Hi Prof. Ed,
You continue to show unusual ability to cut through the BS and get to
the "meat" of the matter.
In my opinion, which is worth what you pay for it ;<) that is this:
1. "We", as in Ercoupe owner/operators want to know two things:
a. What was the "root cause" of the in-flight catastrophic structural
failure of the wing
structure of the 415-D in the 12/8/08 accident in Sebring, FL.
b. Is this "root cause" present in our owned aircraft.
2. If you take "We" from the perspective of the NTSB, it would appear
that no final
report on this accident has been issued because the information they
have in the context
of what they "know" is not yet sufficient in their opinion to be
conclusive as to a "root cause".
3. If you take "We" from the perspective of the FAA, it would appear
that some as-yet unidentified
person of unknown title, qualifications and experience (at least to
those outside the FAA) "jumped
the gun" in apparent overreaction to a single Ercoupe accident. Yes,
that's definitely getting the
"cart before the horse" when there is, as of yet, been no NTSB
"finding" as to said "root cause".
This may be (we don't know) because of heightened sensitivity to
possible public reaction to the
fact that as the undeniable structural failure and subsequent airframe
disintegration sequentially
took place both occupants were forcibly ejected, almost certainly
against their will and while
properly belted in.
It should be obvious to all but the most obtuse that such sudden and
massive negative G forces
as would eject both belted-in occupants and break the main spar
resulted from aerodynamic
stress well beyond design requirements of CAR 04. The almost identical
failure and disintegration
of the 415-E with the "Trim-o-matic" that Bob Sanders lived through
should have been thoroughly
investigated by appropriate agencies. Those records should be
available under a "Freedom of
Information" Request.
I shall be making such a request so that these records, and others,
will be available should the FAA
decide to proceed with a premature AD on the obviously incorrect and
unsupportable premise that
holes as yet not specifically identified and alleged to be resulting
from "unauthorized maintenance"
were somehow the "root cause" of such sudden and massive negative G
failure as occurred. In my
opinion that scenario is so unlikely as to be utterly and totally
preposterous.
I believe all aircraft owners have the obligation to one another to
stand together to assure that the
NTSB and FAA act only in full accordance with their respective
"mission" to protect the public from
reasonably real or perceived threats. It appears likely that never
before has an AD been issued on:
a. the basis of a single accident prior to an official finding as to
"root cause" of same, and
b. alleging such wide ranging "probable cause" as "unauthorized
maintenance/holes".
Such unreasonableness, if allowed, will eventually and predictably
result in such progressive
regulatory and financial harassment without "probable cause" as to
eventually and utterly destroy
private aviation in the United States. That is why I am so motivated
to have this sort of unjustifiable
nonsense stopped RIGHT HERE AND NOW...stomp hard on the camel's nose
when it is first pushed
under the edge of the tent and you avoid the considerably greater
necessity of ejecting the whole
camel once fully in the tent (and maybe mad).
I would remind one and all that Univair, as holder of numerous Type
Certificates and utterly dependent
upon the FAA for continuing approvals necessary to the day-to-day
conduct of their business, is extremely
constrained when it comes to opposing anything the FAA decides it wants
to do. The EOC, if their
individual or collective analysis and response is inadequate, could
give the FAA all it needs to disregard
the more thorough and aggressive arguments of individual owners.
Yes, good people, here there be dragons. Who will step forward and
file comments to help slay them?
Regards,
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2009)
On Sep 29, 2009, at 14:32, [email protected] wrote:
I'm kind of confused at what's going on!
It all doesn't seem to make too much sense.
Are we looking into why the Ercoupe had an inflight brake up at
Sebring, FL-
or are we trying to find a fault with the spar without any
justifiable proof.
if indeed it was the spar that caused that crash.
Will somebody please set me straight or am I missing something?
Thank you,
Prof. Ed
