Sometimes on questions that have only one right answer it is necessary
to climb into the "can of worms" containing myths and speculations and
facts because examining each closely and separating them is necessary
before the truth can illuminate. If it were easy it would have been
done long ago.
Truth is not something established democratically. It is what it is.
The spinner may be considered part of the engine, as opposed to the
airframe (and respective Logs); but, either way it was part of each
Ercoupe as it was officially signed off as airworthy before ERCO could
sell it.
I don't want a mechanic that believes the four or eight pages of text
(the TCDS) lists all specific requirements of a safe and airworthy
Ercoupe. This is the comfort of ostriches with heads in sand (if they
really do that). Similarly, it is aircraft owners and operators who
"pay the price" when their certified mechanics take such "shortcuts"
and they a ramp check grounds them on a trip or metal is bent and
records reviewed with a 20-20 hindsight microscope.
As an example, appropriate torques that are Ercoupe-specific are
scattered throughout the Service Manuals for the whole series. These
manuals are not part of or referenced by the TCDS. They are not
CAA-FAA approved. Torques and other specific information in them as
well as the Bulletins and Memoranda are ignored by mechanics at the
owner's peril. The FARs are clear that the operator of an aircraft
bears primary responsibility that it be airworthy before operation
whether he/she understands that or not. This issue is, therefore,
independent of being or not being a mechanic.
Sensenich props, original on the Ercoupe did not come with a spinner.
McCauley props, original on Forneys, Alons and M10s did not come with a
spinner. Ercoupe spinners were manufactured by ERCO. Their part
number is ERCO's. Whenever cooling tests were performed by ERCO for
the CAA/FAA, a spinner was fitted. Accordingly, associated approvals
remain contingent on the presence of the same type of spinner.
There is no record whatsoever that appearance was ever a factor in Fred
Weick's incorporation of a spinner into the Ercoupe design. Once he
did, and an Ercoupe was certificated with that spinner it ceases to be
in compliance with it's type certificate when the spinner is removed
(presuming removal to be a "major modification").
While I agree that "standard equipment" and "optional equipment" are
different, the obvious implication is that "standard equipment" is
synonymous with "required equipment". Even "optional equipment" placed
on the aircraft Equipment List requires appropriate notations in
pertinent Logs and Weight and Balance records when removed, relocated
or replaced.
To the best of my knowledge I have never stated or implied to anyone on
these lists at any time that I am an A&P or certificated mechanic of
any kind. I'm not. That said, if I see a certificated mechanic
attempting to taxi an aircraft that is still tied down, I will warn
him. I will also steadfastly defend until hell freezes over a
mechanic's right to ignore my warning ;<)
Regards,
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2010)
--
On Jun 6, 2010, at 20:29, Kevin wrote:
Here goes another can of worms but.. the fact is that the spinner is
not listed in the TCDS for any prop/engine combination so it is not
required. The spinner is not a fairing that is part of the airframe.
It is part of the cooling system and on some aircraft with some
combinations of props and engines it is required but none of those
combinations apply to the Ercoupe. The spinner came with most Ercoupes
from the factory because it was standard equipment with most props. It
was standard equipment because Fred liked the looks of the Ercoupe
better with the spinner so Erco made it standard. Standard equipment
is different than required equipment.
This is my opinion as an A&P, this is also the opinion of every other
A&P/IA I know except John Cooper. It is also the opinion of the FSDO
here in Cincinnati so I feel OK expressing it. It is not Williams
opinion who is not an A&P and I will not participate in a long rat
hole again over it so I this is all I will say.
Kevin1
