Spoken like a "tue believer". All I can tell you is that in my professional aviation career, I've seen a lot more reciprocity from cooperating with the FAA than from obstructing them. This isn't the military, you aren't my union leadership or my cheif pilot. In the end, I will do what I think is best to keep my airplane airworthy ans keep its certificate.
I have a phone call in to Jason at Univair. He has pictures of my spar cap. We'll see what they have to say. Enjoy life on the Titanic, Captain Smith... Dave --- In [email protected], William R. Bayne <ercog...@...> wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > Comments interspersed below. > > ÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅ > > On Sep 21, 2009, at 10:05, bigbrownpi...@... wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > That's all well and good. But my experience with waiching how the FAA > > does business with the airline industry since 1993 leads me to these > > conclusions-- > > > > 1. The FAA is going to do what they are going to do. > > I agree; but we, the people have the right to demand, and demand > strongly, that the FAA follow their own procedures for issuance of an > AD. > > > Yes, there is an agenda here and we aren't privvy to all the details. > > You have expressed your opinion, so this is mine: The details are not > important. The FAA and it's "culture" today want private aviation out > of their hair. We are the individuals with intelligence that threaten > their unilateral and dictatorial exercise of authority. Once we are > out of "their" skies they will have undisputed and unlimited authority > over any and all commercial use of the airways (in the name os "we, the > people, of course). Not one of them will ever stand in the > unemployment line. > > > Express your outrage if you wish, but don't expect it to accomplish > > anything constructive. > > There is a difference in mindlessly raging and holding an agency > properly accountable, to such extent as that is possible. There will > come a time when the FAA is essentially unaccountable, but that time is > not yet here. > > > Better yet, express your outrage to your congressman or senator, or > > directly to the Administrator, > > I agree we should make these people part of our efforts. > > > because you are wasting your ink to include that in any response to > > the ACS. > > It is my ink to "waste". If we owner/pilots do not insist strongly > that the FAA comply with their own procedures, which at least pay lip > service to being accountable to those they serve, they will act > ever-more unaccountable at an ever increasing pace. We have legitimate > means at hand to slow it the progression of unreasonableness and so I > believe we need to dig in our heels and fight them where we are with > what we have just as hard and effectively as we can. The meek do not > inherit the earth...they inherit the dirt. I believe something was > lost in the translation from one language into another. > > > 2. Hoping this problem will go away or that the solution will be > > simple and easy is like burying your head in the sand. There will be > > an AD forthcoming. > > While there will always be another AD forthcoming, we have an > obligation to assure that those adopted address a genuine fleet problem > and not merely serve to validate an open-ended FAA means with which to > ground an ever-increasing number of perfectly safe operational > airframes. > > > > 3. Not cooperating or withholding information from the FAA is in > > nobody's best interest. > > I disagree. Just as a criminal would be stupid to tell the prosecution > anything and everything, we aircraft owners, whom I would argue are > treated as criminals by the FAA, do not best serve ourselves by making > their achievement of their unknown agenda easier. The information I > shared here and would withhold from them is available to them in their > files in many forms and places. To access it, they have to devote > effort. That is effort not available to them to otherwise bother us. > Accordingly, I do not deem my request that this information not be made > freely available to assist them in our persecution to be unreasonable. > The ultimate decision at this point will be up to each person on this > list. > > > The less information the FAA has to work with, the more severe their > > "fix" to the problem will be. > > That is precisely the reason for a "comments" period in the AD process. > But before a "fix" to a problem is possible, there must be agreement > as to precisely what the problem is. In this case, the problem is the > very arrogance and ignorance of the originator. It looks at an > accident that, at best, is a statistical "fluke" before there is even a > final "finding" as to cause. I have information that I will present > that I believe will conclusively show that the cause was NOT holes in > the wing spar, whether authorized or unauthorized. To such extent as > the collective efforts of Ercoupe owners are effective, this particular > threat to the Ercoupe fleet should die a natural and well deserved > death. > > > I