---------------------------------------------------------- Commander-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 10/24/03: 32 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:56 AM - Re: Re: Maputo (Bill Bow) 2. 03:58 AM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Bill Bow) 3. 04:01 AM - Re: Checklists (Bill Bow) 4. 07:11 AM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Phil Stubbs) 5. 07:52 AM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Tylor Hall) 6. 09:29 AM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Bruce Campbell) 7. 09:53 AM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Ben Baltrusaitis) 8. 10:22 AM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (Kelly Piper) 9. 10:43 AM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Chris Schuermann) 10. 11:41 AM - Re: Nobody Else in the Sky (css nico) 11. 11:41 AM - Re: Nobody Else in the Sky (css nico) 12. 11:52 AM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (css nico) 13. 12:19 PM - Re: Re: Maputo (css nico) 14. 01:15 PM - Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. (Barry Collman) 15. 01:37 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Jim Addington) 16. 01:49 PM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (YOURTCFG@aol.com) 17. 01:51 PM - Re: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. (YOURTCFG@aol.com) 18. 01:56 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (YOURTCFG@aol.com) 19. 02:28 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Tom Bijou) 20. 02:39 PM - Re: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. (Bill Bow) 21. 02:52 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Ben Baltrusaitis) 22. 02:57 PM - Re: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. (Barry Collman) 23. 03:23 PM - Re: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. (CloudCraft@aol.com) 24. 03:53 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (MOEMILLS@aol.com) 25. 04:01 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (MOEMILLS@aol.com) 26. 05:07 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Tylor Hall) 27. 05:34 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (W J R HAMILTON) 28. 05:40 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (W J R HAMILTON) 29. 05:52 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (W J R HAMILTON) 30. 06:11 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Chris Schuermann) 31. 06:27 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (YOURTCFG@aol.com) 32. 06:50 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (W J R HAMILTON) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:56:49 AM PST US From: "Bill Bow" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" Nothing offends me. NOTHING. bilbo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo > --> Commander-List message posted by: Andrew & Bridget Watson > > Bilbo, I also thought this was just going to you. I meant this as a gentle > tease, and did not mean the whole list to see it. But because I teased you > in front of everybody, I feel it is only right to apologise in front of > everybody. I hope I didn't offend you, and I'm truly sorry if I did. > > Regards, > Andrew. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" > To: > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: Andrew & Bridget Watson > > > > > > Jambo Bwana, > > > > For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct closing > > greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King"). > "Jambo > > Bwana" is a Swahili greeting. > > > > :-) > > > > God bless, > > Andrew. > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:58:03 AM PST US From: "Bill Bow" Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" Wouldn't Autopilot Central(OKC) be the place? Or have they been gone for years? bilbo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Schuermann" Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann > > > Bruce Campbell wrote: > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to. > > > I was kinda curious about that also Bruce. To my knowlege, the only > approved autopilots for the 520 are the Brittian and Lear models. Lear > was still in business as of a few years ago - don't know if they still > are though. > > Chris > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:01:23 AM PST US From: "Bill Bow" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" I'm just older. I know it works and it doesn't matter how many or few are in the cockpit. bilbo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Hancock" Subject: Commander-List: Checklists > --> Commander-List message posted by: Barry Hancock > > Gang, > > On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 11:55 PM, Bill B. wrote: > > > I think what people are missing in this thread is, priorities. Be it a > > three man crew or solo. For emergencies there are "memory items" and > > then > > there are checklist items. Memory item are the ones that can kill right > > away. Check list items may kill you later. It isn't one or the other, > > but > > a combination that has proven to be the most effective. Memory items > > when > > the engine fails(throttle, prop, mixture). All the rest can probably > > wait > > until later. > > > > bilbo > > I've been following this thread and just wanted to add my two cents now > that my point has been made by someone more qualified than I. I may be > a relative newbie (700TT, 150ME), but I have made it a habit to consult > the pros when it comes to piloting technique. Flying my CJ I have had > the opportunity to fraternize with a bunch of high time military guys > and retired airline pilots. I don't need to elaborate other than to say > what Bilbo is saying here is echoed by EVERY career pilot I've come in > contact with. It would serve all of us well to follow the techniques of > the military and airlines that have learned the hard way what the best > procedures are.... > > Now back to studying for my SE/ME Comm checkrides.... > > B > Barry Hancock > Director of Operations > Red Stars, Inc. > 949.300.5510 > www.allredstar.com > "Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes" > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:11:27 AM PST US From: "Phil Stubbs" Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Phil Stubbs" I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time approval for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander Aero is exploring the possibilitys. Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install? > [Original Message] > From: Bruce Campbell > To: > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" > > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520. > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to. > > Inquiring Minds Want To Know! > > Bruce Campbell > AC52 N4186B > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:52:01 AM PST US From: "Tylor Hall" Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" Phil, The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give me a call. Regards, Tylor Hall Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc. 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO 970-731-2127 Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Phil Stubbs" I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time approval for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander Aero is exploring the possibilitys. Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install? > [Original Message] > From: Bruce Campbell > To: > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" > > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520. > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to. > > Inquiring Minds Want To Know! > > Bruce Campbell > AC52 N4186B > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:29:54 AM PST US From: "Bruce Campbell" Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" STEC has STCs for the 560A, no less. But as miss is as good as a mile in terms of the FAA. Further, STEC can perform a single flight test, apparently, and put in the paperwork for a new model on their general STC. But... they aren't interested in doing so unless they feel there is "market" for the result. Mind you, if you've got an experimental it's even easier. They send a set of development ROMs, the installer has a test pilot fl a series of manuevers, and a new set of "permanent" roms are sent. So, if you've got a 520 you're out of luck, but if you're flying an Experimental Exhibition certified Stidestrander-Chuffington, literally the sky's the limit. I love how the FAA protects us all. