Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:12 AM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? (Peter Pengilly)
2. 09:19 AM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 09:38 AM - Ignition switch (Jay Bannister)
4. 09:55 AM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? (Bill Allen)
5. 09:56 AM - Re: Ignition switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 10:25 AM - Re: A clarification on relay/contactor coil suppression (Jeff Luckey)
7. 10:30 AM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? (Henador Titzoff)
8. 10:53 AM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? ()
9. 11:17 AM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? (rayj)
10. 12:26 PM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? (Bill Bradburry)
11. 01:32 PM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 01:44 PM - Re: A clarification on relay/contactor coil suppression (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? (Sacha)
15. 04:34 PM - OT: politics on the list (rayj)
16. 06:45 PM - Re: Re: IMC Approval? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 10:10 PM - Registering a non-TC in the UK (Etienne Phillips)
18. 10:55 PM - Re: OT: politics on the list (Sacha)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Owen,
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards
and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take
a different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited
to day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an
on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in
progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety
and risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for
individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR &
night, but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night
is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly
approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various
articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability
of various installed components and systems - I can provide chapter &
verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
Do not archive
On 23/11/2013 17:37, Owen Baker wrote:
> 11/23/2013
> Hello Bill, You wrote (see copied below): Why a chill?
> A chill because there is no such thing as applying for IFR or IMC
> approval for experimental amateur built aircraft in the USA.**
> Any attempt to obtain such approval from the FAA by some individual
> builder can only lead to confusion and intrusion into an aspect of
> amateur building that could do significant harm to our community.
> Can we obtain further information on the provenance of the airplane
> that you were asking about?
> Thanks,
> OC
> **PS: Here is how the IFR capability of an experimental amateur built
> aircraft built and certificated in the USA is resolved: Per FAA Order
> 8130.2G the Operating Limitations, which are part of the Special
> Airworthiness Certificate of that aircraft, will state:
> (8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
> equipped for night
> and/or instrument flight in accordance with 14 CFR 91.205, this
> aircraft is to be operated under
> VFR, day only.
> (9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 14 CFR
> 91.205 must
> be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of 14
> CFR part 91. Any
> maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the
> aircraft logbook and
> maintenance records.
> Note that:
> A) Passing an inspection or obtaining approval for the appropriate
> equipment referred to above in the Operating Limitations is not a
> required part of the initial airworthiness inspection of the
> experimental amateur built aircraft.
> B) The builder / operator / pilot is the one who determines whether or
> not the aircraft is appropriately equipped after referring to the
> appropriate requirements of 14 CFR Part 91. There are some caveats to
> this statement. Please see the attachment for further explanation and
> let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
> =======================================
> *From:* Bill Allen <mailto:billallensworld@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:42 AM
> *To:* Owen Baker <mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>
> *Subject:* Re: IMC Approval?
> Hi OC,
> you wrote; << This question sent a chill up my spine > Why a chill?
>
> <<Are you asking about an experimental amateur built airplane that is
> being built in the United States of America?>> I had presumed, perhaps
> erroneously, that this was a UK aircraft
>
> Bill
> ================================
> On 23 November 2013 14:05, Owen Baker <bakerocb@cox.net
> <mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>> wrote:
>
> 11/23/2013
> Hello Bill Allen, You wrote: Is this the RV for which you're
> applying for your IMC approval?
> This question sent a chill up my spine. Are you asking about an
> experimental amateur built airplane that is being built in the
> United States of America?
> Thanks,
> OC
> 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort
> to gather and understand information."
> ================================
> Time: 04:19:26 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: panel colour?
> From: Bill Allen <billallensworld@gmail.com
> <mailto:billallensworld@gmail.com>>
>
> Yes, this is the shade I'll go with too.
>
> Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build
standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has
regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur built
aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since for
around 70 years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6
years to change that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to
guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and risk based argument has
been made for a the ability (probably for individually approved) UK
amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from
a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR &
night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly
approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various
articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating
reliability of various installed components and systems - I can
provide chapter & verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bob,
That switch I asked you about is ACS Products Co., A-510-2 Ignition Switch.
Jay
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Hi All,
As it was my email that generated the response from Owen, I replied to him
and copied in the list. However, it didn't get appear, so here it is again
in case he thought I was ignoring him;
Hi Owen,
I think the confusion has arisen because my original email was for input on
panel colors. I received much useful advice, including pictures. Panels
don't always give any clue as to the provenance of the aircraft, but the
picture alluded to in the email which "sent a chill" was from a fellow Brit.
I'm based in the UK and the USA.
