----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Hi everyone. THis is going too far. --->"but how are we to know which they are and how can we protect our selves from the aircraft or there parts coming back into the parts pool at some future point after something has been done to them that is not right or safe even if it was done in a perfectly legal way under the new Canadian system?<--- I remember the long discussion just a few month ago about the ridiculous gross weight and stall speed limit which would let the Coupe out of the new Sport Pilots regulation in the US. This discussion was heated mainly because the Sport Pilot does not need a third Class medical but also because the owner maintenance program which comes with it. So owner maintenance in the US is different from a Canadian one?? Huh? Who believes that, because parts are TSO'd and Airplanes are worked on by certified mechanics makes them extremely safe is just a fool. 1.The Airbus, which lost it's tail a while ago was fully TSO'd and only certified mechanics worked on that one. 2.When my my TSO'd Airspeed Indicator quit after just 300 hours in service I was advised to replace it with a new one "because these Indicators are of such lousy quality , that they are most likely not repairable" The avionics shop pointed out that some non -TSO'd ones are better in quality than that one I had. Not Quality but a won paper war made it TSO. 3. After taking N94804 apart for it's first annual in our ownership we started replacing almost everything we and the mechanic looked after. That plane was a homebuilt-cheap fixer by itself. All painted over by a legacy of previous irresponsible owners. It happened in the US and got signed off over the last 20 years into service over and over again. I bought it even with a supposedly full overhaul of the brakes, signed off by an A&P a week before the purchase, just to find my brother 6 flying hours later with no brakes after landing. Luckily he landed on a long runway. There are more stories like this. With all that in mind I do not trust anyone in this business, but myself. When purchasing a used wing, no matter if that one comes from Canada or was in the US all the time I would of course inspect that thing thoroughly after my mechanics did the same. It is your life you are protecting after all , so I take that in my hand. I think the bitching at the Canadian program comes out of envy. And now, since the US has no such thing for us Ercoupers some people think they have to push down on others to see their own laws in a brighter light. I think that's just unfair. Hartmut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- > > Hi Steven, > > Yes, you are right it does cause a fair amount of rhetoric and I think > there are some good reasons for this and perhaps the following will help > you understand some of the concerns. > > I assume you are correct that there are only three today being operated on > this program but how are we to know which they are and how can we protect > our selves from the aircraft or there parts coming back into the parts pool > at some future point after something has been done to them that is not > right or safe even if it was done in a perfectly legal way under the new > Canadian system? Let me give you a simple example of what could happen. If > you have a wing damaged you can now fix it any way you want, it does not > have to conform to any standard other than your own desire to remain alive > when you fly. That same wing may after some other incident, like a truck > running into the back of your aircraft, be sold as a part. It has a nice > fresh cover and looks fine from the out side and when we look through the > inspection holes we can see a repair and it looks OK from the inspection > mirror. What we can not see is that you may have used the wrong rivets or a > splice plate that is the wrong material and that does not develop > sufficient strength to last very long. Some guy that has had a wing go bad > from corrosion needs a wing and purchases it and bolts it on his aircraft. > He fly's a lot and likes to pull a few "G's" and one day the under strength > repair fails the plane crashes and he dies. The main reason is that some > work was done that was not done correctly and there is no system to keep it > out of the parts pool. > > You know the great thing about the Experimental aircraft is that the guy > that built it gets the "Repairman's Certificate" to work on it and do the > annual check because we know that he understands exactly how it was built > and should be able to keep it in good shape. This has for the most part > been the case. We do unfortunately have cases where a person with more > money than time just has a guy build a kit for him and he knows very little > about the aircraft. He does not get the repairman's certificate but as it > is an experimental aircraft he can do any maintenance and make any changes > he likes. He is not required to understand what he is doing and at best he > damages the aircraft and at worst he kills himself. I do not know you so I > will stipulate that you do have a good idea what you should do and you may > be successful in operating your Coupe on the new Canadian program and I do > sincerely wish you good luck and safe flying. I wish there was some way to > know that when you are done with the aircraft that any part that no longer > conforms to the original condition would be destroyed. I know that sound > rash but a part can be damaged by the simple drilling of a hole where it > should not be and that may not be evident to the next owner of the part. We > do not have the detail drawings to do a proper conformity on all the parts > of a Coupe (I do wish that we did) so there is little way for an A/P to be > sure that a part has not been changed or damaged. Parts move around they do > not just stay in Canada or the USA. > > You are right about some bad maintenance being done here in the USA by > owners and some mechanics that is a fact and it is just part of being at > the bottom end of the market but that does not make it right. > > Lets look at your engine plan. If you put some parts in it that may fit > just fine and may have been made for a GPU they may work OK and then they > may not, we just do not know. If that engine ends up on ebay in a few years > with the lost logs story who will be responsible for the crash when the > engine fails? > > There is no good solution to the problem. I would like to see everyone who > works on and makes modifications to certificated aircraft either have the > required skills or have them working under the direct supervision of > someone who does. I do not like to find unapproved modifications in > aircraft I work on as it puts me in a very bad position. I can not sign off > any work I do if I know that there is a problem that may make the aircraft > unairworthy. The owner does not want to hear that. I do not want to lose my > license. It is a ongoing problem particularly with Coupes. > > Best regards, > Vern > > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any > advice in this forum.]---- > > It never ceases to amaze me the amount of rehetoric the Canadian > owner maintenance program elicits every time it is mentioned. > > I don't understand it. > > To the best of my knowledge there are exactly three coupes in Canada > running on Owner Maintenance. Other owners have decided not to > go that route, and that is fine too. > > The worst it does is change the category of plane to make it equivalent > to an experimental. For that priviledge, we lose the right to re-certify > the > plane, or sell it in the U.S. > > I dare say there are more than three coupes in the states that are being > illegally maintained by their owners. So its not like we are "poisening > the > crop". I have decided to go this route, because I see it as an opportunity > to learn more about my airplane, and take responsibility for it. I am > about > to undertake the rebuilding of the engine (c90) with the help of a > mechanic. > > I am not putting hardware store parts on it, and I am sure I will have all > the work on the engine done by certified shops. I may be able to save a > bit of money here and there by purchasing some parts that I might not > otherwise be able to trace for certified use. But I do not intend to do > anything that will put me at risk. In fact I think my coupe is one of the > better examples in these parts. > > I realize other parts of the world are watching closely to see how this > program work, and I feel we have some responsbility to make it work. > > But I don't feel Canada is threatening the entire safety and future of > recreactional aviation by making the move. > > Far from it, I think it is a well thought-out program, which is finding > favour > in a few limited areas. > > Steve Finkelman > C-FIWR > Forney F1 > > ========================================================================== ==== > To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm ========================================================================== ==== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
