----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Hi folks,
I have the SB in hand.
As I read the SB, the way it explains
itself, an accident did not cause
the AD.
The AD was mostly caused by findings of the
inspection that resulted from the accident. I may be wrong, of
course and am is open hear to other interpretation. But that is how I see it.
If the problem is likelihood of corrosion,
then it doesn’t really matter how it was discovered, accident or no.
Of course, that does not mean that there
is, in fact, legitimate cause to expect or suspect corrosion.
Anyway, it appears to me that is the issue
with which we must deal. It is a
tougher nut to crack than mere negligent operation of an aircraft, it seems to
me.
For sure, we must clearly define the issue
before we can deal with it effectively.
Anybody else have a different read on
this? If so, please, let’s
get it out on the net so we can discuss it and join in a solid position.
Dave Winters
N2797H
-----Original Message-----
From: Tommy Terry
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006
9:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Univair
Ercoupe Mandatory Service Bulletin 32
Rodney, as we discussed in our
telephone conversation this morning, I have attached a copy of the Mandatory
Service Bulletin #32. As far as I know, only a couple of people have
actually received the SB although it is dated 28 October 2005. According
to a conversation an Ercoupe owner had with Univair yesterday, they have been
mailed.
There seems to be an assumption
among us (owners) that this SB has its roots in an accident that occurred in
California on 9 March 2004. The accident involving N93707 is described in
the NTSB report LAX04FA150. A few items I would like to point out in the
report:
In paragraphs 5 & 6 of the
PERSONNEL INFORMATION section, there are references to unapproved aerobatics
repeatedly being performed with the involved aircraft. One such incident
occurred on the flight previous to the accident flight.
Paragraph 5, sentence 6, of the
TESTS AND RESEARCH section of the report states: “The web portion in the center section between the upper and
lower spar cap contained buckling deformation from excessive loading in the
vertical direction.”
In paragraph 6, sentence 5, of the
TESTS AND RESEARCH section of the report, the fractured rivets “showed no evidence of degradation from
corrosion.”
If, in fact, this report is the
basis for the SB, all of the factors involved need to be explored rather than
allowing a couple of attorneys trying to cover Univair to be the cause of a
nearly inevitable AD. An argument needs to be made to Univair, and most
likely eventually to the FAA, that the aircraft involved in that accident did
not “fall apart” in the air as a result of any short comings or
deterioration of the plane, but was in fact torn apart by the PIC as a result
of his continued performance of prohibited maneuvers.
This Mandatory Service Bulletin is
uncalled for and should be rescinded by Univair before some bureaucrat at the
FAA decides that since fatalities have occurred an AD is justified. The
potential costs of complying with an AD based on this SB is impractical and
would possibly be the death knell for many aircraft and pose an undue financial
burden on owners of perfectly fine aircraft.
I appreciate your investigation of
this matter and look forward to hearing from you in the next few days.
Tommy Terry
AOPA 03713416
N93929
============================================================================== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