In the USA I have a LongEz which I built & flew over, and migrated it from
the UK to the US register, so I am intimately acquainted with the process -
(or was in 2005 :^))
The above fellow Brit is part of a group negotiating with our CAA to remove
the burdensome "Day VFR only" restriction on homebuilts which operate in a
category known here as "Permit to Fly" - so my question to him was asking
if this was the panel he was taking forward in his negotiations (in the UK)
So no problem will be created with the FAA, and even if someone did
approach that request in such a naive manner, I'm sure that they would soon
realise that "permission" is not needed under US Experimental categories,
and even if they didn't, it would not negate the existing legal pathway.
It's a complex system over in Europe, with every country having varying
rules and regulations. You guys in the USA enjoy aviation freedoms which I
hope you all appreciate and protect.
best,
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
LongEz Diesel G-LEZE EGBJ
www.longezediesel.com
PS: maybe it was the way I spelt "color" that made you think I was in the
US :^)
On 24 November 2013 19:18, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
> aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards and
> in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a
> different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited to
> day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an
> on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in
> progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and
> risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for
> individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night,
> but it is far from a done deal.
>
> So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night is
> a big deal.
>
> To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly approved
> for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of FAR23
> (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various installed
> components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is required,
> but it is very, very boring.
>
> Peter
>
>
> . . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
> of the human condition. People naturally strive to
> advance the state of any art that produces benefit
> to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
> examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
> all walks of life and range of endeavors.
>
> A second class of individual emerges when you give a
> person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
> share, technologies they do not practice, and
> rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
> demand for their product. They too believe that
> they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
> make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
> progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
> irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
>
> The problem is that those returns must be
> acquired from someplace, usually from those
> who earned it by being a practicing participant
> in the first class of individuals. The second
> class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
> individuals of the first class who must promote
> their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
>
> In some societies, the forms of extortion are
> openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
> would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
> But the most crafty of despots get themselves
> elected or appointed to high office and they
> call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
> other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
> less violent but no less effective . . .
>
> Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
> advances the state of their particular art, we
> can be certain that in the absence of well
> administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
> into one's fundamental right to be left alone
> may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
> it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
> and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
> have to produce anything of value for a living.
>
> I have been an inside witness to growth in
> the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
> who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
> years. I can recall no instance wherein some
> intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
> been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
> it's still growing. I judge that over half
> the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
> of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
> the thrashing of great piles of paper.
>
> I support that argument with the following observation:
> When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
> bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
> stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
> good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
> Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
> today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
> and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
>
> The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
> effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
> similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
> What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
>
> Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
> 2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
> to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
> Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
>
> Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
> politics into the discussion, I suggest that
> there is nothing political about it. If you see
> two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
> it matter that they are members of any particular
> faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
> somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
> on the person or property of another individual
> without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
> one individual on the liberty of another . . .
> or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
> another.
>
> Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
> are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
> least the citizen knows the source from which
> his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
> of our arts by the work-product of millions
> in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
> to worry about something or another . . . and
> using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
>
> It's been hat-danced around here on the List
> often and usually discouraged by excited
> prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
> suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
> fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
> numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
> the speed of light.
>
> It follows then that being attentive to the protection
> or destruction of liberty is no more political
> than finding out why some relay contacts were
> sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
>
> I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
> dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
> restrict their freedoms to build and fly
> perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
> that are probably less risky than those
> produced in paper-bloated factories.
>
> Present trends plotted into the future suggest
> that it's a condition that we too will face
> in the not too distant future . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ignition switch |
At 11:37 AM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>That switch I asked you about is ACS Products Co., A-510-2 Ignition Switch.
>
>Jay
>
Interesting. I wonder what the -2 means.
Does anyone on the List have an ACS510-2
keyswitch on hand that is not installed?
