That is true. Mandatory and necessary are two different things. The TC is not a list of all things necessary to make the airplane fly. It is a list of items that are already approved for the airframe and a list of items that must go with other items. None of this is as black and white as some on this forum want to think it is but TC's do have some similarity to them though. For example, they all have an engine and accessories section in them. We don't look at that section to see if an engine is mandatory, we know it is if we want to get off the ground, we look at it to see if it is approved. Under this it will list items that must go with that engine for it to be approved. Same for the propeller. There is a propeller and propeller accessories section. In that section is a list of approved propellers and what accessories must be installed with that propeller. This is where you will find what spinner is mandatory for that propeller to be approved on that airframe if needed. No there is no section for wings but we know we need them. We as Ercoupers also know that the wing fillets have a ridge in them that is designed in such a way as to aid the Ercoupe in its proper stall characteristics so we know it is needed but it is not in the TC. Some aircraft do not need them but have some in the TC as approved additions. So not everything the aircraft needs is listed and not everything in the TC has to be on the airplane. It is a list of approved parts and what must be used with those approved parts for them to be approved. Whew that was a mouthful.
Kevin1 From: Glenn Putnam [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:49 AM To: kgassert Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Skull cap spinner I would bet that I could find hundreds of parts in the parts book that are not in the tc I also bet you would not dare take off without these parts. Glenn Putnam On Sep 3, 2009, at 9:17 AM, 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 --- In [email protected] <mailto:ercoupe-tech%40yahoogroups.com> , 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 >
<<image001.gif>>
<<image002.gif>>
