Keven,
OK. Good dope.
Now, IF we assume that the documentation standards are a constant, can we
conclude that the spinner, which IS listed for a Cessna 150, but is NOT
listed for a Coupe, is therefore, NOT required for the Coupe? Unless a
variation in documentation standards exists (which is possible) it seems to
me like we can conclude that the 'Coupe SPINNER IS NOT A REQUIRED PART.
Gotta say, I find this surprising, but there you are.
Standing by to receive return fire,
Dave Winters
=========]-(ยง)-[==========
// \\
N2797H
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of kgassert
Sent: Wednesday, 02 September, 2009 15:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Skull cap spinner
Type certificate 3A19 for the C150 list a spinner so it is required, unlike
the Ercoupe TC A-718 which does not list one.
Kevin1
--- In [email protected] <mailto:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com>
, "David Winters" <winterspatent...@...> wrote:
>
> 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:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:[email protected] <mailto:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com>
] On
> Behalf Of Bill BIGGS
> Sent: Wednesday, 02 September, 2009 11:35 AM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Skull cap spinner
>
>
>
>
>
> I think you hit the nail right on the head!
> Bill
>
>
> _____
>
> To: [email protected] <mailto:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com>
> From: thesu...@...
> 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>
>