I'd sure like to put my hands on it to
see if my published data needs to be
updated.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A clarification on relay/contactor coil suppression |
Bob,=0A=0AThe Zener clamps the flyback voltage at a point higher than a pla
in vanilla diode - got it.- And the double Zener makes for a polarity in-
sensitive circuit.- That's what I figured but it seemed trivial.- I gue
ss it makes for fewer installation errors??=0A=0AI have attached a spec she
et for a Tyco power relay.- In the lower right hand corner of the first p
age is a wiring diagram.- In that diagram, the lower diode seems superflu
ous to me - so I'm obviously missing something...=0A=0AOK, just figured it
out.- The second (lower) diode is for reverse current protection. In case
someone hooks it up backwards it won't pop the other diode - it just won't
work.- (I was going to delete this paragraph, but decided to leave it be
cause someone else might have the same question)=0A=0A=0ABob, thanks for ta
king the time to explain - it's truly appreciated.=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0A__
______________________________=0A From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls
.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Satur
day, November 23 -, 2013 2:09 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A clarif
ication on relay/contactor coil suppression=0A =0A=0A=0A=0AHow the hell d
id you figure that out? (did it require sacrificing a=0Achicken or a deal w
ith the devil? -- or was it Divine Inspiration?)-=0ASometimes I have to c
hase down some pretty hairy bugs in software but=0Athat arcing problem woul
d have kept me up at night.=0A=0A=0A-- I don't think I lost any sleep o
ver it but it WAS=0A-- an interesting study. The really buggy thing abo
ut it=0A-- was the tiny amount of damage to contacts that were=0A--
sticking. This was a really low energy event with some=0A-- magic sign
ature as yet un-identified.=0A=0A=0A=0A- The hardest part of the study wa
s to get the problem=0A- to duplicate on the bench. All the relay supplie
rs=0A- were stumped. I worked on it for about a year and=0A- a half (pa
rt time . . . skunk werks in my basement)=0A- and getting a lot of inconc
lusive measurements off=0A- the airplane before I decided to try duplicat
ing the=0A- wiring in the airplane. THEN things started to happen.=0A=0Ah
ttp://tinyurl.com/pstsggm=0A=0A=0A- After that, it was a matter of siftin
g the physics. Even=0A- after I began to get the relays to stick on the b
ench,=0A- it was probably another several months before I was=0A- able
to put all the pieces together. These kinds=0A- of things seldom jump off
the bench and into your=0A- lap.=0A=0A=0A=0AZeners:=0A>=0A>Others have s
uggested the use of a bi-directional Zener.- What is=0Athe benefit, eithe
r theoretical or actual, of using such a device?-=0AI'm not clear on what
benefit the Zener provides nor do I understand what=0Abi-directional buys
you.=0A>=0A>(In your answer please speak slowly and use small words;)=0A>
=0A=0A=0A- The 'plain vanilla' approach (A) clamps the coil collapse=0A
- EMF off at about 1/2 volt (junction drop of the simple=0A- diode). Ti
me constant for current in an inductor is T = L/R.=0A- Effective R of s
imple diode+coil is lowest; hence T is=0Alongest.=0A=0A- A single zener c
an be added to raise clamping voltage to=0A- a higher level and raising t
he L/R time constant.=0A- To make this work, the zener wants to be revers
e biased=0A- during spike time. A diode must be included to prevent=0A-
the zener from being forward biased when the relay is=0A- energized as i
n (B).=0A=0A- Any time (A) or (B) is built into the suppressed=0A- devi
ce, the coil terminals become polarity sensitive.=0A- and (+) terminal mu
st be marked and observed by the=0A- installer.=0A=0A- In (C) we see tw
o zeners back to back. In this case,=0A- spike energy is clamped off at t
he same voltage but=0A- the network can be included inside the device wit
hout=0A- having to observe polarity of coil connections.=0A=0A- You can
purchase two-junction transient suppressors=0A- as 'bi-directional' devi
ces.=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/kobtg8o=0A=0A=0A- Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Just a quick note, Bob, that the extortion pushing aviation prices up is not just
because of the government, or I should say directly the government.
Take for example, a bolt. If one buys a bolt commercially and doesn't tell the
vendor it is for an airplane, you get the commercial price. If you tell him
it's for an airplane application, you get the aviation price.
Another good example is a well known automotive painter in our area. He like every
good businessman has to keep his prices in check, because after all it is
the buyer who sets the price. If he sets the price too high, he'll have very
few customers. I have gone to this guy to get aircraft parts painted, but he
automatically increases prices if the article is aviation related. There is
an inherent belief in our country, and possibly the world, that aircraft owners
are extremely rich and can afford the padded prices. Perhaps we can trace this
belief back to the government, who by increasing the regulation with reams
of paper and bureaucrats, sets the example for others to follow.
Henador Titzoff
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/24/13, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IMC Approval?
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Date: Sunday, November 24, 2013, 9:18 AM
The USA is fortunate that the national
regulator allows
amateur built aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of
design and
build standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the
World has
regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur
built
aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since
for around 70
years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6
years to change
that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess
the outcome. A
comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made
for a the
ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur
builts to be able
to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for
IMC/IFR &
night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most
certainly
approved for these conditions by showing compliance with
various articles
of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating
reliability of
various installed components and systems - I can provide
chapter &
verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental
component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . .
hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a
free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . .
.
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are
perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following
observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having
brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe
that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery
by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I
humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the
protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Bob,
I appreciate your general point about those in authority tending to
tighten
the screw more and more to restrict our freedoms, but you will be glad
to
hear that there is a glimmer of hope on this side of the Atlantic. The
UK
Civil Aviation Authority has recently proposed amending the rule which
currently deregulates single seat microlight aircraft that are under 115
kg
ready to fly less fuel and pilot and have a wing loading no more than 10
kg/m=B2, so that they do not have to meet any design or inspection code,
with
the intention of allowing any single seat microlight under 300 kg (660
lbs)
to be deregulated, with no restriction on wing loading ' although to
comply
with the UK definition of microlight they would need to have a minimum
flight speed of 35 knots or less.
