It's unfortunate that you seem to find it necessary to be rude, insulting, and judgmental to get your points across.
Spook --- On Thu, 9/3/09, William R. Bayne <[email protected]> wrote: From: William R. Bayne <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Skull cap spinner To: "ercoupe tech" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 5:30 PM Ed, You miss four additional points that cannot be refuted: 1. I also offered " incontrovertible evidence" that the "Manufacturer's Required Equipment List" which is, by definition, all equipment on an aircraft when CAA/FAA Certification was received is further specific physical description and definition of one individual aircraft by serial and registration number "as certificated". ERCO put the spinner on that list in the great majority, if not all, cases. The presence or absence of said spinner (or its production replacement) directly relates to the airworthiness of that airframe. 2. What Kevin and Bill Biggs "say" or "expect" is irrelevant. IF the drawings are part of the ATC, as interpreted by the FAA, the very absence of documentation in aircraft records of any change to the original spinner makes an Ercoupe unairworthy. 3. I'm glad you asked about instances of the FAA "pounding on someone" for something not specifically identified on the ATC or TCDS downloadable form the FAA site. It concerns another subject that has previously been "thrashed to death" here... that of a mixture control rendered inoperative. Here's the link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ercoupe-tech/files/ Look for "NTSB" - pdf 4. Those Tech members voting the final "poll" option should consider departing the Tech list for the Fly-In list. They contribute NOTHING to Tech and are unlikely to in the future. Regards, WRB -- On Sep 3, 2009, at 18:32, Ed Burkhead wrote: > > Please, let me summarize what I see of the discussion: > > 1a. Bill has incontrovertible evidence that there are words that seem to > indicate the original drawings are a critical part of the aircraft's type > certificate and any deviation from that without permission means the > aircraft is unworthy. > > 1b. John Cooper, a working A&P/AI, agreed that the skull cap spinner is not > permitted without an approved form 337 for that aircraft but he didn't cite > his documentary source. > > 2. Kevin and Bill Biggs, working A&P/AIs, say that what they are expected > to go by is the Aircraft Specification or Type Certificate Data Sheet for > that aircraft (though I've heard it called, incorrectly, the "type > certificate"). For us, that means Aircraft Specification A-718 for the > 415-C and 415-CD and Type Certificate Data Sheet A-787 for all the later > models. Both documents are linked to from my Coupe page: > http://edburkhead.com/Ercoupe/index.htm > As Bill Briggs and Kevin say, there's no spinner listed in either A-718 or > A-787. > > Are there ANY instances of the FAA pounding on someone, "violating" them > with a reference back to the factory drawings? > > Ed > > Ed Burkhead > (nasty and abusive forum dictator) > http://edburkhead.com/Ercoupe/index.htm > ed -at- edbur???khead.XXX change -at- to @, remove ??? and change XXX > to com
