Bill,

 

I belive your comment to have a good relationship with your mechanic and IA 
before the fact is critical. Discuss with them the issues BEFORE you commit to 
them doing the annual. Thay have no authority to "ground" your airplane based 
on conversation, and would be open for litigation if they tried.

 

I would HIGHLY reccomend you find an IA that will let you do an "owner 
assisted" annual, You will have a much better understanding of your airplane 
and should be much cheaper,(unless of course you are one of those who just 
wants to fly and pay the bills)

 

Find an IA and stick with him, no sense in paying for a learning curve every 
year.

 

An interesting side note is that while a C or CD does not specifically require 
a no smoking sign, TCDS-718 requires one if you convert to a D (see Note 3 at 
bottom)

 

(h) "No Smoking" placard should be included in the cabin. 

 

And TCDS A-787:

 

A. Models ERCO 415-D, E, G, Forney F-1, F-1A
(1) On instrument panel in full view of the pilot:
(a) "This airplane must be operated as a Normal Category airplane in compliance 
with
operating limitations, Secs. A and B, Approved Airplane Flight Manual."
(b) "This airplane characteristically incapable of spinning."
(c) "No acrobatic maneuvers are approved."
(2) To be displayed in Cabin: "No Smoking."

 

But the Alons and Mooney's dont require the placard.

 

Bill Biggs


 


To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:01:01 -0500
Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Upholstery




Comments interspersed below.

WRB

-- 

On Jun 30, 2010, at 13:46, Christopher Koch wrote:



Dear Linda,

While CAR 3 and 4a do not specify any burn or flammability standards (for 
example, see CAR 3 below)...  

The FAA specific standard is FAR 25.853 (a) & Appendix F Part I (a) (1) (ii)...

There is still some confusion on the part of your FSDO office, A&P and A&P IA 
on this subject.
There is no confusion whatsoever.  Under applicable rules and regulations, no 
"burn certifications" are applicable or pertinent to aircraft certificated 
under CAR 3 or 4a.  


I recently attended the annual all day FSDO A&P IA refresher course and this 
was the first topic covered.  The basic scenario presented to the A&P IAs in 
attendance by the FAA was "You are performing an Annual and you check out the 
interior on a CAR 3 or 4a airplane only to discover a newly upholstered 
interior (any or all seats, side panels, rugs, ceiling).  You request the burn 
certs for each material as they are obviously not the original materials 
installed when the plane was built.  The plane owner is unable to produce them. 
 Do you sign off the airplane Annual placing the airworthiness liability 
squarely on your shoulders?"  The final answer was left up to each A&P IA.
That's because even the FAA does not have the authority to mandate that which 
is not specifically required.

Refurbishing these interior materials is an allowable log book activity for the 
airplane's owner just like changing the engine oil and filter.  
There is no ambiguity here, whatsoever.


Due to the ambiguities of interpretation, 
Personal interpretation:  So as to avoid any possible danger to my certificate 
or personal financial future...


I make certain that I have all the burn certificates for each material in the 
aircraft records, just as if the airplane was type certificated under FAR 23 
rather than CAR 3 or 4a.
Personal observation:  And so, once again, an owner/pilot is denied his/her 
RIGHT to refurbish interior materials within applicable regulations by an A&P 
or IA willing to blackmail them by holding the aircraft hostage...by 
withholding the necessary certificated "sign-off" of an annual inspection.  The 
owner can't even repossess their own aircraft and take it elsewhere for a 
"second opinion" because it "unairworthy" until financial tribute is paid and 
"right" yields to "might.  

The owner's single to avoid such a situation is to be aware of how pervasive 
this mentality is, and discussing the subject at length with the shop AND the 
mechanic before proceeding.  The shop OR mechanic understand the regulations 
and jargon much better than you, and may tell you the "truth" you want to hear 
and the "whole truth".  There is no amount of personal knowledge that will 
protect an owner if they do not respect them enough to be "honest" up front and 
deal with them in good faith.  One or more witnesses to such a conversation can 
be good "insurance" before an annual is authorized to commence.  There are NO 
"guarantees".

As far as requiring a "No Smoking" sign to meet CAR 3 requirements, please also 
consider that directly over your knees is a gasoline tank - ON YOUR SIDE of the 
firewall !!!
If I recall correctly, that tank was in precisely the same place in all 
Ercoupes produced under 4a certification.  The presence or absence of the 
placard does not change the flammability of gasoline.  No placard can convey 
common sense to pilots or mechanics lacking it.

Yours,
Chris Koch
Buffalo, NY

CAR 3 Personnel and Cargo Accommodations


ยง 3.393    Ventilation.  All passenger and crew compartments shall be suitably 
ventilated.  Carbon monoxide concentration shall not exceed 1 part in 20,000 
parts of air.

If an Ercoupe exhaust system develops a fatigue crack in flight and carbon 
monoxide poisioning incapacitates the pilot and the aircraft crashes, here's 
one way bureaucratic reasoning could unfold:

1.  An autopsy (or skin color) will confirm that carbon monoxide in high 
concentration is in the pilot's tissues and blood.

2.  The actual cause of the crash was a concentration of carbon monoxide in the 
cabin in excess of that allowable in an airworthy aircraft.  

3.  The pilot did not possess or demonstrate the level of preflight 
clairvoyance obviously necessary in hindsight because a crash occurred.

4.  Since the deceased pilot was operating an aircraft that was not airworthy 
while under his/her command and control, the pilot's subsequent inability to 
avoid uncontrolled descent into terrain is incontrovertible evidence of pilot 
error as proximate cause.

Postlude:  The insurance company is not obligated to for either loss of the 
aircraft or damages arising out of its untimely return to earth because 
continued airworthiness is a necessary precedent to purchased coverage.  ;<)    
                                      
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1

Reply via email to