Dave,
Please. Lose the attitude.
I'm not a moderator here, and yet there are things as yet unsaid that
must be said. If that appears "rude" to some, I can live with that.
You believe "...structural integrity of the wing spar cap is...no
longer an engineering issue. It doesn't matter if "unauthorized"
holes will or won't cause a failure."
Neither of these statements is factual. They are "beliefs" of a person
of considerable experience in a highly structured environment where all
such matters are "handled" by those above. I respect your right to
beliefs that may make perfect sense from such perspective, but I am not
thereby obligated to personally agree with or accept them as my own.
Outside of that structured environment you have described no experience
that makes your opinion worth more than anyone else's here as to how to
handle the current Airworthiness Concern dilemma.
You convey inappropriate distain for the opinions of those whose
perspective is different from yours. There can be no civil discourse
on Tech if parties unable or unwilling to "agree to disagree" can
periodically heap verbal disparagement on legitimate alternate
positions at will.
You say that "The FAA and/or the NTSB has decided it's a problem and
they are going to dictate a solution". Obviously you accept this as
reality. You may be right. But if others disagree, it is their right
to employ such regulatory requirements and historically relevent
information as exists in the manner deemed to best change the outcome
you expect. Please respect those rights.
You say "The only choice we have now is whether of not to give them
information to arrive at an acceptable solution or let them make a
decision in a vacuum." That choice has been made when only one of us
refuses to allow the latter. Even if I am the only one commenting, if
their decision is made in a vacuum it will be a vacuum they maintain by
excluding from due consideration relevant information furnished them.
I will soon provide lots of such information for any and all to use as
they see fit.
If and when the FAA and/or NTSB "dictate a solution" to a problem that
does not exist they exceed their purpose and authority. If and when
their "solution" does not address the actual trigger of the structural
failure of a given accident they have been derelict in their duty. We
have the opportunity and the duty to supply them with such
authoritative information as they may lack as may point to a different
"cause"or problem that may require AD action (or not). If and when
they essentially disregard timely and pertinent comments to mindlessly
and obstinately proceed on an established course of action, it falls to
us to draw the attention of their superiors and/or our congressional
representatives, many of whom fly, by calling public attention to such
inappropriate arrogance. We must do what we can, where we are, with
what we have.
You say "We can armchair engineer the holes all we want, but the fact
is this is not going away by denying there's a problem." The very fact
that an Airworthiness Concern Sheet exists is an obvious problem no one
proposes denying. Since no engineer I know works standing up like
Donald Rumsfeld, essential all engineering is likely "armchair
engineering". Such diversionary and disparaging remarks have no place
in productive discourse.
Those of us who are not engineers, aeronautical engineers or accident
investigators can still play a valuable part by furnishing those of us
with such credentials or experience necessary information to credibly
plead our "case" with objectivity and authority. It may be because I
am even now researching and reviewing available information you don't
have that I don't think our "cause" is yet lost. In truth, we have not
yet begun to fight, but the clock is running on our time for measured
response.
Perhaps in some future post you can supply information of importance.
Until you do, your recent posts of pure and unrelenting discouragement
can best be summed up with a quote from another: "Criticism without
suggestions for improvement is a waste of everyone's time".
Your posts are unhelpful, to say the least, when Hartmut considers
hasty response to the FAA without all of the facts.. He is one of our
more gifted in terms of grasping the interaction of regulatory and
engineering approaches. If you cannot be part of the solution, please
yield "the floor" to those that can.
At issue is not a "pissing match between you and me. At issue is the
continued airworthiness of more than a few Ercoupes, yours included.
In that context, you and I as individuals are irrelevant. It is
information and credible presentation that will win or lose the battle
to come. Can we agree on that at least?
Regards,
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2009)
--
On Sep 22, 2009, at 13:17, [email protected] wrote:
What is lost in all the debate about structural integrity of the wing
spar cap with holes is that this is no longer an engineering issue.
It's a regulatory issue now. It doesn't matter if "unauthorized"
holes will or won't cause a failure. The FAA and/or the NTSB has
decided it's a problem and they are going to dictate a solution. The
only choice we have now is whether of not to give them information to
arrive at an acceptable solution or let them make a decision in a
vacuum. We can armchair engineer the holes all we want, but the fact
is this is not going away by denying there's a problem.
Dave
--- In [email protected], Bob Swinney <bobst...@...> wrote:
For what it is worth, I am a Mechanical engineer and have worked
with structural engineers all of my life. Whenever I needed to route
pipe, conduit or whatever, the structural engineers would allow holes
in the structural members(I beams or whatever). I have seen some
beams that looked like swiss cheese. If the holes are not over a
certain size and if they are placed properly the integrety of the
beam is not compromised. IT just has to engineered!
Â
As far as the breaking point being at a hole, that is normal. If a
structure is loaded past its limit it will break. If there is a hole
or a deep scratch near that point it will take the path of least
resistance and go to the hole or scratch. That does not mean the hole
was the cause of the break...
Â
An aeronautical engineer needs to analize the situation to determine
the effect of the holes...
Â
Bob
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, Hartmut Beil <hb...@...> wrote:
From: Hartmut Beil <hb...@...>
Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Approved holes?
To: ebengui...@..., "Techlist Ercoupe" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 10:36 AM
Â
Ed
Â
Yes I pointed out before that the Alons have holes drilled for the
bucket seat installation.
That's why holes per se seem not be the problem.
But it would be up to UNIVAIR to pull out the engineering data to
proof that to the FAA and at the same time give an evaluation when
holes are ok and when not.
Â
I don't see that happening.
What I see happening is that all 415 Spars with not approved holes
will be damned to be replaced.
Â
Is anyone having a 337 that shows holes drilled into the spar cap for
seat installation?
Â
The only 337 I have on file does that not. http://www.ercoupe.
info/?n=Main. CessnaSeats
Â
Hartmut
Â
To: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com
From: ebengui...@aol. com
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:42:11 -0400
Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Approved holes?
Â
Morning All
Regarding holes in spar cap:
Alons basically have the same wing spar as the Coupe.
Without going into nomenclature details,
Alons have approximately 16 holes on the spar cap to accept seat
brackets.
Does anyone know of any problems
with Alons falling apart because of these approved holes?
Ed
check out the rest of the Windows Liveâ„¢. More than mailâ€"Windows
Liveâ„¢ goes way beyond your inbox. More than messages
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