This may not appear as a great advance, but it is very encouraging that
the
officials involved have taken a positive and common sense approach to
the
regulation, and we hope that it will not be too long before further
changes
may increase our freedoms, perhaps allowing IMC and night flying for
permit
aircraft ' as Peter has mentioned below.
Regards,
Mike
Dr Mike Gregory
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 24 November 2013 17:18
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IMC Approval?
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards
and
in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a
different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited
to
day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an
on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in
progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety
and
risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for
individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR &
night,
but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night
is a
big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly
approved
for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of
FAR23
(or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various
installed
components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is
required,
but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Bob,
It's your list.
I hope we can keep politics off it. Every one has a different opinion
about what's important and how to achieve it. Adding politics moves
this forum away from one which is focused on answers to problems and
moves it to one of one opinion vs. another, where no real answers can be
proven.
Please take the time to set up the list you were discussing earlier this
year and keep this forum for solutions based on verifiable science.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 11/24/2013 11:18 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
> aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build
> standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has
> regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur built
> aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since for around
> 70 years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6 years to
> change that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess the
> outcome. A comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made
> for a the ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur
> builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
>
> So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR &
> night is a big deal.
>
> To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly
> approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various
> articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating
> reliability of various installed components and systems - I can
> provide chapter & verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
>
> Peter
>
>
> . . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
> of the human condition. People naturally strive to
> advance the state of any art that produces benefit
> to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
> examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
> all walks of life and range of endeavors.
>
> A second class of individual emerges when you give a
> person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
> share, technologies they do not practice, and
> rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
> demand for their product. They too believe that
> they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
> make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
> progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
> irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
>
> The problem is that those returns must be
> acquired from someplace, usually from those
> who earned it by being a practicing participant
> in the first class of individuals. The second
> class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
> individuals of the first class who must promote
> their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
>
> In some societies, the forms of extortion are
> openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
> would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
> But the most crafty of despots get themselves
> elected or appointed to high office and they
> call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
> other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
> less violent but no less effective . . .
>
> Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
> advances the state of their particular art, we
> can be certain that in the absence of well
> administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
> into one's fundamental right to be left alone
> may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
> it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
> and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
> have to produce anything of value for a living.
>
> I have been an inside witness to growth in
> the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
> who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
> years. I can recall no instance wherein some
> intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
> been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
> it's still growing. I judge that over half
> the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
> of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
> the thrashing of great piles of paper.
>
> I support that argument with the following observation:
> When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
> bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
> stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
> good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
> Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
> today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
> and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
>
> The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
> effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
> similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
> What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
>
> Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
> 2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
> to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
> Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
>
> Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
> politics into the discussion, I suggest that
> there is nothing political about it. If you see
> two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
> it matter that they are members of any particular
> faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
> somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
> on the person or property of another individual
> without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
> one individual on the liberty of another . . .
> or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
> another.
>
> Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
> are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
> least the citizen knows the source from which
> his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
> of our arts by the work-product of millions
> in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
> to worry about something or another . . . and
> using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
>
> It's been hat-danced around here on the List
> often and usually discouraged by excited
> prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
> suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
> fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
> numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
> the speed of light.
>
> It follows then that being attentive to the protection
> or destruction of liberty is no more political
> than finding out why some relay contacts were
> sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
>
> I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
> dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
> restrict their freedoms to build and fly
> perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
> that are probably less risky than those
> produced in paper-bloated factories.
>
> Present trends plotted into the future suggest
> that it's a condition that we too will face
> in the not too distant future . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> *
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Interesting you would say that, Raymond. Especially with that John Prine
quote below your signature.
Bob mostly speaks in realities, not in politics.
Bill
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rayj
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IMC Approval?
Bob,
It's your list.
I hope we can keep politics off it. Every one has a different opinion about
what's important and how to achieve it. Adding politics moves this forum
away from one which is focused on answers to problems and moves it to one of
one opinion vs. another, where no real answers can be proven.
Please take the time to set up the list you were discussing earlier this
year and keep this forum for solutions based on verifiable science.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 11/24/2013 11:18 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards and
in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a
different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited to
day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an
on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in
progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and
risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for
individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night,
but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night is a
big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly approved
for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of FAR23
(or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various installed
components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is required,
but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
At 01:17 PM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>It's your list.
>
>I hope we can keep politics off it. Every one has a different
>opinion about what's important and how to achieve it. Adding
>politics moves this forum away from one which is focused on answers
>to problems and moves it to one of one opinion vs. another, where no
>real answers can be proven.
>
>Please take the time to set up the list you were discussing earlier
>this year and keep this forum for solutions based on verifiable science.
I have suggested that the phenomenon I
explored is just as firmly grounded in
the simple-ideas of irrefutable fact
as any discussion of physics. This is
not about opinion but observable, repeatable,
cause and effect . . . i.e. historical fact.
