William,
"the obvious implication is that "standard equipment" is synonymous with "required equipment". No, it is not the obvious implication. Standard equipment is not required equipment. Required equipment is required equipment. Standard equipment is required equipment plus whatever equipment the marketing department adds to each model as part of the base price. I have given my advice based on training as an A&P which included how to determine the airworthiness of an aircraft, not just training on how to change the oil and clean spark plugs. I base this on 30 years of maintaining aircraft and not just maintaining Ercoupes. As I also stated this is the view of the FSDO here. That is the FAA you are afraid will ground you without one. You have given your advice based on reading Ercoupe drawings. We should now let whomever asked the question the last time to make up his own mind. I would still like to see the drawings that make this required. Kevin1 yes I did once try to taxi with the tail tied down. --- In [email protected], William R. Bayne <ercog...@...> wrote: > > > 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 >
