Key words are identical...only references differ. WRB
-- On Sep 3, 2009, at 11:36, kgassert wrote: > 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
