Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:46 AM - Re: Airport access (Cy Galley)
2. 05:01 AM - Re: Airport access (Kirk Smith)
3. 06:44 AM - Re: Airport access (John Hauck)
4. 06:45 AM - Re: plans (Paul Petty)
5. 06:46 AM - FARs (John Hauck)
6. 07:28 AM - Re: Airport access (Jack & Louise Hart)
7. 07:30 AM - Airport access (Kirk Smith)
8. 11:15 AM - UL's and Airport s (Beauford)
9. 12:10 PM - UL's and airports (Bob Bean)
10. 12:24 PM - Re: LandingSpeed #s (GeoR38@aol.com)
11. 12:39 PM - Airport access (Fackler, Ken)
12. 12:46 PM - Re: ps receiving kits (Airgriff2@aol.com)
13. 12:50 PM - Re: UL's and Airport s (Richard Pike)
14. 01:12 PM - Re: UL's and Airport s (Beauford)
15. 01:27 PM - Kolb Flyin (John Hauck)
16. 02:20 PM - Re: Airport access (Beauford)
17. 02:42 PM - Re: Kolb Flyin (Beauford)
18. 04:08 PM - Re: Airport access (Fackler, Ken)
19. 04:19 PM - Re: Airport access (John Hauck)
20. 04:48 PM - Re: Airport access (Jack & Louise Hart)
21. 06:29 PM - Re: Airport access (Kirk Smith)
22. 06:34 PM - Re: Airport access (Jim Baker)
23. 08:51 PM - I Found Engine Cowl Photos :-) (BMWBikeCrz@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airport access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
If you are an EAA member, contact Government Programs at govt@eaa.org They
may be able to help.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fackler, Ken" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Airport access
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Fackler, Ken" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> Dear fellow Kolbers:
>
> There appears to be a strong probability that I may have to sell my Kolb
> Mark II in the near future. The airport where I'm based, Ray Community
> (57D), formerly known as New Haven Macomb (whose motto is "The Friendliest
> Little Airport in Michigan"), appears to be near to banning all ultralight
> operations there. They are in the process now of kicking off a skydiving
> club and this evening I received information that leads me strongly to
> believe that the ultralighters are next. I've been in
> communication/consultation with the airport management to the extent
> possible but it appears that my appeals, suggestions, and arguments are
> falling on deaf ears.
>
> There are no other airports with available hangar space anywhere near me,
so
> this may well force me out of aviation. If any of you have had experience
> with a situation like this, or if you have any suggestions for approaches
> that might forestall this dreadful event, please contact me off-list,
direct
> at:
>
> kfackler@ameritech.net
>
> -Ken Fackler
> Kolb Mark II / A722KWF (for now)
> Rochester MI
>
>
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: Airport access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
Move to Columbiaville........:o)
Do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airport access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> I would think being registered with USUA would meet the requirements of
> being FAA registered.
>
> Richard Pike
I haven't looked at Part 103 in a while, but I don't think
it mentions a requirement for ultralight vehicle registration.
Isn't that a USUA suggestion?
Here's what the Part 103 says:
103.7 Certification and registration.
(a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to
certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment,
ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment
are not required to meet the airworthiness certification
standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of
airworthiness.
(b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman
certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not
required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or
experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have
airman or medical certificates.
(c) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to
registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles
are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any
type.
I think it may be para (b) that gets to most GA type folks:
UL pilots don't have any requirement for any kind of
aviation knowledge or any aviation training of any kind.
Unfortunately, most UL pilots do show a lot of aviation
skills and knowledge, but there are always the few that do
not. Those few are usually the ones that make themselves
best known to the "real" aviators.
This lack of aviation knowledge and skills is sometimes a
carry over from the BFIs and AFIs that have the
responsibility to teach. With no system of check rides and
standardization, the ultralight training program becomes a
closed loop. Therefore, knowledge/skills and lack there of,
remain in the closed loop. I watched this cycle for several
years at Wetumpka Airport, Alabama. One man, a BFI, then a
AFI, did all he possibly could to disrupt normal aviation at
this little airport by his oversized ego, lack of aviation
expertise (even basic "student pilot" type), refusal to
listen to suggestions from many ultralight friendly
experienced aviators, and "know it all" attitude.
