I read the second one. The first one no worky. Kevin1
--- In [email protected], William R. Bayne <ercog...@...> wrote: > > > Kevin, > > Please. > > Read the following attachments. > > William R. Bayne > .____|-(o)-|____. > (Copyright 2009) > > > > > > > > -- > > On Sep 3, 2009, at 08:17, kgassert wrote: > > > "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 >
