cant find the wings in the tcds try flying without them Glenn
On Jun 7, 2010, at 10:48 PM, BRIAN BARAGWANATH wrote:
You are obviously not an AP, so you must be a Lawyer !!! With that
said, I REST MY CASE !!!
Brian Baragwanath
N3085H
Cranland-28M
--- On Sun, 6/6/10, William R. Bayne <[email protected]>
wrote:
From: William R. Bayne <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Prop Back Plate
To: [email protected]
Date: Sunday, June 6, 2010, 11:24 PM
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
