William, I may be full of beans again but I am assuming you are talking about the spinner discussion? What is the point of continuing the discussion? Are you going to change your mind? The documents you presented did not change mine and the documents I presented did not change yours. It did not this time nor the last time this came up nor the time before that, etc, etc. I and the other A&P's on the list do not have the time to continue to argue the point and get insulted and have our credibility called in question because you don't agree with us. What's the point? I even called the FSDO and you blew that off and called the FAA inspector's credibility in question. It was not a nameless person as you called it but a long time A&P I/A . You are correct that A&Ps and I/As have different backgrounds and specialties and don't always come to the same conclusion but the poll does show that twice as many A&P's don't consider the spinner mandatory as those that do. And among non A&Ps it was 50/50. Over 50 percent didn't care so we are wasting the time of 50 percent of the list. In fact in both polls 50 percent didn't care so why bother posting at all. Why are 50 percent of the people even members of the list? A couple of us did get a laugh over this at MERFI Saturday though. And not a single person wanted cheese lovers. My position is still this. I have looked at enough TCDS and Aircraft Specifications to be certain that if it is mandatory it will be listed. The spinner is not insignificant to some aircraft and is part engine cooling. This is just one of the things we learned in A&P School, along with FAA regs and such. In the TSDS or Aircraft Specifications under each model of aircraft will be a list of required equipment. The Navion one A-782 is another one that is interesting. On the original E series engine a spinner is listed as "eligible" but is not mandatory. On most of the other models because of different engine and prop combinations the spinner is mandatory and the model number of the approved spinner is listed. If I wanted to (and I have done this more than once) remove the E series engine and install another I have to look to this document and/ or STC documents for guidance. For example, I remove the E-185 and install an IO-470-H. A-782 says under item 139 that I can do this and it list the other requirements. One of the requirements is item 15 (not 15a b or c but all of 15), McCauley prop and it give model numbers and blade numbers. One of the requirements of the prop is 15c spinner assembly, McCauley 2A36. Skull cap not allowed. The parts book is not a list of required equipment and neither is the standard installed list. Now again looking at Aircraft Specification A-718 for the Ercoupe I do not see a requirement anywhere for a spinner. Nor do I see any spinners as eligible so not only is it not mandating a spinner it is not approving any either. At this point it would be safe to look at the parts book and the standard installed list for a spinner that is appropriate if you wanted one. Or to go to an STC or the prop manufacturer for a spinner that would be an appropriate replacement for the prop. Is the skull cap appropriate? I don't know, I never researched that but I am certain that running with no spinner is just fine and legal. So that is why I dropped the discussion and am not interested in dragging it on. I tried not to get involved at all this time but you again were not going to listen to the others that were correcting you. How can there be a discussion when you obviously know it all? You obviously know more than the majority of the A&P's on the list and the FSDO. From now on we all may as well defer to you and allow you to answer all post.
Kevin,sorry a little grumpy this morning,1 --- In [email protected], William R. Bayne <ercog...@...> wrote: > > > All, > > One's credibility on these lists is "on the line" with each post. > Anyone and everyone who posts something thoughtful here invests > personal time in order to do so. Most "on the list" want their > statements or position to appear reasonable. If one is not both > gracious and quick in acknowledging when a stated position can no > longer be defended, one's credibility suffers. > > Posts responding to a subject or a concept deserve respect even when > fundamentally and demonstrably incorrect. There are civil and > convincing ways to render misinformation ultimately self-evident. > Those sufficiently interested in the difference should be able to > discern it. > > Two of the best ways to increase our knowledge of Ercoupes is in > discussion with peers or in trying to convey that knowledge to another > before a forum of peers. That isn't easy. A "double standard" seems > firmly entrenched as to respect accorded. > > The expressed opinions of all A&Ps and IAs are not equal. While it is > true that each has satisfactorily completed the regulatory requirements > to hold their respective certification(s), the IA level takes more time > and effort to achieve and maintain. Some may be "current", some not. > The ranks of A&Ps include those recently qualified with little > practical experience. The practical experience of either may be > primarily with commercial or military aircraft, with no specific > knowledge of Ercoupes. They include those that stopped learning the > day their certificate was issued. They include those that freely > betray their professional obligations when they sign off "paper" > annuals. They include those that have difficulty understanding > applicable regulations. It is some combination of a person's > intelligence, instruction, practical experience, good judgment and > ability to effectively communicate that gives support and credibility > to a post. > > The expressed opinions of all