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tylor Hall" Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" > > Phil, > The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin > Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need > STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have > several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give > me a call. > > Regards, > Tylor Hall > Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc. > 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO > 970-731-2127 > > > Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Phil Stubbs" > > > I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time approval > for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander > Aero is exploring the possibilitys. > Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install? > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Bruce Campbell > > To: > > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM > > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" > > > > > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520. > > > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to. > > > > Inquiring Minds Want To Know! > > > > Bruce Campbell > > AC52 N4186B > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:53:19 AM PST US From: "Ben Baltrusaitis" Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Ben Baltrusaitis" If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built? Would having an Aero Commander come under the homebuilt rules restrict passenger carrying capabilities? Thanks! Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Campbell To: commander-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 12:33 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" STEC has STCs for the 560A, no less. But as miss is as good as a mile in terms of the FAA. Further, STEC can perform a single flight test, apparently, and put in the paperwork for a new model on their general STC. But... they aren't interested in doing so unless they feel there is "market" for the result. Mind you, if you've got an experimental it's even easier. They send a set of development ROMs, the installer has a test pilot fl a series of manuevers, and a new set of "permanent" roms are sent. So, if you've got a 520 you're out of luck, but if you're flying an Experimental Exhibition certified Stidestrander-Chuffington, literally the sky's the limit. I love how the FAA protects us all. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tylor Hall" To: Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" > > Phil, > The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin > Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need > STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have > several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give > me a call. > > Regards, > Tylor Hall > Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc. > 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO > 970-731-2127 > > > Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Phil Stubbs" > > > I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time approval > for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander > Aero is exploring the possibilitys. > Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install? > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Bruce Campbell > > To: > > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM > > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" > > > > > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520. > > > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to. > > > > Inquiring Minds Want To Know! > > > > Bruce Campbell > > AC52 N4186B > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:22:23 AM PST US From: "Kelly Piper" Subject: RE: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc. --> Commander-List message posted by: "Kelly Piper" Thanks for the good advice from everyone. Being a sort of 'grass roots' Commander driver, every tidbit of wisdom on these great aircraft is not only appreciated, but digested and considered in detail. The Commander list has been one of those rare commodities in life that actually has true value - thanks to all the contributors. That said, I will look at slowing it down a bit (I am very comfortable with the 560's slow flight characteristics) and see how the approaches work out. I have not really seen much in the way of float with the aircraft - at 1/4 mile final and a gradual throttle reduction to a crossing speed of 80 - 85 mph, the plane will land on the mark every time. I push the props up on short final (re the geared engines) so pushing the engines with the props is not an issue. I fully agree with the commit point to land. I believe as Bill does, that attempting to reconfigure, gain Vyse, and attempt a go-around single engine from low altitude is far more dangerous than committing to a landing even if it is a sidestep to grass or taxiway. We have all read the NTSB aftermath reports of lost crew and aircraft when attempting it. Thanks again for the help! Kelly Piper -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R HAMILTON Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc. --> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON Kelly, What I am about to say may help a little, can't provide a reference, so please be cautious about what I say, but there is a serious disconnect when it comes to light twins certified to the old CARs or FARs ( ex. for the commuter amendment) . In general terms, the so called FAA standard requires maintaining the "blue line" speed until some ill defined "commit point" on late final, where you now have to get the speed back to a proper 1.3 Vs, then try and get some power back up so that you are not gliding ( and rapidly decelerating) across the fence. Or, put another way, trying to "simulate" the performance of a FAR 25 aircraft compromises 100% of approaches, to cater for the less than 1:200;000 chance of an engine failure at low power settings on approach, followed by a missed approach. The engine handling required is particularly bad for supercharged or turbo normalised/supercharged engines, that goes double if they are geared. Lunacy, as far as risk management is concerned, and I want my pilots flying stable approaches, everywhere, every time. Is it sensible to hazard every approach, for the very unlikely event of a simultaneous missed approach, and an engine failure on the missed approach. I don't think so. What is so silly about this is that it is accepted that in critical approaches in many FAR25 aircraft, you have a defined commit point, beyond which you are committed to land. That can be many miles out. The risks of a missed approach far exceed the risk of continuing the approach. Consider where you think that should be in a light twin. For example, B747-400, two engine approach, once the gear is down, it's go down. A missed approach is not considered a possibility, and the operation is arranged on that basis. The operation of a light twin should not be compromised by predicating all approach planning on a simultaneous missed approach and engine failure. A missed approach, from an approach with an already failed engine should not even be considered. Of course, in the safety of the sim, we practice seeing just what we can do, trading height for speed as we retract the gear, and try and re-configure so that we can climb away on two ( out of four). I know what I CAN do with the old 500A, what I would (do) do is far more conservative. Where does this get you. In my opinion, at some point in the ILS, or on base/final you should nominate a commit point, any failure beyond that you will be landing straight ahead. Remember --- landing straight ahead, no late go arounds. The FAA ( and everybody else's) accident statistics are compelling, you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured after an engine failure in a small twin, than in a single ---- but this is not a reason to fly an unstable approach every time. It is a reason to treat a light twin as a single at a sensible point in the circuit and approach, after which you are committed to land. On my 500A, that's about 1000', because that's when I start