----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Dear Mr. Caldwell, I wish to express my concerns about the problem we are having with what has been put to us as a comment period on a proposed AD for Ercoupes and their derivative aircraft. 1. We have not seen any Service Bulletin from Univar on which we could comment to them or to you at the FAA. With out the publication of the Service Bulletin to the owners (I own two) we are not in a position to offer constructive comment on the proposed action. 2. The FAA has not published a NPRM on the subject (at least not on your web site) so we do not have any idea of what form you plan to convert the SB into an AD. 3. We have been advised that this regards corrosion found on an aircraft that was donated to a school and it has been suggested that the corrosion may well have been the reason it was donated instead of sold to be operated. 4. It is also reported that the subject aircraft had exfoliation corrosion. For this document I will assume that it did in fact have this corrosion and ask if any detailed analysis was undertaken by the FAA to determine the nature or cause of the corrosion? I would submit that if it was caused by some form of chemical contamination such as battery acid, rat urine or similar product that it may well be a simple and single event and only require a heads up to the current operators of the aircraft. If it is the result of intergranular corrosion then we have a different problem and we may well need to look at all Ercoupes at least on a one time basis. I might point out that all of the effected parts are now 55 years old and if the intergranular corrosion has not yet surfaced it is not likely to any time soon so that a longer period between future inspections would be appropriate. 5. It is also reported that the proposed fix is several more inspection plates to be added to the center section. If this is correct we would request that you consider and alternate inspection method. As the subject aircraft was reported to have been found by boroscope inspection it is reasonable to make that one of the alternatives in the AD even if the Univar SB does not address the issue from that perspective. Thank you for your consideration of the above and let me assure you that as an A&P I am very concerned about our safety and am not objecting to an AD if it is warranted and well thought out. I do feel that the normal procedure should be followed with the publication of a NPRM with a reasonable comment period so that all persons effected may have the proper chance to express their views and so that the industry groups may be able to address the issue. Sincerely, Vern Hendershott ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiLm.aVzvvT Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