We've had discussions on the List about
the behaviors of several suppliers to
the OBAM aviation community wherein
'customers' offered value-y in
agreement to accept value-x from
a 'supplier'. Cases were value-x was
never delivered . . . or failed to
meet expectations but without warranty.
How is that different than an individual
seeking value-votes from their 'customers'
in exchange for a return of value-liberty . . .
and then at best failing to deliver or even
worse becoming antagonistic to their oath
of office?
The fact that Case I is a matter of consumer
fraud not specifically related to government
and the Case II relate to behaviors
of government does not make the behaviors
of citizens in government any less egregious.
The ever increasing effects of some
behaviors will not go away by labeling them
'political' and banning it from consideration
in favor of more pleasant thoughts and
goals. It's like standing in front of your home
watering the flowers with a hose while the
burning house behind you would benefit greatly by
an application of water from that same hose.
Allowing things to continue on their present
course has an obvious conclusion. This was
never a matter of debatable opinions but
a pattern of cause and effects that have
repeated countless times throughout recorded
history. Volumes of study have been published
but alas . . . seldom taught in contemporary
systems of education.
Thanks for the reminder, I will talk to Matt
about the second website.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
At 12:52 PM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I appreciate your general point about those in
>authority tending to tighten the screw more and
>more to restrict our freedoms, but you will be
>glad to hear that there is a glimmer of hope on
>this side of the Atlantic. The UK Civil Aviation
>Authority has recently proposed amending the
>rule which currently deregulates single seat
>microlight aircraft that are under 115 kg ready
>to fly less fuel and pilot and have a wing
>loading no more than 10 kg/m, so that they do
>not have to meet any design or inspection code,
>with the intention of allowing any single seat
>microlight under 300 kg (660 lbs) to be
>deregulated, with no restriction on wing loading
> although to comply with the UK definition of
>microlight they would need to have a minimum flight speed of 35 knots or less.
>
>This may not appear as a great advance, but it
>is very encouraging that the officials involved
>have taken a positive and common sense approach
>to the regulation, and we hope that it will not
>be too long before further changes may increase
>our freedoms, perhaps allowing IMC and night
>flying for permit aircraft as Peter has mentioned below.
Cool. There was a similar move on this side of the
pond for a new class of light aircraft including
a 'sport pilot' certification to fly them. To be
sure these are welcomed expansions of freedoms.
We need to take care lest the small victories be
celebrated so loudly that the underlying growth
of bureaucracy and rule making goes unnoticed.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A clarification on relay/contactor coil suppression |
>OK, just figured it out. The second (lower) diode is for reverse
>current protection. In case someone hooks it up backwards it won't
>pop the other diode - it just won't work. (I was going to delete
>this paragraph, but decided to leave it because someone else might
>have the same question)
Excellent supposition! It's always a challenge
to reverse-guess the motives of the designer when
you discover such features that are not explained
in the catalong. Your idea sounds more plausible
than the first thing that popped into my head:
A few months ago I was digging through a relay
catalog and found a similar circuit for a relay
with an AC coil rating. In this case, the series diode
provided half-wave rectification while the parallel
diode offered a purposeful delay of dropout between
half cycles.
In the case of 60HZ AC, the relay inductance gets
"charged" for 1/120th second every 1/60th second.
If the L/R time constant for decay of coil current
is long enough, then the parallel diode offers the
same 'smoothing' effects on the rectified AC as
a capacitor but much smaller, less expensive and
exploits the energy storage abilities of the inductor.
Isn't this stuff fun?
Bob . . .
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Bob, this one is a keeper! Much more eloquently said than I ever could.
>From someone who lives in a country where OBAM aircraft are supposed to fly
not above 500ft AGL on weekdays and 1000ft AGL on weekends (yup! You read
that right. the country is Italy in case you're wondering).
sacha
Do not archive
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
www.buildersbooks.com
www.mypilotstore.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
www.aeroelectric.com
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OT: politics on the list |
Greetings Bob,
I will focus on why I feel your comments fall more into the category of
political discussion rather than representative of any quantifiable
system of cause and effect which could lead to an irrefutable conclusion.
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
I disagree that people naturally strive improve an art that benefits
them. Many people engage in behaviors that damage, rather than benefit
themselves. In addition it assumes that people are correct in their
assessment of what truly benefits them. Many choices carry both
penalties and benefits, no clear definitions here.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
I believe that having someone who is not driven by maximizing profit
overseeing the behavior of those who are is a good thing. A few examples
are: Nuclear waste; the food and water supply; some sectors of the
financial industry; some facets of the health care industry; some
sectors of the transportation industry. Others disagree, no quantifiable
answer here.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
If taxation is the same as extortion then this statement is correct. I
don't think there is any question that some people will disagree with
this. How does one decide which is correct, or perhaps it's not an
either/or decision.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Anarchy is the only form of government which does not depend on some
sort of coercive entity in society. All other's involve vesting some
members of the society with power. History has shown that those with
power use it to benefit themselves. How many and with how much power is
another question that does not have a clear cut answer.
