"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."
No, this is where you are wrong. Where did you get the idea that a
bunch of drawings were part of the TC? What is downloaded from the
FAA site is the TC and that is what an A&P and IA has to go to and
make sure the aircraft conforms to. If something is in some drawing
and the manufacturer wants it to be required he puts it in the TC.
If he doesn't then too bad, maybe he should have but he didn't so
if he wants it he better amend the the TC. And believe me he will
and it is done all the time.
Kevin1
--- In [email protected], William R. Bayne
<ercog...@...> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