pilot/owners are not equal. Some would > need a big ball of string to follow back if they ever left the pattern > at their home base. I know of one well regarded couper who paid the > ultimate price for unauthorized modifications. Some are mechanically > disadvantaged. More than a few don't know whether their mechanic is > competent or not, or if they have been overcharged. Others have, > presumably under supervision, completely rebuilt engines, accomplished > top overhauls, overhauled carburetors, starters, generators, adjusted > voltage regulators, and done some or all of the things permitted as > "preventative maintenence. Some have worked in construction or law, > and have extensive experience in understanding complex regulations (and > interpreting same). Some have done extensive and original Ercoupe > research. Some have extensive archival materials for reference. > Others have taken their birds apart and rebuilt them to better than new > condition largely on their own. Again, it is some combination of a > person's intelligence, instruction, practical experience, good judgment > and ability to effectively communicate that gives support and > credibility to a post. > > In a forum such as this the opinions of individuals of little > experience can (and do) compete on an equal basis with those of > individuals more "wise". From time to time enthusiasm outpaces > someone's knowledge or comprehension. With persons across the spectrum > of possibilities contributing, too many discussions degenerate into a > furball of egos over perceived "slights". It shouldn't be about "us". > It should be about knowledge, contributing to that knowledge, > understanding that knowledge, and effective dissemination of that > knowledge. > > Recently an incomplete discussion was put to a vote. A vote may > indicate who "wins" a debate, but the goal of any honest discussion is > not to win. It is to reveal one or more "truths". To the extent such > "truth" does not emerge with a glorious magnificence convincing to all > with eyes not closed, that discussion is incomplete. There is no > number of votes sufficient to complete an incomplete discussion. > > This forum does not have the urgency and necessity to conclude that a > jury does. We are the judges. We can, and should, take the time to > "get it right". If there is no single "right", we can (and should) > agree to disagree until that situation changes. > > Somehow we need to better define and focus progressing discussions so > as to better exclude rudeness, personalities and egos. Ed cannot be a > full time unpaid referee. This long standing problem will continue > until recognized and resolved. > > Should we avoid subjects that are complex? The "real" question is > "Are complex subjects worth examining?" If we don't examine them, > associated and undecided issues continue unresolved. That alone makes > such subjects interesting; as a challenge, if nothing else. Some can > be broken down into smaller issues and separately addressed. In the > context of Ercoupes, if not us, who? If not here, where? > > Should we avoid subjects that are controversial? The "real" question > is "Is discussion without controversy possible? The answer is no. One > of Webster's definitions of "controversy" is "A discussion marked esp. > by expression of opposing views." Discussion is intrinsic to and > inseparable from the process of expanding the realm of what is known > into the realm of what was previously unknown. > > Serious discussions among peers often ruffle feathers even as thought > is stimulated and greater understanding emerges. I get emails from > individuals who say they "love" these discussions. That likely doesn't > mean they love all the huffing and puffing by various contributors > (although some may), but they eagerly glean from the bounty of > knowledge that is stirred up and then flows by. > > In terms of sheer technical knowledge and understanding of Ercoupes, > there is more available via Tech than from any other single source, > public or private, anywhere in the entire world. Think about that. > > Less than 25% of Ercoupe owners subscribe to Tech, even though > subscription is free. Our regular participants are around 10 % of that > 25%, or 2.5% Is that because almost anything and everything can be > posted by anyone? Does the very "look and feel" of posts comprising > certain threads cause some people to "tune out"? Is there > intimidation here? If so, can ee reduce or eliminate it? > > Think also of those of us who repeatedly object to in-depth discussion > on Tech. They are Tech's "speed bumps". They repeatedly seek to > throttle the flow of information to their personal comfort level. > Should the pace here be set by those who consciously choose not to keep > up? > > Participation that increases understanding within the "community" seems > clearly desirable. That which merely burnishes or further inflates an > individual's ego would, in kindergarten, result in a report card entry > "Does not play well with others". Should we not expect and enforce a > higher level of intellectual maturity here? To remain silent on many > such issues is itself a choice with predictable consequence(s). > > There are those that genuinely believe I am personally responsible for > many of Tech's problems. Fine. I am certainly not without blame. > Just keep in mind that in a continuing exchange between attacker and > victim, only witnesses to the first blow know which is which. The > opinion of those arriving later, no matter how many, do not change > historical reality unless theirs is the only account that survives ;<) > > I want to be part of the solution. Unfortunately there can be no > solution to problems ignored or denied. > > Regards, > > WRB >