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
"The law" is written by those who already have power, to facilitate
holding on to what they have and to accumulate more. "Rights" vary from
one place to another and from one time to another. What they are or
should be is no easy question. Many would argue that humans don't act
"honorably" whether in power or in resistance to power. The definition
of "honorable" may differ between parties involved.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
The amount of paper required may or may not be a good thing. Certainly
the regulatory body may have made some mistakes. This need for paper is
also driven by our legal system, and the need to CYA. How much paper is
the right amount? Who decides that?
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Here again, the question arises: Government regulation or legal cya by
the manufacturer driving the decisions?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
Unless all regulation and inspection by parties not driven by the profit
motive are eliminated, there will be an ongoing discussion about what
amount is the right amount.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
The definition of "Liberty" is far from simple. Like other buzz words,
it is defined differently in different places at different times.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
Being attentive to the actions of those with power is paramount. Which
actions are good and which are bad is subject to discussion.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
I have suggested that the phenomenon I
explored is just as firmly grounded in
the simple-ideas of irrefutable fact
as any discussion of physics. This is
not about opinion but observable, repeatable,
cause and effect . . . i.e. historical fact.
We've had discussions on the List about
the behaviors of several suppliers to
the OBAM aviation community wherein
'customers' offered value-y in
agreement to accept value-x from
a 'supplier'. Cases were value-x was
never delivered . . . or failed to
meet expectations but without warranty.
How is that different than an individual
seeking value-votes from their 'customers'
in exchange for a return of value-liberty . . .
and then at best failing to deliver or even
worse becoming antagonistic to their oath
of office?
The fact that Case I is a matter of consumer
fraud not specifically related to government
and the Case II relate to behaviors
of government does not make the behaviors
of citizens in government any less egregious.
The ever increasing effects of some
behaviors will not go away by labeling them
'political' and banning it from consideration
in favor of more pleasant thoughts and
goals. It's like standing in front of your home
watering the flowers with a hose while the
burning house behind you would benefit greatly by
an application of water from that same hose.
No one would argue that stopping bad behavior by elected citizens is a
bad thing. What makes the concept political is the need to define what
is "bad behavior".
Allowing things to continue on their present
course has an obvious conclusion. This was
never a matter of debatable opinions but
a pattern of cause and effects that have
repeated countless times throughout recorded
history. Volumes of study have been published
but alas . . . seldom taught in contemporary
systems of education.
I suspect that there are people out there who's obvious conclusion would
conflict with yours. And those people will site a different set of
causes and effects which were never a matter of debatable conclusions.
Thanks for the reminder, I will talk to Matt
about the second website.
Political discourse is an absolute necessity for determining what
government behavior should be. It is sad that in the USA a significant
percentage of the citizens fail to participate.
I do not believe adding the unavoidable conflict that surrounds
political debate to this list will do anything to increase citizen
participation, and it WILL pollute the non political discussions as
they take place on the list and will leave useless garbage in the archives.
I posted this to answer Bob's question, and do not wish to engage in any
further discussion on this topic.
do not archive
--
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
At 12:29 PM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
<henador_titzoff@yahoo.com>
Just a quick note, Bob, that the extortion pushing aviation prices up
is not just because of the government, or I should say directly the government.
Take for example, a bolt. If one buys a bolt commercially and
doesn't tell the vendor it is for an airplane, you get the commercial
price. If you tell him it's for an airplane application, you get the
aviation price.
But only if it's 'certified' to service in the aviation
markets. There is little difference in the price of materials
and processes over the range of 'carriage bolts' to Grade-8.
A local (30 miles!) supplier of hardware to the farming
community sells all their bin-bulked hardware by the pound.
I can buy grade-8 bolts for about 3.50 a POUND. Carriage bolts
are about $2.50 a pound. A bolt with the same capabilities
through TC parts distribution are $3.50 EACH.
But if you read the materials and processes specification
for super-bolts, you would think that there's some magic
happening that makes these bolts superior to the stuff
I can buy on the street. The magic is nothing more than
words on paper . . . mere certification.
When in fact, 'certification' guarantees nothing. Behavior
is the benchmark of success for minimizing risk, increasing
value and improving performance. Interestingly enough, you
are more likely to be sold a bogus bolt through TC distribution
than out of the farmer's bin-bolts. There's no money to be
made in faking a farmer's bolt even when it's the same
bolt.
