Hi Bill,
Comments interspersed.
As an aside, I would point out that my motivation in discussions such
as this is to promote the give and take of useful knowledge between
Ercoupe owners and mechanics. While I feel an obligation to only
advocate positions that make sense to me, it really doesn't matter if I
emerge right or wrong inasmuch as the exercise has been successful (at
least in my eyes) if an "issue" previously undecided and ambiguous that
can "rise up and bite" an unaware owner can be resolved once and for
all by pertinent and controlling authoritative reference(s).
Regards,
WRB
--
On Sep 2, 2009, at 21:09, Bill BIGGS wrote:
Bill,
As an A&P-IA I am responsibility each year of determining the
airworthiness of each aircraft I inspect.
No argument here ;<)
I have been an AI for well over twenty-five years and have never had
a signoff kick back.
I'm impressed!
While your points are undoubtedly accurate, I have no access to those
records, and my FSDO who are my "police", have instructed me to use as
my guideline the current TCDS-718 in determining conformance with the
type certificate.
And my "point" has been that applicable federal regulations determine
the totality that comprise "the current TCDS". There is more to it
than just what can be downloaded from the FAA whether you are aware of
the remainder or have access to it or not. How likely would a police
officer yield to a driver's argument that the law he violated was not
taught him, he did not know of it, and he did not know how to ask for a
copy? "Ignorance is no excuse" will say the judge.
The facts you present are interesting and informative, and I
certainly welcome them and the "diffences of opinion", but in the real
world of everyday general aviation, in this instance, they hold little
weight.
And here is my "sticking point". Facts are true, by definition.
Opinions frequently are not. Apples and oranges. There is no "rate of
exchange where, say, the opinion of four IAs negate FAR no. xx.xxx(b).
On the other hand the opinion of a FAA representative in a bad mood is
"the law" until proven otherwise.
Consider Ercoupers that have owned and flown for twenty years who are
quite cavalier that their paperwork is not 100% consistent with their
airplane. Now consider a new pilot who has just purchased an Ercoupe
with a "fresh" annual arranged for and paid for by the previous owner.
Each are equally vulnerable to being grounded away from home following
a FAA Ramp Check. All annuals are not equal ;<)
The first may richly deserve his/her punishment. The second is an
innocent victim who, in twenty years will be just like the first
example unless we "clue him in" to the extent of the responsibilities
that go with that new license and aircraft ownership. Do Bill Biggs
and Bill Bayne have an obligation to extend a helping hand with
knowledge here? I do, because many people have helped me learn over
the years.
I challange other A&P-IAs in the group to show proof of access to the
documents you quote for all aircraft they inspect, they are not
available on the FAA website or on "T-Data"
I'm not sure of your point here. Surely you do not suggest that A&Ps
and IAs are exempt from responsibility to be aware of FAA definitions,
etc. whether "available" by FAA download, professional advisory
service, or not?
That being said, if I inspect an Ercoupe with a skullcap spinner I
will have no problem signing it off as "airworthy" if it is documented
with a logbook entry and has a FAA-PMA.
Sounds proper to me,
If not, I will note this in my logbook entry and if it has a PMA stamp
I will approve it.
That also sounds proper to me. My concern is mechanics or owners who
don't similarly follow through. Maybe I haven't been as clear as I
should have.
Now if I had to sign it off as "perfect in every way" that would be
different, but that is NOT the requirement of the FAA regulations.
Agree 100%!
Respectfully,
Bill