bringing the gently speed back to 1.3 Vs, plus a couple of knots if there are gusts, so that I am on speed, in the slot, checklist complete at 500'. Your right, back to around 70 kt or so would make any missed approaches very high risk affairs. The answer is, you don't, you land ---- hopefully on the runway, but on the taxiway or the grass if some turkey is blocking the runway. That's always going to be better than going in after flicking below Vmca, and leaving a big burnt patch as you only legacy There are far more aircraft damaged from approaching at excessive speed or otherwise mishandled approaches, than have ever been damaged as a result of engine failures in a light twin in normal operations. Far to many people have been killed in "simulated" failure in a twin that was never designed to have a certified engine out capability. Even if this doesn't help your check ride, it is something to think about. Every thing we do with an aircraft, from the day the designer put pen to paper, is a risk management exercise. At least with all the Aero Commander twins, you have wonderful low speed handling characteristics, as opposed to the character building characteristics of some aircraft I could name. We also have proper hydraulic system, pump on each engine, so at least the likelihood of the gear/flaps coming up during a missed approach with an engine problem is reasonably high. I won't wish you luck for the ride, luck should not, and very rarely plays any part in these matters. Cheers, Bill Hamilton . At 19:53 10/23/03 -0700, you wrote: >--> Commander-List message posted by: "Kelly Piper" > >I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning >approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach >speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if >I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight >manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100 >mph" with no other reference to approach speed. > >I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up: >Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with) >when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph? > >I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the >approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the >landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the >farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away >from minimum single engine control speed. > >What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real >life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my >paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten" >me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it >myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or >similar)? > >Thanks! > >Kelly Piper >Director Of Operations >AirMatrix >kellyp@Air-Matrix.com >360-435-7343 >425-231-3511 (Cell) > > COMMUNICATIONS CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note. The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton, Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is: will remain valid for about three months. All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about three months, the date will be notified. == == == == ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:43:23 AM PST US From: Chris Schuermann Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann Ben Baltrusaitis wrote: > If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into > redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built? Nope - good try though :-) Repair is repair (even though there are some birds around that probably took more effort to repair than they did to build) Would having > an Aero Commander come under the homebuilt rules restrict passenger > carrying capabilities? There are a series of "experimental" catagories for production aircraft. These are what the mfgrs/modifiers use when they're working towards certification or testing out modifications. (ie: an engine upgrade, etc). Once a certified aircraft is changed to "experimental", there are _extreme_ restrictions placed upon it's operation. Depending on what was done, it may be difficult to ever return it to approved status. Chris ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:41:35 AM PST US From: "css nico" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Nobody Else in the Sky --> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" There is such a wealth of good stories of real events that would make excellent reading material. Would it interest anyone if we make a flight journal site available in which we can upload our stories? This email is just the kind of stuff that I, for instance, would read over and over again. Imagine if this technology was available and we could read first-hand accounts of flights and events aviation related when Eddie Martin, Doolittle, the Wrights, Bob Hoover and others were working their numbers? Let me know. Thanks Nico ----- Original Message ----- From: "W J R HAMILTON" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Nobody Else in the Sky > --> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON > > All, > The great thing about uncontrolled airspace ( now ICAO G) is that it is > just that, uncontrolled. > > In Wing Commander Gordon's case, the reporting was for SAR, although with > no search and rescue nearer than an RAAF Orion from Edinborough, South > Australia or the RNZAF, I've often pondered whether the SAR watch was no > more than a false sense of security. > > For those who have grown up thinking that it's Marconi that keeps aircraft > in the air, and not Bernoulli, or who believe in the acoustic theory of > lift, ie when your lips stop flapping, the aeroplane stops flying, aviating > around the parts of the world ( large parts of it) where nobody want to > know can be a profoundly uncomfortable experience. Personally, I love it. > > One one of my last trips to SA ( Melbourne to J'Burg) we were down at about > 60S, several hundred miles south of Herd Island,with a beautiful view of > the pack ice, when the F/O ( as it was his sector,) asked me to get "A > clearance to climb", when I enquired as to where that might come from, a > local whale, maybe, he had a very funny look on his face. As I had to > gently explain to him, this was not B-RNAV in western Europe like last > week, or even E off KLAX , like several weeks before, in this case we were > "nowhere'sville", we were even south of the Mauritius FIR boundary, so > there was nobody the slightest bit interested if he climbed, dived, or even > flew around in ever decreasing circles until he flew up himself. > > If you want to hear some really funny stories, ask me some time about the > hilariously titled "Brazzaville-Kinshasa Joint Approach Control Agreement". > What one should understand is that the "con" in "control", is the same as > the "con" as in "conman", a trol is an 'orrible mythical beast, now > starring in the Lord of the Rings. > > Cheers, > Bill Hamilton. > > > At 17:44 10/23/03 -0400, you wrote: > >--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com > > > >In a message dated 10/22/03 17:33:13 Pacific Daylight Time, > >nico@cybersuperstore.com writes: > > > > > There was (is?) just nobody else in the sky. > > > >The strangest IFR clearance I've ever gotten was from (The Kingdom of) Tonga > >-- VaVa'u to Pago Pago. > > > >I called Nadi Control in Fiji on the H.F. for clearance. The controller > >answered back, "No known traffic." > > > >Fine, I thought, and asked for clearance from VaVa'u to Pago Pago again and > >again the chap said, "No known traffic." > > > >The third cycle of this brought back a very annoyed explanation that I should > >have known from ICAO Annex 10. ATC's job is to separate known IFR traffic. > > No traffic = no clearance required. I was still required to give position > >reports but I could fly any route and altitude I wanted. > > > >Some day I'll tell you about the strangest weather report I've ever gotten > >... > > > >Wing Commander Gordon > > > > > > > COMMUNICATIONS > CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note. > The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton, > Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is: > > will remain valid for about three months. > All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about > three months, the date will be notified. > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:41:35 