Another good example is a well known automotive painter in our
area. He like every good businessman has to keep his prices in
check, because after all it is the buyer who sets the price. If he
sets the price too high, he'll have very few customers. I have gone
to this guy to get aircraft parts painted, but he automatically
increases prices if the article is aviation related. There is an
inherent belief in our country, and possibly the world, that aircraft
owners are extremely rich and can afford the padded prices.
Your supposition has interesting merit . . . but as
you and I know, perceptions of wealth are driven by
a constellation of forces. We both know folks who
live rather low on the hog so that they can support
their aviation hobby. OBAM aviation is a demonstrable
argument against the public perception given that
airplanes we build can be secured for 1/3 or less
of the going market for a production equivalent.
Unfortunately, folks take notice of John Travolta's bevy of
luxury aircraft while remaining ignorant of the fact
that for every John Travolta, there are dozens
of John Q Pulic pilots who probably spend no more
on their airplanes than their neighbors spend on
their own choice of hobby.
Perhaps we can trace this belief back to the government, who by
increasing the regulation with reams of paper and bureaucrats, sets
the example for others to follow.
Exactly. Compliance costs for regulation in virtually
every commercial endeavor has become a significant
cost of doing business. You cannot walk into your
kitchen or bathroom and put your hands on a piece
of merchandise that has not become more expensive
to produce . . .assuming that it is even allowed to
be produced any more all by virtue of regulation.
Somebody once suggested that I seek PMA on some of
my products for use on TC aircraft. The burden of
no-value-added time on my cost of doing business
was a huge turn off. My stuff does go on TC aircraft
after the owner assumes that burden by getting his
337 signed off.
Bob . . .
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Registering a non-TC in the UK |
Hi All
After seeing that there are a number of members on this list in the UK and
operating non-TC aircraft, I would like to find out what the process is
really like registering a non type-certified aircraft in the UK. I realise
this isn't an electrics problem, so any replies can be off-list.
I've read through the regulations, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't
look like an onerous process. However, the rumours are that one would be
better served by repeatedly bashing one's head against a concrete lintel!
The history of my aircraft is that it started it's life as a TC Champion
Citabria 7ECA. It was then flown into a tree, and broken rather badly. The
subsequent re-build was done here in South Africa, where the aircraft was
registered as an experimental, non-TC aircraft with a number of
modifications from the original design (bungy undercarriage, no upholstery,
raised belly to remove the pregnant look...).
Clearly, this isn't an existing "approved design" by the UK CAA's
standards, it's not a kit, and it's not a TC with a different label on it.
I've heard from the grapevine that I would need to get all the
modifications that have been done since it was in a TC state approved
individually, but I would like to confirm that it is the case, or if there
is an alternative, more suitable route to follow...?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Etienne
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT: politics on the list |
I agree with Bob's point of view and I also agree with Raymond's points. May
be it would be wise to try and keep the political opinions to a minimum and f
ocus on what this list does best. (It being a community of human beings ther
e will inevitably be some overlap which is difficult and maybe undesirable t
o eliminate).
On Nov 25, 2013, at 1:32, rayj <raymondj@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Greetings Bob,
>
> I will focus on why I feel your comments fall more into the category of po
litical discussion rather than representative of any quantifiable syst
em of cause and effect which could lead to an irrefutable conclusion.
>
> . . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
> of the human condition. People naturally strive to
> advance the state of any art that produces benefit
> to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
> examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
> all walks of life and range of endeavors.
>
> I disagree that people naturally strive improve an art that benefits them.
Many people engage in behaviors that damage, rather than benefit themselve
s. In addition it assumes that people are correct in their assessment of wh
at truly benefits them. Many choices carry both penalties and benefits, no c
lear definitions here.
>
>
> A second class of individual emerges when you give a
> person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
> share, technologies they do not practice, and
> rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
> demand for their product. They too believe that
> they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
> make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
> progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
> irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
>
> I believe that having someone who is not driven by maximizing profit
overseeing the behavior of those who are is a good thing. A few examples a
re: Nuclear waste; the food and water supply; some sectors of the financial
industry; some facets of the health care industry; some sectors of the tran
sportation industry. Others disagree, no quantifiable answer here.
>
> The problem is that those returns must be
> acquired from someplace, usually from those
> who earned it by being a practicing participant
> in the first class of individuals. The second
> class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
> individuals of the first class who must promote
> their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
>
> If taxation is the same as extortion then this statement is correct. I do
n't think there is any question that some people will disagree with this. H
ow does one decide which is correct, or perhaps it's not an either/or decisi
on.
>
> In some societies, the forms of extortion are
> openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
> would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
> But the most crafty of despots get themselves
> elected or appointed to high office and they
> call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
> other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
> less violent but no less effective . . .
>
> Anarchy is the only form of government which does not depend on some sort o
f coercive entity in society. All other's involve vesting some members of t
he society with power. History has shown that those with power use it to ben
efit themselves. How many and with how much power is another question that d
oes not have a clear cut answer.
