Thank you for the insight, Jef Joachim
> [Original Message] > From: jscott.pi...@juno.com <jscott.pi...@juno.com> > To: <kr...@mylist.net> > Date: 7/26/2004 9:29:08 AM > Subject: Re: KR> EAA > > > Colin, > > As an EAA tech counselor, I'll write a response to your problem. > > In defense of the Tech Counselor program, there are very few tech counselors with any expertise in wood working, and ever fewer with expertise in fiberglass. The tech counselors you're dealing with may feel unqualified, or at the least unenthusiastic with regards to a wood and glass, VW powered airplane. Conversely, my expertise is not in sheet metal. However, I will do inspections of sheet metal airplanes, but make sure the builders know up front that I am looking at general safety related problems, not at the quality of their rivit work. I can look over their rivit work, but consider them to be generally more knowledgable about the quality of their sheet metal work than I am. > > Secondly, KRs have a less than stellar reputation. Many tech counselors and mechanics won't touch them. A few years ago, a pilot near here bought a KR and had a very difficult time finding any A&P that would even go near it. They all told him that KRs are dangerous and that he would be better off to scrap it. I looked it over for him and helped him do a proper W&B, then recommended a mechanic that would probably be willing to inspect if for him. He chose to ignore some of the recommendations I made for improvements that needed to be done before the plane flew. Eventually, he proved the local mechanic right by destroying the plane on landing following a nosewheel shimmy problem (something I had recommended be changed). > > Tech counselors are unpaid volunteers, but the EAA isn't going to come to their defense if someone's widow decides to sue citing neglegence in inspecting a plane they had no expertise in the proper skills to build. If the tech counselor (like many mechanics) considers the KR to be a dangerous design that should not be flown or a VW to be an unairworthy engine, he probably has no business inspecting it. This is not the way I work as a tech counselor, but I can understand why some do. > > As a third point, I agree with much of your opinion of the EAA. I have dropped my affiliation with the local EAA chapter as airplane builders don't attend meetings anymore because there is nothing for them at the meetings. The meetings are a social party to discuss Young Eagles and the latest political problem at the local airports. While I think the Young Eagles program is a worthy cause, I didn't join the EAA to be browbeat about flying kids every month. > > Regards, > > Jeff Scott > Los Alamos, NM > > > > -- "Colin & Bev Rainey" <crain...@cfl.rr.com> wrote: > To the groups credit let me clearify why I was getting in touch with EAA, and yes up until last year I had been a member since I was 12 years old, saw the first release of the original Vans RV4, some 28 years ago! > > I think that I am showing that I am serious as a builder/owner when our aircraft has had an initial inspection performed on it, and is waiting for final inspection to be signed off to fly! > > ________________________________________________________________ > The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! > Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
