Ed, If you are counting on Univair, they are clueless. When I realized that Univair couldn't figure out how to read an engineering diagram, I sent pictures of my main spar and several other unmodified main spars to Mr. Caldwell along with the engineering diagrams that are readily available on www.ercoupe.info. Caldwell has all the information he needs to determine the original 415 design, the Forney/Alon design, and one "unauthorized" congfiguration--mine. He also has Bill's letter, which I urged him to read with an open mind because he makes a lot of excellent points.
Sorry if that makes people angry-- so sue me! In then end, it won't make a difference unless we have the data to back up our position. The FAA has a right to know what the standard configuration is for the various models, and I made a decision that my main spar cap was probably so far outside the standard configuration that my airplane will probably be grounded. I would LOVE to be wrong, because this is at least an $11,000 fix if I'm right! But my 16 years of Part 135 and Part 121 experience and 24 years in Air Force operatons, safety, and stan/eval tells me I'm right on how this is going to play out. I know what I would do if I were in Caldwell's position, and it is exactly what Hartmut predicted in his earlier post. And I know that because I sat at the table for several similar decisions when I was in HQ 10AF Stan/Eval. I made no recommendations for corrective action. For now, I'm leaving that to the "seasoned" Ercoupe owner/operators, and/or the club for a collective response. I presented Mr. Caldwell with facts that are readily available on Hartmut's website as well as pictures to back up the facts, and pictures of my main spar. Remember the quiz? Who is ultimately responsible for determining the airworthiness of the aircraft? Not Univair; not the Club. The owner/operator! We have a legal and moral obligation to tell the Feds what we have found about the status of our airplanes. Recommending a corrective action is still a judgement call and I'll yield to our club as long as they demonstrate they are interested in presenting data, not rehashing useless arguments that the FAA can easily refute as irrelevant. Despite Bill's earlier Churchillian missive that we need to fight the Devil and stand up to the FAA, I think all that will do is get most of us grounded. Some of you seem to think that "whistling in the dark" will keep the Devil away. Sometimes you have to "dance with the Devil" in the real world. Much as I don't like it, it's time to dance with the Feds. Dave -- In [email protected], "Ed Burkhead" <e...@...> wrote: > > > > I don't know that "we" as individuals or the forum need to provide the FAA > with any suggestions. That is something appropriate for our Type Club and > the technical representatives who have the interests of the fleet in mind. > > > > It's possible that the Type Certificate holder, Univair, might tend toward > resolutions that provide them with a windfall of profit. > > > > Bill Bayne and Bill Yeates have provided some very useful data on the > subject. > > > > If some members feel an urge to respond independently, I'd mostly urge them > to ask for a time extension so we can review the facts rather than respond > to the ACS in total ignorance. > > > > Ed >
