap Page - Free and Easy > http://www.ercoupeowners.com/swap/swapbook.htm > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: larry_maden > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:29 PM > Subject: [ercoupe-tech] C-85 with O-200 crankshaft and the FAA > > > I have been a lurker on this group for almost a year now and have > been very impressed with the wisdom often imparted here. > > A friend of mine has been restoring a crashed 415c Ercoupe for > several months now and is very nearly finished with the project. The > aircraft > has a C-85 engine and has an O-200 crankshaft installed. From my > readings on this group, the aircraft remains a 415c as there is no > paper trail of conversion to a 415cd or 415d aircraft. All the stc's > for the installation of the O-200 are present. > > Unfortunately, being an extremely thorough person, he invited the > local FAA airworthiness inspectors to insure that they agreed the > aircraft was indeed a 415c. Two inspectors came to his shop to > examine the plane and review the paperwork. The two inspectors > disagreed , one inspector who is the titular LSA expert in the FAA > airworthiness division, believed the aircraft was indeed a 415c. The > other inspector, however, adamantly stated that a C-85 engine made > the aircraft a 415cd and that the O-200 conversion made it a D model, > end of debate. > > I know that the O-200 issue has been discussed previously on this > site, and concensus was that the conversion did not change the > aircraft from a 415c. I wonder anyone in this group, especially ones > with experience in dealing with the FAA have any advice on achieving > a positive outcome in this case? Yes, I was hoping to buy the > airplane as an LSA. > > Thanks for your help. > > Larry Maden >
