Um, I think you missed my point.
I give no legal advice here, but am, on occasion, compulsively
subject to applying the detailed analytical methodology of that illustrious
and infamous profession.
My point was that we must define, and classify the category of the
component before we can identify the proper authority governing it.
The easiest starting point would probably be to research known
analygous technologies. For example, as I recall, the spinner IS required
on a Cessna-150. So, the question is, for that aircraft where is this
required component listed, and not listed? And what can this tell us about
our own ships documentation?
Dave Winters
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Bill BIGGS
Sent: Wednesday, 02 September, 2009 11:35 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Skull cap spinner
I think you hit the nail right on the head!
Bill
_____
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:16:04 -0400
Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Skull cap spinner
No disrespect intended to David, William, John or anyone else, but I'm not
sure it's reasonable to assume that insurance people, FAA reps, IAs, widows,
and most lawyers obsess about these sorts of details at the same velocity as
us.
Thank you so much Syd, Kevin, Kevin's FSDO, Bill Biggs and I guess Fred
Weick for giving us an opinion on this.
Respectfully,
Bill
David said: LAWYER TYPE QUESTION: Are wings on the required equipment
list? If not, does this make them not required like the spinner? (In
short, is the spinner "equipment" or an integral part of the aircraft ?)
_____
HotmailR is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now.
<http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:
WM_HYGN_faster:082009>
