OK, one more try here and I promise I am done. First of all sorry to confuse matters by being lazy and using TC when I should have used TCDS or more appropriately in the Ercoupes case Aircraft Specification A-718. I will use A-718 in this last post. So what I understand to be what William is referring to as a "required equipment list" is the "Equipment List" in the original records of the individual Ercoupe. In this list is a list of "Standard Installed on all Airplanes". Line 2 is the prop and line 22 is the spinner. I do not see the words "required" or "mandatory" on this list, only the word "standard". This is a list of items that the factory decided they would include as "standard equipment" on the 415-C in this case. That makes all those part numbers in that list approved and standard equipment but I still don't see mandatory here. There is also a list of "special item." So as a mechanic who as William pointed out I can't be trusted but here is the way I see it. I am looking at one of these lists for a certain N# and it says the starter was not installed but it gives the part number of 1109656. I go cool that starter must be the one I have to have but to be sure I go to A-718 and under Engines and Accessories is item 107 Starter 1109656. But wait a minute it says only for C-75-12 and -12F engines. But wait another minute I have a C-85. How did that happen? Line 110 gives that approval and what must be done, and what drawings and bulletins I need to make it happen. It also list what props are approved for that engine. So now I look at the various props listed. Under those props are additional items such as controls and additional baffles. If a spinner was mandated for that prop it would be listed along with its part number. So I am William and I am adamant with my IA that I have to have a spinner or die so what do I do? The 415-40498 spinner on my old prop does not fit the new approved prop so I go to the prop manufacture and see what spinner is approved for that prop. What if the only spinner approved is a skull cap? What now I would put on the skull cap and get whatever paperwork they had that approved it and document it. I am sure the prop manufacturer will not give me 415-40498 as the approved part number because that is an Erco part number and they would not know that number from beans. Remember the skull cap is a spinner and William says we have to have a spinner but apparently only the two that are in the parts book. Let look at that parts book. Oh no, the part numbers in the parts book are 415-40593 and 514-40594. What happened to the 415-40498 that is on my equipment list? Yep, part numbers change but these documents and various other documents and bulletins, etc are what we have to deal with. And the occasional owner that know more than you do because he read something somewhere or someone told him something sometime and enjoys telling you so. I once had someone who was looking at an Ercoupe here for sale refuse to consider it because it had a wood prop on it and someone told him is was not legal. Showing him A-718 did no good because he was told otherwise.
Kevin1 --- In [email protected], thesu...@... wrote: > > I'll probably screw things up worse, but I'm gonna try to help: > > I disagree with your analysis William of how this deal unfolded. I don't > think it's so much an issue of boredom. I think that while people on this > list have come to appreciate the energy and passion that you bring, they > react negatively to the sometimes pompous and dismissive attitude that you > direct toward those that question your positions. When you use words like > "lazy", "cheap" and "ignorant" to describe those with opposing views, and > challenge the competency of mechanics who so graciously help us here, it's > just a matter of time before things turn dark. > > I think Linda said it best when after much research on another topic, she > came to the conclusion that "reasonable" people can disagree on this stuff. > I can't think of any two more reasonable people on this list that John and > Bill Biggs. They have both conscientiously reviewed the data and have come > to different conclusions. I think the FAA realizes that reasonable people > disagree on these things and this new Advisory Circular is maybe a small step > to help with that. > > This is presumptuous I know, but I would respectfully suggest that you keep > the passion that we have come to respect, stay with it, lose the attitude. > > Ed, I think that your behind the scenes comments were not helpful. We have > practicing attorneys on this list. I have come to know them by their words > and I would not call them twits. I would call them valued me > mbers of this forum. I very much appreciate your leadership in maintaining > this forum. > > Sorry for being so preachy. > > Cheers, > Bill Jones > > > William Bayne said:  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. > > > Ed said: I think your mention of âtwitsâ is talking about legislators > and > > lawyers. If so, hardly anyone would disagree. >
