Hi Dave, Thanks.
It was hard for me beyond words to virtually ask for an AD, but I had to agree with your earlier opinion that once the FAA starts down a path they are unlikely to withdraw without something to show for their efforts. Your contribution made our argument more effective, I'm sure. Today I will see if I can get AOPA "on board", and I hope to hear from EOC and Univair. We should do well if our people with accident investigation, engineering, aeronautical engineering, A&P and IA credentials will "weigh in" with their additional horsepower and credibility from their perspectives and experience. And now everyone with bucket seats can run to the airport and start counting holes! It took me from last Friday to organize and simplify all that into something comprehensible, and I remain envious of those who just naturally write that way. Best regards, WRB -- On Sep 23, 2009, at 09:21, [email protected] wrote: > Bill, > > My apologies. I don't agree with everything in your reply; > specifically, IR's 7 and 8. I still believe the FAA has the authority > to question any unapproved maintenance procedures under FAR 91 as I've > outlined in my Quiz post and that ultimately (perhaps unfairly) the > owner/operator can be held accountable regardless of his/her level of > technical knowledge. I also don't totally agree with parts of your > conclusion statement. But overall, you ask all the right questions > and make a coherent argument that if we, the owners, don't have the > data, then perhaps the FAA is acting too hastily and that they may not > have all the data, either. > > Other than that, I think you nailed it. Not too confrontational, but > basically challenging them to "show us the data" first, then we can > discuss remedies. > > Well done. > > Dave
