Well said and thank you. Carl LaVon
--- In [email protected], ght <gh...@...> wrote: > > 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 <ercog...@...> wrote: > > From: William R. Bayne <ercog...@...> > 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 >