think we should provide them with as much information as possible to > > help them make the best decision. > > I absolutely disagree. > > > That does not guarantee that we will be able to live with the > > solution, but I guarantee it will be worse if they make a decision in > > a vacuum. > > No. if we give them the weapon and bullets to achieve their goal(s), > their own authority and influence unused will then be employed to our > further disadvantage. That's what they DO, day in and day out; and we > pay them while meekly allowing them to do it. > > > > 4. Cooperation is probably the best way to get information from the > > FAA regarding exactly what they are looking for. > > Again, I disagree. > > Even the FAA has an obligation on some level to appear reasonable. > What they have presented is mere speculation inadequate to support a > logical hypothesis. It is in no way sufficient to justify a new AD. > If we allow them to slip their proposed and unwarranted intrusion into > things so common in the field as could ground operational Ercoupes in a > heartbeat without proper and meaningful substantiation or appeal, we, > and only we, are to blame, > > > My airplane has holes drilled in the main spar cap to mount the seat > > pan. The seat pan is of original design but it's obviously a > > replacement with no documentation in the FAA 337 file. The previous > > owner found broken screws and stripped threads and enlarged some of > > these holes to drill out the broken screws and re-tapped them from #6 > > to #10. The A&P who did the annual and another AI who did the pre-buy > > were both aware of this and signed it off-- neither considered it an > > issue. Without knowing the specifics, it's hard to know if my > > airplane will be one of the ones affected, but I'm assuming it will. > > Good assumption. Holes drilled and threaded are much more likely to > serve as a point of origin for stress failure than even larger clean > holes for through fasteners. > > > I'm hoping to get more information soon through the EOC that will help > > me determine if I need to be concerned or not. If I don't get some > > more information withing the next four to six weeks, I will be > > contacting the FAA and to explain what I've found and sending > > pictures. > > I have been a member of EOC since the early eighties. Having completed > terms as EOC Regional Director, Vice President and President, what I > "bring to the table" is at least worthy of unbiased consideration. If > there were ever a time for Ercoupe owners to speak with a common theme > and voice, this is it. Information I provide will likely be in the EOC > "official response(s) and that of Univair. > > For you to unilaterally step forward out of our ranks and provide the > FAA with such pictures may give them precisely the information they > need to implement this nonsense. > > I would instead suggest that you have your mechanic enlarge these > holes (not to exceed 11/65" (.171) in diameter and install through > fasteners, otherwise your spar will likely be found unsafe. You may > have the money to buy another Ercoupe and the time to part out your > present one, but any of us don't. Their flying days could quickly end > if AD 2003-21-01 is amended and implemented as presently proposed. You > seem to expect this to happen and accept that as fact. I don't and > won't. > > > > Getting into a pissing match over this will only hurt us in the > > long-run. > > This unilateral characterization of the give and take of legitimate > discussion implicit to a (hopefully) coordinated effort on the part of > Ercoupe owners is both offensive and inappropriate. It cannot refer to > exchanges with the FAA, because they do not communicate with the > necessary frequency to sustain such an exchange. > > > The airlines have the money, lobbying power, and legal resources to do > > damage control when the FAA puts a heavy burden on them to comply. We > > don't, and I doubt I doubt Univair does. We're little fish to the > > Feds. > > I agree. > > > Ultimately it will be their engineering department that makes the call > > based on data supplied from the field, and all the "what iffing" and > > armchair analysis from a bunch of owners is just wasted energy. > > > > JMO, YMMV, > > Dave > > ÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅ > > I am reminded of the expression "Lead, follow, or get out of the way. > You insinuate dogmatic opinions into an important discussion that needs > to take place. You argue, in essence, that "resistance is futile" and > collaboration with our oppressor is the only sane choice. I do not > choose to be their slave of my own free will. > > While our energy may well appear "wasted" in hindsight, any ultimate > defeat will be honorable and acceptable only to such extent as we > honestly and fanatically resisted such outcome to the total exhaustion > of available resources. This is not Singapore. It is the Battle of > Britain. We are the few. We must be David to the FAA Goliath. > > Sincerely, > > William R. Bayne > .____|-(o)-|____. > (Copyright 2009) > > -- >
