Hi John, Ed...
I much prefer to support an interpretation I favor than one I do not;
but, at least to me, the choice on this issue is an ethical one. Whose
interests should WE (on this forum in our debate) seek to protect?
While, hope may, indeed, "spring eternal", in present contest such hope
appears primarily in the eyes of those few present owners who want to
sell a plane they know in their "heart of hearts" is not 100% LSA
compliant (per actual rule wording). They wish, insofar as possible,
to reap "windfall" profit in the form of some or all of the added value
that LSA status conveys in the present marketplace.
When an Ercoupe is represented as LSA-compliant to a trusting and
uninformed purchaser that can now only fly under the LSA rules is found
to be non-compliant, value has been both represented and paid for that
is not delivered. That has happened. Once a purchase is complete, the
new owner is one of us. I would believe prospective purchasers should
also, as Ercoupe enthusiasts, be considered "one of us".
There are circumstances when misrepresentation in a transaction
constitutes fraud. I would suggest in any transaction where ownership
changes hands, the prior owner has (or should have) knowledge far
beyond that available to a purchaser. It is NOT a "level playing
field", and the law (in far too few instances) takes this into account
when it must weigh responsibility for things gone bad.
I think it is disingenuous, at best, for us to look the other way under
the principle of "let the buyer beware". As Pogo said, "We has met the
enemy, and he is us". When buyer and seller reside in different states,
any meaningful legal "remedy" likely will cost far more than any amount
at issue.
I believe all of us have a responsibility to those who would choose an
Ercoupe to fly LSA to make the process as simple and clear as possible.
To interject speculation as to what constitutes a LSA eligible Ercoupe
at this point in time into a decision to purchase and what is an
appropriate price is to infinitely complicate that process. The
"greater good" is not served by doing so.
In my humble opinion the "original certification" wording is in
reference to the regulatory requirements fulfilled in order for the
original Airworthiness Certificate to be issued. The regulation does
not contain the terms "legal" or "gross weight" which would seem
necessary for a credible argument that the words "original
certification" refer instead to a "conversion process resulting in a
change of type certificate applicable to a given aircraft that is
complete and all aircraft records are consistent in this regard".
I just don't see the FAA taking such a position because verification
(one way or another) would require a LOT of FAA time, and I certainly
would not want to encourage a would-be purchaser to pay more for an
Ercoupe not obviously and presently LSA compliant.
Regards,
WRB
--
On Sep 12, 2009, at 11:25, [email protected] wrote:
3. If the airframe WAS operated at a weight of 1321 pounds or higher
"since its original certification,
it would NOT have "continued to meet" the LSA rule and, therefore and
forever, would NOT be LSA.
The regulation says nothing about how the aircraft has been operated.
I submit that, since it's original certification, NO C or CD has ever
been certified for a gross weight greater than 1320#.
The wording in the rule is intended to deal with 2 specific
conditions: First, a Cessna 120 or 140 (or anything else that might
have come along) modified by STC to operate at the lower gross weight,
and second, an amateur built experimental re-registered at a lower
weight specifically to make it LSA after the fact. (Homebuilts can be
registered for whatever weight the builder chooses.)