>
> Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
> advances the state of their particular art, we
> can be certain that in the absence of well
> administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
> into one's fundamental right to be left alone
> may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
> it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
> and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
> have to produce anything of value for a living.
>
> "The law" is written by those who already have power, to facilitate holdin
g on to what they have and to accumulate more. "Rights" vary from one place
to another and from one time to another. What they are or should be is no e
asy question. Many would argue that humans don't act "honorably" whether in
power or in resistance to power. The definition of "honorable" may differ b
etween parties involved.
>
>
> I have been an inside witness to growth in
> the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
> who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
> years. I can recall no instance wherein some
> intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
> been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
> it's still growing. I judge that over half
> the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
> of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
> the thrashing of great piles of paper.
>
> The amount of paper required may or may not be a good thing. Certain
ly the regulatory body may have made some mistakes. This need for paper is a
lso driven by our legal system, and the need to CYA. How much paper is the r
ight amount? Who decides that?
>
> I support that argument with the following observation:
> When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
> bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
> stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
> good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
> Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
> today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
> and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
>
> The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
> effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
> similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
> What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
>
> Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
> 2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
> to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
> Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
>
> Here again, the question arises: Government regulation or legal cya by th
e manufacturer driving the decisions?
>
> Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
> politics into the discussion, I suggest that
> there is nothing political about it. If you see
> two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
> it matter that they are members of any particular
> faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
> somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
> on the person or property of another individual
> without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
> one individual on the liberty of another . . .
> or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
> another.
>
> Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
> are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
> least the citizen knows the source from which
> his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
> of our arts by the work-product of millions
> in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
> to worry about something or another . . . and
> using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
>
> Unless all regulation and inspection by parties not driven by the profit m
otive are eliminated, there will be an ongoing discussion about what amount i
s the right amount.
>
> It's been hat-danced around here on the List
> often and usually discouraged by excited
> prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
> suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
> fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
> numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
> the speed of light.
>
> The definition of "Liberty" is far from simple. Like other buzz words, it
is defined differently in different places at different times.
>
> It follows then that being attentive to the protection
> or destruction of liberty is no more political
> than finding out why some relay contacts were
> sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
>
> Being attentive to the actions of those with power is paramount. Wh
ich actions are good and which are bad is subject to discussion.
>
>
> I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
> dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
> restrict their freedoms to build and fly
> perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
> that are probably less risky than those
> produced in paper-bloated factories.
>
> Present trends plotted into the future suggest
> that it's a condition that we too will face
> in the not too distant future . . .
>
> I have suggested that the phenomenon I
> explored is just as firmly grounded in
> the simple-ideas of irrefutable fact
> as any discussion of physics. This is
> not about opinion but observable, repeatable,
> cause and effect . . . i.e. historical fact.
>
> We've had discussions on the List about
> the behaviors of several suppliers to
> the OBAM aviation community wherein
> 'customers' offered value-y in
> agreement to accept value-x from
> a 'supplier'. Cases were value-x was
> never delivered . . . or failed to
> meet expectations but without warranty.
>
> How is that different than an individual
> seeking value-votes from their 'customers'
> in exchange for a return of value-liberty . . .
> and then at best failing to deliver or even
> worse becoming antagonistic to their oath
> of office?
>
> The fact that Case I is a matter of consumer
> fraud not specifically related to government
> and the Case II relate to behaviors
> of government does not make the behaviors
> of citizens in government any less egregious.
> The ever increasing effects of some
> behaviors will not go away by labeling them
> 'political' and banning it from consideration
> in favor of more pleasant thoughts and
> goals. It's like standing in front of your home
> watering the flowers with a hose while the
> burning house behind you would benefit greatly by
> an application of water from that same hose.
> No one would argue that stopping bad behavior by elected citizens is a bad
thing. What makes the concept political is the need to define what is "bad
behavior".
>
> Allowing things to continue on their present
> course has an obvious conclusion. This was
> never a matter of debatable opinions but
> a pattern of cause and effects that have
> repeated countless times throughout recorded
> history. Volumes of study have been published
> but alas . . . seldom taught in contemporary
> systems of education.
> I suspect that there are people out there who's obvious conclusion would c
onflict with yours. And those people will site a different set of causes and
effects which were never a matter of debatable conclusions.
>
> Thanks for the reminder, I will talk to Matt
> about the second website.
> Political discourse is an absolute necessity for determining what governme
nt behavior should be. It is sad that in the USA a significant percentage of
the citizens fail to participate.
> I do not believe adding the unavoidable conflict that surrounds political d
ebate to this list will do anything to increase citizen participation, and i
t WILL pollute the non political discussions as they take place on the list a
nd will leave useless garbage in the archives.
> I posted this to answer Bob's question, and do not wish to engage in any f
urther discussion on this topic.
> do not archive
> --
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN.
>
> "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
> and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|