AM PST US From: "css nico" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Nobody Else in the Sky --> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" There's no better time than right now! Nico ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: Commander-List: Nobody Else in the Sky > --> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/23/03 18:56:35 Pacific Daylight Time, > wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au writes: > > > If you want to hear some really funny stories, ask me some time about the > > hilariously titled "Brazzaville-Kinshasa Joint Approach Control Agreement". > > > > I can't resist -- let's hear it, Mate! > > Wing Commander Gordon > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:52:05 AM PST US From: "css nico" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc. --> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" I don't have that much experience either, perhaps 1,000 hours in a 500 and 680FP, but what I found is that there are examiners who would pay more attention to book-figures than practical figures. The book-figures would satisfy a written (or oral) but the practical should satisfy life and limb. What I have done, and that went for the other machines that I flew, is to spend a bit of time in the general flying area conducting approach and aborted landing speed tests at altitude, imagining the runway altitude at, say 5,000'. I would configure the plane for landing and at 5,100 I would reduce power on one engine to beta power and try to climb away to 5,500' with the other, alternating engines on successive attempts. That gave me a good representation of how accurate the POH was and what I could expect in such an event. Hope this helps. Nico ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Piper" Subject: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc. > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Kelly Piper" > > I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning > approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach > speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if > I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight > manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100 mph" with no other reference to approach speed. > > I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up: > Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with) > when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph? > > I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the > approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the > landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the > farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away > from minimum single engine control speed. > > What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real > life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my > paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten" > me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it > myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or > similar)? > > Thanks! > > Kelly Piper > Director Of Operations > AirMatrix > kellyp@Air-Matrix.com > 360-435-7343 > 425-231-3511 (Cell) > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 12:19:07 PM PST US From: "css nico" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo --> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" Don't pick on Andrew for being overstressed about offending people. South Africans were (before ANC) not politically correct or offended, but in the US environment where offence is a daily diet for victocrats, one cannot be too careful. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bow" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" > > Nothing offends me. NOTHING. > > bilbo > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" > To: > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: Andrew & Bridget Watson > > > > > Bilbo, I also thought this was just going to you. I meant this as a gentle > > tease, and did not mean the whole list to see it. But because I teased you > > in front of everybody, I feel it is only right to apologise in front of > > everybody. I hope I didn't offend you, and I'm truly sorry if I did. > > > > Regards, > > Andrew. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" > > To: > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo > > > > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: Andrew & Bridget Watson > > > > > > > > > Jambo Bwana, > > > > > > For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct > closing > > > greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King"). > > "Jambo > > > Bwana" is a Swahili greeting. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > God bless, > > > Andrew. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:15:16 PM PST US From: "Barry Collman" Subject: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. --> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman" I have been fortunate enough to work at the World's busiest International Airport for over 10 years, and during that time Concorde has been more than just a familiar sight. Today that all ended. For more than a few people, with tears in their eyes. Never have I witnessed such scenes as I saw today. Literally thousands upon thousands of people were present, on a reasonably sunny day but with bitingly cold winds, to see the end of its commercial operations. At 16:01, the first of three Concordes gracefully kissed the tarmac of Runway 27R, followed by a second two minutes later and a third, Speedbird 002 from JFK New York, at 16:05. Everything was planned to perfection by both BA and ATC. The first was registered G-BOAE, the second G-BOAF and the last was G-BOAG. So, in alphabetical order they were vectored to 27R, which was actually in use as the runway for aircraft taking off. Quite a queque developed for departure, but I expect nobody minded, as they had the closest view! That runway was chosen for the benefit of people who had bought tickets to sit in a 1,000-seat grandstand erected earlier this week for the occaision. Most of them stood in salute. It was always going to be an emotional moment, but it was poignantly emphasised by the last words the Heathrow tower controller issued to the captain......."Speedbird 002, for the last time, cleared to land." I have to admit, although I knew it was the final landing, those words brought a lump to my throat. I work in an office on the second floor of a building situated right alongside 27R and we have a great view of Heathrow's activities. Colleagues I work with have seen Concorde on a daily basis for year after year. But, whenever she took-off, heads would turn to watch, the windows would rattle and you could hear car alarms being set off all along the adjacent car parks. No more will we see this truly amazing, graceful aircraft. Well, we will when we see them depart, one by one over the next few months, to go to their final resting places. Some museums will be lucky, many others will not. I bet that even those who have long-campaigned against the noise will, in their hearts, miss it in future. As someone said a day or two ago, "On Friday, the World gets bigger". A fond farewell Concorde. You will be remembered by so many, having flown so relatively few. Over time, memories seem to fade. I feel sure today will be with me forever. All we are left with are the cattle-carriers built in Seattle and Toulouse. So alike, so boring. But, every cloud has a silver lining. I heard this afternoon, when David Green from Mann Aviation came to see the Concordes land, that one of the three captains of today's flights is going to be flying the last Turbo Commander ever built, serial 96208, which will soon become VP-BCT and be based here in the UK. So, he's switching from one great plane to another. Very Best Regards, Barry C. UK CommanderLand rep. ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 01:37:17 PM PST US From: "Jim Addington" Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Jim Addington" I hope this gets to the right place. My 500A was used for the STC about 1988. I have not had any problems with it that was not my fault. My A model, I would think, would be about the same as the 520. I have the STEC-65 with flight director and all options except the yaw damper which we did not think was necessary. Jim Addington N444BD -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tylor Hall Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" Phil, The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give me a call. Regards, Tylor Hall Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc. 