Re: Tire 600x6 6ply
I think ASTJP2 is giving the message that the tire ( or any other mod) does not have to cause a problem
to result in a violation.
The same situation of a "Major Alteration without a proper Return to Service" can result in a Insurance Co.
denying coverage.
"Couple of pounds" is not NEGLIGIBLE for Weight & Balance purposes.
The "6 ply for 4 ply" upgrade is a common thing to do.
Making it "better" IS an Alteration.
Major?
I believe it IS a good thing to do in many cases.
HOW do we do it to satisfy the current interpretation of the regs?
I think ASTJP2 is giving the message that the tire ( or any other mod) does not have to cause a problem
to result in a violation.
The same situation of a "Major Alteration without a proper Return to Service" can result in a Insurance Co.
denying coverage.
"Couple of pounds" is not NEGLIGIBLE for Weight & Balance purposes.
The "6 ply for 4 ply" upgrade is a common thing to do.
Making it "better" IS an Alteration.
Major?
I believe it IS a good thing to do in many cases.
HOW do we do it to satisfy the current interpretation of the regs?
Comment