Hi Dave,
Your legal perspective and insight is unique, pertinent and welcome.
No flames from here.
Unfortunately you have posed a question no one here can definitively
answer. That does not mean we do not still need to proceed towards a
single "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"; to such
extent as it exists on this subject.
I believe the record shows rather conclusively that the FAA, its
individual FSDO representatives and those comprising the Registration
branch, individually and collectively, have proven themselves beyond
reasonable doubt utterly incapable of drafting, implementing,
interpreting or enforcing existing standards with any discernible
consistency whatsoever.
"Variations in documentation standards" not only exist, but are
commonplace. Between individual FAA representatives and FSDOs,
approval or disapproval of 337s demonstrate less consistency than darts
thrown by a blind man. It is the inherent difficulty of
"documentation" and necessary interpretations as to the adequacy
thereof that in legal and construction "codes" and almost all
government regulations, including those specific to the certification
and operation of aircraft in interstate commerce, there is somewhere
language requiring that everything of pertinence be considered
concurrently except where specifically stated to the contrary.
I tend to give great weight to "facts", because unless something is
true it cannot be a fact. The weight of information I have given
specific to the Ercoupe and its continued airworthiness under
individual regulations referenced has not been refuted. Can we refer
to that information at this time as "factual"?
If so, until information OF EQUAL OR SUPERIOR AUTHORITY to the contrary
is produced it would seem that any impartial forum would conclude, at
least so far, that the SPINNER OF AN ERCOUPE IS A REQUIRED PART.
Is this a conclusion you would find less surprising? ;<)
Regards,
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2009)
--
On Sep 2, 2009, at 16:19, David Winters wrote:
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
=========]-(§)-[==========
// \\
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
