Where in the TCDS does it state that the production basis for the 415 CD (or
any 415 series Ercoupe) is CAR-4b?

Last time I checked it was:

*Part 4a of the Civil Air Regulations* (CAR 3)

CAR 4b (14 CFR Part 25) is for *transport category* aircraft.

CAR 3 (or 14 CFR part 23) is airworthiness standards for small airplanes (or
"Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category
Airplanes")

Prof Ed or anyone,

Would you please state exactly where the FAA Regulations "state this unit
cannot be placed in a certified aircraft." please?

Everyone, please check (& double check) your information before
submitting them as "regulatory fact". Also, when reading the FARs one
shouldn't read things into them - the FAA is very specific and proper when
it comes to grammar and punctuation.

Here's are a couple of links that will help everyone with their research

www.faa.gov

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

Thanks,
Tom

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:14 AM, dagwood1162 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> Opinion and popluar consensus are not a replacement for regulatory fact.
>
> I invite everyone to read CAR-4b. It is available on the FAA website.
> I worked at the EAA in Oshkosh for 3.5 years. I have known Joe Norris for a
> long time and have the utmost respect and courtesy for him.
>
> The EAA IS NOT a regulatory agency. However, IF your aircraft is
> Experimental then what a better organization to fall back on.
>
> The TCDS for the 415 CD states the production basis for that aircraft is
> CAR 4B. IF you have a certificated aircraft and it is registered under the
> current FARS, the current FARs must be met. (PROFESSIONAL OPINION)
>
> Simply falling back and saying that your aircraft was made a long time ago
> does not constitute an everything goes response.
>
> I am not taking sides one way or the other at this point, I am beginning
> the research on my behalf and the behalf of my customers.
>
> This is an interesting saga.....more to follow.
>
> Vince
>
> 
>

Reply via email to