James W. Whitlow
Deputy Chief Counsel
US Department of Transportation, FAA
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC  20591

Dear Mr. Whitlow,

By way of introduction, I am an electronics engineer involved in the design, fabrication
and certification of aircraft systems and components for over 30 years. I've also been
a consultant to Mr. Bill Bainbridge of B&C Specialty Products for the past 15 years. 
I have a copy of your letter dated 22 July to Mr. McConwell concerning Notice of 
Proposed Civil Penalty No. 97CE430010. The letter was published in its entirety on 
the Internet. I am writing to point out serious errors of logic and fact in your letter.

In your letter you state, "The part's installation on a TC product suggests that the 
part may have been produced for sale for installation on a TC product, especially if 
the producer knew of previous, similar installations at the time the part was produced."
Key words here are  "suggest" and "may" . . . I find it interesting that your office 
is willing to bring so much misery upon a citizen based upon conjecture.

I've worked with B&C in their booth at Oshkosh since 1986. I've also been involved in
addressing the needs of B&C customers for factual data concerning B&C products.  
I've spoken with hundreds of individuals on behalf of B&C. When anyone asks about 
using a B&C product on a certified airplane, the answer is always the same. We've 
stated emphatically, "you cannot use this product on your airplane without the blessing 
of the FAA."  To my knowledge, no B&C product has been shipped to the owner of a 
certified aircraft until B&C has been assured that offices of the FAA in the customer's 
region have agreed to inspect and approve or reject the installation.

Your letter states, "But there is also other information indicating that B&C supplied 
the Form 337 copies to potential customers, that B&C was aware of the increasing 
likelihood that the parts it had produced would be installed on TC products, that 
B&C contributed to the likelihood by informing potential customers of Form 337 
installations, and that a B&C brochure states that the L-40 alternator is 'tailored' 
to fit certain Lycoming engines, some of which are type certified."

Did you know sir that completed Form 337's are on file in hundreds of locations in 
this country maintained by type-clubs and repair stations? These are public documents, 
generated by citizens in their duty to comply with regulations and maintained in 
FAA records at taxpayer expense. The manner in which Mr. Bainbridge or any other 
citizen chooses to utilize these documents should not be an issue here.  Executed 
Form 337s are freely circulated and studied for guidance on producing paperwork 
that meets the FAA's documentation requirements. B&C made these documents available 
to interested individuals to illustrate FAA approved graphics and wordage.  

You suggest that an approved Form 337 was used to enhance B&C sales of a product. 
I can tell you that Mr. Bainbridge does not solicit business from certified aircraft 
owners. Certified aircraft owners contact B&C after they've seen or heard of an 
approved installation of a B&C product on another owner's airplane.  In light of 
many approved and flying installations of the L-40, production of an exemplar 
Form 337 was only then useful as guidance to owners and their local FAA offices 
for wrestling with sometimes obscure and often bewildering task of completing 
required documentation. Form 337s were not provided to convince an aircraft owner 
to buy a B&C product rather as a courtesy and assist to FAA staff! The Form 337 
supplied by B&C was a teaching tool, no more and no less.

You further state, "Thus the FAA logically interpreted the evidence as indicating 
that B&C was producing some parts for sale for installation on TC products, without 
producing those parts under a PMA. However, I also understand that it is not clear 
at the time that B&C knew of the likelihood of the installations on TC products at 
the time B&C produced the parts listed in the Notice." 

Your interpretation is flawed. In 15 years of association with B&C and possessing 
a working knowledge of their marketing practices I can tell you that B&C's primary 
market is the only growing segment of general aviation - amateur built aircraft. 
Where B&C has specifically targeted a segment of the TC aircraft market, B&C holds 
the requisite PMA/STC approvals.  From time to time, owners of certified ships, 
weary of over-regulated, over-priced, certified junk strive to update their machines 
the right way. Under B&C's technical guidance and documented approvals from the 
cognizant FAA offices, modern, reliable, and affordable (but non-PMA) components 
from B&C have been installed on many TC aircraft.

Have you ever approached an intersection showing a red light while a policeman standing 
in the middle waves you on through? Isn't it reasonable to expect that another 
policeman will not be waiting on the other side to cite you violation of the red 
light? If you have a problem with the way your officers are running their intersections, 
how is it incumbent upon Mr. Bainbridge to shoulder the blame and accept punishment 
for it?  

We are not attorneys. We read the rules, ponder, discuss, call the Local FAA offices 
and then proceed on their guidance. We cannot be expected to second-guess thinking 
processes of the FAA's inner sanctums. In light of observations of decades of past 
practices, FAR 21.305(d) and the actions of your people, Mr. Bainbridge was 
suckered into believing he and his customers were doing the right thing. I'll 
suggest that Mr. Bainbridge is entitled to the document he was promised at 
Sun-n-Fun last spring. At the very least you should:
  
(1) Stipulate that there is no evidence that Mr. Bainbridge knowingly set out to 
circumvent FAA regulations when he supplied the L-40 alternator cited in 97CE430010. 

(2) Acknowledge the fact that Mr. Bainbridge's current misery was promoted by his 
good faith acceptance of the advice and actions of dozens of FAA  personnel who 
(in the appearance of good faith) worked with B&C customers to safely and 
economically upgrade their aging aircraft.

(3) The FAA should apologize to Mr. Bainbridge for the sleepless nights, anguish 
of being unfairly prosecuted, lost revenues suffered while his thoughts and 
efforts were diverted from service to his customers, and especially for the FAA's 
assault on his good name.

In light of threats clearly stated in your letter I'll suggest further . . . 

(4) Mr. Bainbridge, his associates and customers should be held harmless from 
any interpretation of the regulations for the dozens of situations prior to but 
identical with that cited in 97CE430010.

(5) Mr. Bainbridge and his associates should be held harmless from any interpretation 
of the regulations for similar situations in the future were there is no clear evidence 
that Mr. Bainbridge or his associates knew of a customer's intent to install a 
non-PMA, B&C product on a TC aircraft.

Your letter will be inadequate without addressing all of the above points, especially 
(2) and (3) for it was your good offices that set Mr. Bainbridge up, carried him along 
for years and then cut him down. The aviation community has watched this situation in
bewilderment since it began; it's time for the FAA to do the right thing.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Robert L. Nuckolls, III

cc: Mr. Bill Bainbridge, B&C
    Ms. Jane Garvey, FAA
    Mr. Dick Gordon, FAA
    Mr. Guy Gardner, FAA
    Mr. Tom Poberezny, EAA
    Mr. Earl Lawrence, EAA
    Mr. Ben Owen, EAA
    Mr. Paul Fiduccia, SAMA 
    Mr. Mike Busch, AVWEB
    

Enclosure: Copy of Whitlow to McConwell dated 22 July 1998