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO 970-731-2127 Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Phil Stubbs" I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time approval for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander Aero is exploring the possibilitys. Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install? > [Original Message] > From: Bruce Campbell > To: > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" > > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520. > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to. > > Inquiring Minds Want To Know! > > Bruce Campbell > AC52 N4186B > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 01:49:34 PM PST US From: YOURTCFG@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc. --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com In a message dated 10/24/2003 10:23:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, kellyp@air-matrix.com writes: > Kelly Piper > So even Mr. Piper flies a Commander!! Viva Commander!! jb ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 01:51:19 PM PST US From: YOURTCFG@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com In a message dated 10/24/2003 1:16:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes: > Never have I witnessed such scenes as I saw today. It is truly the end of an era. sad indeed. jb ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 01:56:46 PM PST US From: YOURTCFG@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com In a message dated 10/24/2003 9:54:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, ben@gmpexpress.net writes: > If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into > redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built? > No, well, maybe. First, you only need to do 51%. Production airplanes can become "homebuilt" (I just landed my Grumman Sea Cat a few minuets ago, it is flying as a homebuilt) The trouble is, nobody is willing to do the real 51% required. The FAA has a checklist just for this situation, to determine when a homebuilt was built using "salvage parts from type certificated aircraft." It would be very difficult to do a Commander, but I plan to do one, a 680FP. jb ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 02:28:27 PM PST US From: "Tom Bijou" Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tom Bijou" I have recent experience in the STC process for autopilots in commanders. I have been working with Meggitt/S-Tec for over a year to put the new 2100 autopilot in a commander 1000 and the FAA process is so overwhelming that I think it is a mistake to try to go for a new approval unless you are willing to bear the cost and stress of losing control of your aircraft for an unknown period of time. After 13 months of work and flight test, plus a few more in planning this is about to get done. I might even undertake the process again in another aircraft type, but the difference is I do this for a living and it makes good hard economic sense in $1.0 - $2.0 million aircraft that have an outdated autopilot as their major shortcoming. The good old days of doing this under a field approval, or S-tec signing off the change under their "DAS" authority are gone. I think the paper work and flight tests to approve the autopilot are probably about the same as Commander experienced when they certified the whole aircraft type when they first built it! Tom Bijou -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Addington Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Jim Addington" I hope this gets to the right place. My 500A was used for the STC about 1988. I have not had any problems with it that was not my fault. My A model, I would think, would be about the same as the 520. I have the STEC-65 with flight director and all options except the yaw damper which we did not think was necessary. Jim Addington N444BD -----Original Message----- From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tylor Hall Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" Phil, The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give me a call. Regards, Tylor Hall Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc. 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO 970-731-2127 Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Phil Stubbs" I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time approval for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander Aero is exploring the possibilitys. Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install? > [Original Message] > From: Bruce Campbell > To: > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" > > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520. > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to. > > Inquiring Minds Want To Know! > > Bruce Campbell > AC52 N4186B > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 02:39:05 PM PST US From: "Bill Bow" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" I can still remember the first time I heard them coasting in, "New York Center, Speedbird Concord FL540" I don't think he even used a flight number back then. There was no reason to mistake which flight he was. One very humid morning, when I was flying Electras into JFK, I was standing among the approach lights for 13L. I heard this loud noise and turned to see the Concord "coming around the bend" on the Canarsie approach. There was that figure flying out of the mist, moisture boiling up over the wings as is tightened the turn to final and its needle nose pointing down like it was looking at me. It came over my head at about 200 feet and made the hair stand up on my arms. I will never forget it. It is indeed a sad day in aviation. On the bright side I now have the honor to fly the fastest transport in the air today.(it's from Seattle) bilbo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Collman" Subject: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman" > > I have been fortunate enough to work at the World's busiest International > Airport for over 10 years, and during that time Concorde has been more than just > a familiar sight. > > Today that all ended. For more than a few people, with tears in their eyes. > > Never have I witnessed such scenes as I saw today. > > Literally thousands upon thousands of people were present, on a reasonably sunny > day but with bitingly cold winds, to see the end of its commercial operations. > > At 16:01, the first of three Concordes gracefully kissed the tarmac of Runway > 27R, followed by a second two minutes later and a third, Speedbird 002 from JFK > New York, at 16:05. Everything was planned to perfection by both BA and ATC. The > first was registered G-BOAE, the second G-BOAF and the last was G-BOAG. So, in > alphabetical order they were vectored to 27R, which was actually in use as the > runway for aircraft taking off. Quite a queque developed for departure, but I > expect nobody minded, as they had the closest view! That runway was chosen for > the benefit of people who had bought tickets to sit in a 1,000-seat grandstand > erected earlier this week for the occaision. Most of them stood in salute. > > It was always going to be an emotional moment, but it was poignantly emphasised > by the last words the Heathrow tower controller issued to the > captain......."Speedbird 002, for the last time, cleared to land." I have to > admit, although I knew it was the final landing, those words brought a lump to > my throat. > > I work in an office on the second floor of a building situated right alongside > 27R and we have a great view of Heathrow's activities. Colleagues I work with > have seen Concorde on a daily basis for year after year. But, whenever she > took-off, heads would turn to watch, the windows would rattle and you could hear > car alarms being set off all along the adjacent car parks. > > No more will we see this truly amazing, graceful aircraft. Well, we will when we > see them depart, one by one over the next few months, to go to their final > resting places. Some museums will be lucky, many others will not. > > I bet that even those who have long-campaigned against the noise will, in