As an A7P/IA I feel the need to make a comment. We must certify that your
aircraft is "Airworthy". The FAA does not define this term but in many meetings
have told us that to be airworthy an aircrafr "mist meet the requirements of
the TCD and be in a safe condition to fly" The responsibility of making such a
certification does not lie easily on many of us, as has been demonstrated by
the discussions of recent. Please believe that we take or duties very seriously
but are sometimes caught up in the same paper morass and lack of detail that
that can be caused by older documentation and lack of detaul that has been
discussed here. We wil do our utmost to see that your aircraft is safe. If you
do not trust your mechanic, go elsewhere but don't try to make your own
decisions.
Respectfully Tom
From: William R. Bayne <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] New poll for ercoupe-tech
To: "Ercoupe Tech List" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 7:43 PM
I have been asked to clarify an earlier post.
My description of "presumptive insufferable twits" (below) was, I still think,
extremely
clear as made in sole reference to the apparent unilateral decision of any legal
community claiming sole rights to interpret adopted legislation.
My suggestion that persons voting the final "poll" option referred only to
those who
would vote "I don't give a rat A**". My opinion remains that if they don't
like or enjoy
"tech Talk" they should not be encouraged or express an opinion disrespective of
those that do. I am entitled to that opinion but I should have been more clear.
Stan's suggestion of a nap is appreciated. Several big martinis might work
better.
My public participation here has become a "no-win" situation. In the interest
of
collegiate discussion, earlier presumed the purpose of this forum, I regularly
offered
a lot of information to members. Obviously too much, for some.
It is a "hard call" to provide enough to be comprehensible to new members
without
boring those that have been here for years. The latter are easily bored to
tears.
Who should we "serve"? The average Ercoupe changes hands every five years, and
most new owners need a LOT of help. Even so, some manage to give back.
I had hoped that those who wish to learn and those who put forth the most
detailed and
accurate information would set the pace on Tech. With no schedule or school
bell,
participation to almost any extent would expand our common knowledge.
Some "old hands" had a different agenda. They pretend not to understand that
which
is essentially clear. They go off on a tangent knowing I must yield or respond
with more
and more information. At some point they know the boredom of non-participants
will
act as the wrench in the gears of discussion that grinds them to an unresolved
halt.
So be it. My compliments to the victors. "Peace at any price" again prevails.
Watch out for those regulatory "land mines" everyone. They're still there.
WRB
--
On Sep 3, 2009, at 16:06, Ed Burkhead wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I **think** your mention of “twits” is talking about legislators and
> lawyers. If so, hardly anyone would disagree.
>
> Yet, you’ve made the distinction inadequately clear.
>
> Please be careful in phrasing.
>
> Ed
>
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of William R. Bayne
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:50 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] New poll for ercoupe-tech
>
>
>
> We have stepped on the slippery slope when opinions of
> no substance or logic are given equal weight to those of experience
> or even regulatory requirements.
>
> The parallel that comes to mind is when state or federal legislature
> adopts something and the legal community unilaterally decides that
> we, the people, are unqualified to interpret and follow it as worded.
>
> They seriously believe that NO ONE (presumingly including elected
> members of said legislature) knows what was adopted until a judge
> rules on the matter. Presumptive insufferable twits IMHO.
>
> Once we were a society of laws and not of men, and the law
> "belonged" to the people the legal establishment served.
>
> William R. Bayne
> .____|-(o)-|____.
> (Copyright 2000)
>
> --
