Bill,
Please.
You and Kevin ( and other certificated mechanics) are presumed to be
the "professionals".
The rest of us are required by the Federal Air Regulations
(collectively) to go to you for a
majority of our maintenance and less knowledgeable owners rely utterly
on your familiarity
with same. This discussion is raising serious questions as to whether
such reliance is
justified or prudent.
I have observed, as a knowledgeable owner, that:
(1) Ercoupes (whether or not for hire) were individually evaluated by
a representative of
the CAA for conformance to the applicable FAA Aircraft Type Certificate
before their original
Airworthiness Certificate was issued.
(2) The FAA Aircraft Type Certificate (in the above context) is
comprised of more than the
Type Certificate Data Sheet available for download from the FAA.
(3) The FAA has, in recent years, found it necessary to interpret the
term "airworthy" as that
term pertains to their Airworthiness Certification program and ongoing
compliance therewith.
(4.) A statute is a law in the sense that adopted "statutory language"
is that which sets forth one
or more standards of compliance. The words "may" or "should" describe
permissive or
aspirational action(s) or inaction(s). The words "shall" or must" are
used are imperative and
action(s) or inaction(s) so described are presumed mandatory unless and
until meaningful
ambiguity is established. Such language in the above context is not
aircraft or use specific.
(5.) (To repeat) FAR Section 91.7(a) states: "No person shall
operate a civil aircraft unless it is
in airworthy condition...".
(6) The standard to be met in (5) above includes the "Manufacturer's
Required Equipment
List" which is, by definition, all equipment on an aircraft when test
flown and otherwise
inspected for compliance with its Aircraft Type Certificate. This list
is an official record relating
to aircraft Weight and Balance. The FAA places primary responsibility
on owners to see that
each is current and includes all approved modifications. If a
modification is minor and only
requires a log book entry, such entry must have been timely made and
attested to by a,
individual of appropriate authority.
Only possible conclusion to such extent as above information is
substantially factual:
An Ercoupe without a spinner or with a skull cap (or other non-standard
spinner) whose
substitution for the original is not properly documented is NOT
AIRWORTHY!
Regards,
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2009)
--
On Sep 3, 2009, at 13:08, Bill BIGGS wrote:
To get technical, AC120-77 does not pertain to Ercoupes unless they
are for hire, and it specifically states it is advisory in nature and
not a regulation.
http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/
RGADVISORYCIRCULAR.NSF/0/199e798c7ee4347786256c4d004ae5dc/$FILE/
AC%20120-77.pdf
Bill
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:38:15 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Skull cap spinner
Sorry all,
To get attachments, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ercoupe-tech/files/
Look up:
AC120-77.pdf
FAA-Definition of Type Certificate
Regards,
WRB
--
Begin forwarded message:
From: William R. Bayne <[email protected]>
Date: September 3, 2009 11:20:21 CDT
To: Ercoupe Tech List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Skull cap spinner [2 Attachments]
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
Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to
on Facebook. Find out more.