their > hearts, miss it in future. > > As someone said a day or two ago, "On Friday, the World gets bigger". > > A fond farewell Concorde. You will be remembered by so many, having flown so > relatively few. > > Over time, memories seem to fade. I feel sure today will be with me forever. > > All we are left with are the cattle-carriers built in Seattle and Toulouse. So > alike, so boring. > > But, every cloud has a silver lining. I heard this afternoon, when David Green > from Mann Aviation came to see the Concordes land, that one of the three > captains of today's flights is going to be flying the last Turbo Commander ever > built, serial 96208, which will soon become VP-BCT and be based here in the UK. > > So, he's switching from one great plane to another. > > Very Best Regards, > > Barry C. > UK CommanderLand rep. > > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 02:52:16 PM PST US From: "Ben Baltrusaitis" Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Ben Baltrusaitis" JB, I like your thinking! This could really be fun! Does anyone want to play the game that if we rebuilt, say a 680E (I'm partial to it) or any other Aero Commander like JB's 680FP(????), what would you do to meet the 51% rule? Would you redesign anything inside the cockpit? What can be improved upon using space age materials like carbon fiber or Kevlar or some type of composite? What engines? What could be done to lighten the whole aircraft? Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: YOURTCFG@aol.com To: commander-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 4:56 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com In a message dated 10/24/2003 9:54:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, ben@gmpexpress.net writes: > If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into > redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built? > No, well, maybe. First, you only need to do 51%. Production airplanes can become "homebuilt" (I just landed my Grumman Sea Cat a few minuets ago, it is flying as a homebuilt) The trouble is, nobody is willing to do the real 51% required. The FAA has a checklist just for this situation, to determine when a homebuilt was built using "salvage parts from type certificated aircraft." It would be very difficult to do a Commander, but I plan to do one, a 680FP. jb ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 02:57:40 PM PST US From: "Barry Collman" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. --> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman" Actually, I think I was rather unkind to the Seattle & Toulouse products. They have got me safely and cheaply over "the pond" to see my great friends in the USA once or twice a year. I cannot ask for more than that. For years, I've been thinking "I really must book one of those Concorde round-the-Bay-of-Biscay-trips". Too late sonny boy, they're history. Barry C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bow" Subject: Re: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. | --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" | | I can still remember the first time I heard them coasting in, "New York | Center, Speedbird Concord FL540" I don't think he even used a flight number | back then. There was no reason to mistake which flight he was. | | One very humid morning, when I was flying Electras into JFK, I was standing | among the approach lights for 13L. I heard this loud noise and turned to | see the Concord "coming around the bend" on the Canarsie approach. There was | that figure flying out of the mist, moisture boiling up over the wings as is | tightened the turn to final and its needle nose pointing down like it was | looking at me. It came over my head at about 200 feet and made the hair | stand up on my arms. I will never forget it. | | It is indeed a sad day in aviation. | | On the bright side I now have the honor to fly the fastest transport in the | air today.(it's from Seattle) | | bilbo | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Barry Collman" | To: | Subject: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for | Concorde. | | | > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman" | | > | > I have been fortunate enough to work at the World's busiest International | > Airport for over 10 years, and during that time Concorde has been more | than just | > a familiar sight. | > | > Today that all ended. For more than a few people, with tears in their | eyes. | > | > Never have I witnessed such scenes as I saw today. | > | > Literally thousands upon thousands of people were present, on a reasonably | sunny | > day but with bitingly cold winds, to see the end of its commercial | operations. | > | > At 16:01, the first of three Concordes gracefully kissed the tarmac of | Runway | > 27R, followed by a second two minutes later and a third, Speedbird 002 | from JFK | > New York, at 16:05. Everything was planned to perfection by both BA and | ATC. The | > first was registered G-BOAE, the second G-BOAF and the last was G-BOAG. | So, in | > alphabetical order they were vectored to 27R, which was actually in use as | the | > runway for aircraft taking off. Quite a queque developed for departure, | but I | > expect nobody minded, as they had the closest view! That runway was chosen | for | > the benefit of people who had bought tickets to sit in a 1,000-seat | grandstand | > erected earlier this week for the occaision. Most of them stood in salute. | > | > It was always going to be an emotional moment, but it was poignantly | emphasised | > by the last words the Heathrow tower controller issued to the | > captain......."Speedbird 002, for the last time, cleared to land." I have | to | > admit, although I knew it was the final landing, those words brought a | lump to | > my throat. | > | > I work in an office on the second floor of a building situated right | alongside | > 27R and we have a great view of Heathrow's activities. Colleagues I work | with | > have seen Concorde on a daily basis for year after year. But, whenever she | > took-off, heads would turn to watch, the windows would rattle and you | could hear | > car alarms being set off all along the adjacent car parks. | > | > No more will we see this truly amazing, graceful aircraft. Well, we will | when we | > see them depart, one by one over the next few months, to go to their final | > resting places. Some museums will be lucky, many others will not. | > | > I bet that even those who have long-campaigned against the noise will, in | their | > hearts, miss it in future. | > | > As someone said a day or two ago, "On Friday, the World gets bigger". | > | > A fond farewell Concorde. You will be remembered by so many, having flown | so | > relatively few. | > | > Over time, memories seem to fade. I feel sure today will be with me | forever. | > | > All we are left with are the cattle-carriers built in Seattle and | Toulouse. So | > alike, so boring. | > | > But, every cloud has a silver lining. I heard this afternoon, when David | Green | > from Mann Aviation came to see the Concordes land, that one of the three | > captains of today's flights is going to be flying the last Turbo Commander | ever | > built, serial 96208, which will soon become VP-BCT and be based here in | the UK. | > | > So, he's switching from one great plane to another. | > | > Very Best Regards, | > | > Barry C. | > UK CommanderLand rep. | > | > | | | | | | | ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 03:23:59 PM PST US From: CloudCraft@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. --> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com In a message dated 10/24/03 14:58:44 Pacific Daylight Time, barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes: > Actually, I think I was rather unkind to the Seattle &Toulouse products. In light of the Concord, no, you weren't. We're talking Chevy and Renault vs. Lamborghini here. I'm impressed that the Brits had some ceremony attached to the last flights. Grandstands for 1000? I don't think we've given many of our "last flights" such respect here in the Colonies. Thanks for the report, Sir Barry. Wing Commander Gordon ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 03:53:35 PM PST US From: MOEMILLS@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: MOEMILLS@aol.com JB When are you going to give me the list of parts that are for sale on your derelict 680FP? Moe ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 04:01:55 PM PST US From: MOEMILLS@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: MOEMILLS@aol.com Dear Tylor, As bad as I hate to "throw in the towel" on the untrusty M4 in my 680F(p) I would be a prospect for a good autopilot. Moe Mills N680RR ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 05:07:07 PM PST US From: "Tylor Hall" Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" Moe, I talked to Century today. Their 2000 system is STC on 680FL/FLP. We talked about putting it on a 680F/FP and doing the paperwork on all short body Twin Commanders 500A,B,U,S,560F, and 680F as well. It would take the same installation kit as the Long Bodies. We would have to install it and let them add their instrumentation and do flight testing. The A/C would have to be in experimental for the testing. How long it would take to get the STC is unknown, but reasonable since it is not a new autopilot. It is on other like aircraft. They will be at AOPA next week and will get back to me the week after. I have several other customers that have M4's that are getting hard to get parts for. They also said that they had a new GPSS box with the 429 bus interface coming out soon. Regards, Tylor Hall Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc. 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO 970-731-2127 --> Commander-List message posted by: MOEMILLS@aol.com Dear Tylor, As bad as I hate to "throw in the towel" on the untrusty M4 in my 680F(p) I would be a prospect for a good autopilot. Moe Mills N680RR ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 05:34:23 PM PST US From: W J R HAMILTON Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON Folks, Or you get an Experimental Test and Development Certificate for the aircraft, go do all the flight test, then you have the data for a DER, and a field approval. Cheers, Bill Hamilton. At 09:33 10/24/03 -0700, you wrote: >--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" > > >STEC has STCs for the 560A, no less. But as miss is as good as a mile in >terms of the FAA. > >Further, STEC can perform a single flight test, apparently, and put in the >paperwork for a new model on their general STC. But... they aren't >interested in doing so unless they feel there is "market" for the result. > >Mind you, if you've got an experimental it's even easier. They send a set of >development ROMs, the installer has a test pilot fl a series of manuevers, >and a new set of "permanent" roms are sent. So, if you've got a 520 you're >out of luck, but if you're flying an Experimental Exhibition certified >Stidestrander-Chuffington, literally the sky's the limit. > >I love how the FAA protects us all. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tylor Hall" >To: >Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" > > > > Phil, > > The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin > > Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need > > STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have > > several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give > > me a call. > > > > Regards, > > Tylor Hall > > Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc. > > 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO > > 970-731-2127 > > > > > > Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Phil Stubbs" > > > > > > I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time >approval > > for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander > > Aero is exploring the possibilitys. > > Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install? > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Bruce Campbell > > > To: > > > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM > > > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" > > > > > > > > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520. > > > > > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to. > > > > > > Inquiring Minds Want To Know! > > > > > > Bruce Campbell > > > AC52 N4186B > > > > > > > > > > > > COMMUNICATIONS CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note. The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton, Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is: will remain valid for about three months. All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about three months, the date will be notified. ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 05:40:09 PM PST US From: W J R HAMILTON Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON Ben, Try it on the FAA, in Australia the answer under our Part 21 is yes. And our Part 21 is almost the same as FAR 21. Right now I am providing regulatory assistance to a rebuilder of a Wirraway, an Australian built version of a T-6 predecessor. It will be more than 51% constructed by the owner. It was little more than a heap of tubing. The original aircraft qualified for a normal C of A, but all the rules on parts and materials make it impossible to get a normal cat. C of A. Cheers, Bill Hamilton. At 12:50 10/24/03 -0400, you wrote: >--> Commander-List message posted by: "Ben Baltrusaitis" > >If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into >redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built? >Would having an Aero Commander come under the homebuilt rules restrict >passenger carrying capabilities? >Thanks! >Ben > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bruce Campbell > To: commander-list@matronics.com > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 12:33 PM > Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" > > > STEC has STCs for the 560A, no less. But as miss is as good as a mile in > terms of the FAA. > > Further, STEC can perform a single flight test, apparently, and put in the > paperwork for a new model on their general STC. But... they aren't > interested in doing so unless they feel there is "market" for the result. > > Mind you, if you've got an experimental it's even easier. They send a > set of > development ROMs, the installer has a test pilot fl a series of manuevers, > and a new set of "permanent" roms are sent. So, if you've got a 520 you're > out of luck, but if you're flying an Experimental Exhibition certified > Stidestrander-Chuffington, literally the sky's the limit. > > I love how the FAA protects us all. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tylor Hall" > To: > Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" > > > > > Phil, > > The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin > > Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need > > STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I > have > > several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on > staff. Give > > me a call. > > > > Regards, > > Tylor Hall > > Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc. > > 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO > > 970-731-2127 > > > > > > Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Phil Stubbs" > > > > > > I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time > approval > > for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander > > Aero is exploring the possibilitys. > > Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install? > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Bruce Campbell > > > To: > > > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM > > > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? > > > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" > > > > > > > > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520. > > > > > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to. > > > > > > Inquiring Minds Want To Know! > > > > > > Bruce Campbell > > > AC52 N4186B > > > > > > > > > > > > COMMUNICATIONS CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note. The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton, Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is: will remain valid for about three months. All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about three months, the date will be notified. ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 05:52:57 PM PST US From: W J R HAMILTON Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON Chris, With all due respect, I am not certain it is all so cut and dried, it's more that I don't think the possibilities have been really explored all that often. If an Experimental Amateur Built Certificate was issued, it is unlikely that the Annex operating limitations would really inhibit the aircraft in normal private operations. I don't believe the law precludes such an exercise, as long as all the requirement to prove that 51% of the airframe has been constructed by the owner have been met. It would be well worthwhile talking to EAA, they will be a fount of knowledge on what is really happening out there. Believe me, there are some really interesting aircraft committing aviation. Cheers, Bill Hamilton. At 12:53 10/24/03 -0500, you wrote: >--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann > > >Ben Baltrusaitis wrote: > > If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into > > redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built? > > >Nope - good try though :-) Repair is repair (even though there are some >birds around that probably took more effort to repair than they did to >build) > > Would having > > an Aero Commander come under the homebuilt rules restrict passenger > > carrying capabilities? > >There are a series of "experimental" catagories for production aircraft. > These are what the mfgrs/modifiers use when they're working towards >certification or testing out modifications. (ie: an engine upgrade, >etc). Once a certified aircraft is changed to "experimental", there are >_extreme_ restrictions placed upon it's operation. Depending on what >was done, it may be difficult to ever return it to approved status. > >Chris > > COMMUNICATIONS CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note. The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton, Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is: will remain valid for about three months. All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about three months, the date will be notified. ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:07 PM PST US From: Chris Schuermann Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann W J R HAMILTON wrote: > Chris, > With all due respect, I am not certain it is all so cut and dried, it's > more that I don't think the possibilities have been really explored all > that often. Bill, as with all dealings with the FAA, it's probably more WHO you're dealing with rather than what you're trying to do. I actually went down the convert-certified-bird-to-experimental path quite a ways with several FAA guys here in Oklahoma. The fundamental answer that I came away with was that you could buy a wreck that wasn't even recognizable as an airplane and rebuild and replace every single piece and that it would still be a "repair" project back to a certifed airplane. They differentiated this (as opposed to "homebuilt") by the fact that it was a pre-existing, certified design that the "builder" had no input into. If changes were being made, they told me that it would have to be converted to "experimental R&D" during the modification and testing phase (requiring per-flight waivers) and then could only either go to "experimental exhibition" (still very limited use), or all the changes could be certified as STCs and field approvals to get the CofA back. There's obviously some ill-defined line to be found somewhere though. For example, I think the Breezy (open, tube-frame homebuilt) uses Piper Pacer wings if memory serves. If you started with a Commander airframe, I'm not sure how much "new" you'd have to put in before it would qualify as a homebuilt. Certainly an interesting topic for research though! cheers, Chris ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 06:27:14 PM PST US From: YOURTCFG@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com In a message dated 10/24/2003 5:53:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au writes: > > It would be well worthwhile talking to EAA, they will be a fount of > knowledge on what is really happening out there. > Believe me, there are some really interesting aircraft committing aviation. > I am a relative expert here. I have built an experimental airplane, from salvage parts, and fly it often. It is a Grumman Ag Cat, that is now a three place, open cockpit biplane, on floats. The finished product is an Ag Cat (save the front cockpit and floats) It can be done and I have no onerous restrictions. The operating limmitations are negotiable with each FAA region. It is not easy. I plan to do a 680FP (I already have the donor airframe) It will probably have LS-1 Chevey engines (visit www.v8seabee.com) And lots of trick stuff that would never be "approved" Like moving the presser bulkhead back to the baggage compartment, freonr air, hot water cabin heat, increased presser differential maybe even a sidestick?? All of this and all of the latest in "noncertified" avionics and autopilots. The trouble is, to make it a homebuilt, it will require tons of work that most folks simply wont do. There are other experimental categories, like airshow, exhibition, racing, market research but all carry some restrictions that most of us could not live with, like, "necessary crew members" or "no flight beyond 50 KM from the departure airport" Anyway, I still plan to di this project. The reason I have yet to start is that the local port authority has refused my hangar lease * &%#$@$X4&* $ Stinking government!! jb ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 06:50:21 PM PST US From: W J R HAMILTON Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520? --> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON Chris, Agreed, absolutely. In my experience, "conventional wisdom" dictates an answer to a problem that often has no legal head of power, but who can take on city hall. The answer to that is anybody, if you can afford it, and the potential rewards are worth the investment. So that lets us out here. A case in point, the provisions for the Limited Cat. in FAR 21 stand, but to my knowledge, since the formation of the FAA there has not been one aircraft granted a Limited Cat. C of A. Another is the "interpretation" of the "limiting" stall speed for a FAR23 single engine aircraft, except that the 62 Kt is not a limit at all, even though most people will tell you it is. However, the FAA is a model of consistency compared with our lot here in Australia, where the CASA ( Campaign Against Safe Aviation) motto seems to be "We're not happy until you're unhappy" or alternatively " What can we do to stop you flying today". Cheers all, Bill Hamilton. At 20:21 10/24/03 -0500, you wrote: >--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann > > >W J R HAMILTON wrote: > > Chris, > > With all due respect, I am not certain it is all so cut and dried, it's > > more that I don't think the possibilities have been really explored all > > that often. > >Bill, >as with all dealings with the FAA, it's probably more WHO you're dealing >with rather than what you're trying to do. I actually went down the >convert-certified-bird-to-experimental path quite a ways with several >FAA guys here in Oklahoma. The fundamental answer that I came away with >was that you could buy a wreck that wasn't even recognizable as an >airplane and rebuild and replace every single piece and that it would >still be a "repair" project back to a certifed airplane. They >differentiated this (as opposed to "homebuilt") by the fact that it was >a pre-existing, certified design that the "builder" had no input into. >If changes were being made, they told me that it would have to be >converted to "experimental R&D" during the modification and testing >phase (requiring per-flight waivers) and then could only either go to >"experimental exhibition" (still very limited use), or all the changes >could be certified as STCs and field approvals to get the CofA back. >There's obviously some ill-defined line to be found somewhere though. >For example, I think the Breezy (open, tube-frame homebuilt) uses Piper >Pacer wings if memory serves. If you started with a Commander airframe, >I'm not sure how much "new" you'd have to put in before it would qualify >as a homebuilt. Certainly an interesting topic for research though! > >cheers, >Chris > > COMMUNICATIONS CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note. The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton, Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is: will remain valid for about three months. All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about three months, the date will be notified.