John, et al, I should have been more complete in my communique.
I should have said that the e-mail traffic thus far indicates that there are several hole configuration designs, some of signficant complexity. It is possible that the FAA evaluator is unaware of this. So, he may be wrong in his perception that the holes he found are improper. (But, of course, no matter whether proper or not, they may, indeed, have significantly contributed to the structural failure, as he concludes.) Dave Winters From: John Craparo [mailto:[email protected]] Would the microfilmed plans of the 415C show the correct hole placement? These are available at the library archive... John On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, David Winters <[email protected]> wrote: I think we could consider the possibility that the FAA evaluator is MISTAKEN in his perception. He may be wrong in asserting that the holes found are improper. Perhaps, for example, an ALON style spar got back-fitted as a replacement into an ERCO airframe. As a result, it would have approved holes that are not shown in the ERCO plans. In short, he may be well informed, and he may know what he is talking about, but in this case he MAY be mistaken. Especially since the FAA did not include graphics in their notice, with the information we have, at this point, the credibility of the FAA assertions are not well defended nor the specifics of their contentions well defined. We can't make good responses without better information, I think. With the information provided, thus far, I cannot even check out the condition of my own airplane. David Winters