Fortunately, after a couple years he slipped away like a
thief in the night, never to show his face in our area again.
john h
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
James,
The damage is right on the end but is two tears in the tube. I posted a
picture to the list so everyone can see. It will be up in a day or so..
pp
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "James and Cathy Tripp" <jtripp@elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: plans
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "James and Cathy Tripp"
<jtripp@elmore.rr.com>
>
> BTW, if the damage is right on the end of the tube and not a couple of
feet
> in, you can bang out the dent and still use it.
>
> James Tripp, FSII, Covering
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kolb-List: plans
>
>
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
> >
> > Thanks James,
> > I was wondering because I figured the plans fell out of the beat up
> shipping tube somewhere along the trail. It looks as if only the Boom tube
> was damaged. I'm going to the hangar this afternoon to mic the other
smaller
> thin wall tubing to see if any of them are damaged. I figure I'll just
haul
> the damaged parts with me to the fly in and get them replaced there. I
> posted a few pictures of the damage on the photo share.
> >
> >
> > pp
> > do not archive
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Folks:
Here's part 103:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfr103_00.html
And here are all the FARs:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfrv2_00.html
john h
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: Airport access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
At 10:28 PM 9/13/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Fackler, Ken" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
>
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
Ken,
There is a jump that may be of help. It is by someone who beat the system and
has offered to help anyone who has your problem.
http://www.usua.org/HotNews/Archives/20010824.html
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
Like the gambler in Kenny Roger's song. Got to know when to hold em, when to fold
em, know when to walk away and know when to run. Ray Community airport is
probably in line to fall like so many others in the Detroit metro area. Heavy
congestion, expansion, building. etc. etc. Ultralights are like big mosquitoes
swarming from that nasty old field that could be put to better use like an
upscale subdivision that could make beaucoup buckoes. Visibility 3 miles and
shrinking at ole snufs landing. ...........
Do not archive
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: | UL's and Airport s |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
Listers:
Am following the access thread with interest...
It is good that they won this one battle with a local airport... but IMHO,
until the UL community comes up with enforceable training and proficiency
standards, it will only be a matter of time until we lose the overall war...
Losing the UL war can come about in several ways... getting thrown off
airports because the local airport management/GA community doesn't like UL's
is only one way we can lose... I think having the feds step in and put the
screws down on UL's because we are killing too many people and showing too
high a dumb-stunt profile is the real long-term threat.
Some anecdotal input:
The little airport where I fly is about 50/50 GA and UL ...there is palpable
hostility between the two camps, and I have to admit that, based on what I
have seen, the GA guys have some legitimate basis for complaints-----
In the past two years, I have knowledge of seven crashes (two fatal) or
other significant damage-producing incidents on the airport... all involving
UL's... I have seen several people with literally zero aviation experience
attempting to teach themselves to fly ... I have seen people flying junk,
cobbled-together UL's, with rusty hardware store bolts in primary
structure and masking tape holding wiring, windshields, open rips and holes
in fabric in important places, etc... I saw a elderly guy with half a tank
of year-old gas mix attempt to fly a Phantom he had bought earlier that day;
It had been sitting out for a year... quit on takeoff twice... he persevered
and after a third attempt he finally coaxed it to sputter around the pattern
at about 200 feet... (that one had an engine out a few days later and ended
up in the scrub trees off the approach end)... Saw another gent accidently
launch himself while practising "fast" taxiing... he also had very little,
very old gas aboard, but his sputtering 503 kept him up for four circuits
and attempted landings where he was all-over the airfield with it, first on
up on one wing, then on the other... We had a guy killed by flying his
trike into the ground while playing in a grab ass circling chase with
another trike less than half a mile off the end of the runway (under
departing traffic)...Another guy stalled and killed himself in his brand new
machine at mid-field after an impossibly steep climbout attempt (he had less
than 8 hours experience)... Had another ace, who owns a Drifter, get
himself a 15 minute BFI "checkout" in one of those slick A-20
Ukranian-built jobs... Following his first solo takeoff, he flew around in
panic for about 20 more minutes holding the stick forward with all his
might... It finally got away from him and he stalled and crashed it on short
final (same busy trees that ate the Phantom mentioned earlier)... Airplane
was a total loss, but he crawled away... Seems the A-20 had one of those
new-fangled items called an elevator trim tab, and it was set full nose-up
because the BFI left it that way when he climbed out of the airplane ...
During the "checkout" the subject of trim somehow never seemed to come up...
Standards?
.. The "instructors" here seem to have one incident after another... BFI
off-airport landings seem to be a new fad... Really unpredictible act-of-God
things like no oil in the injection tank...running out of gas 15 minutes
after take-off... Exciting stuff.
Several of us stood and watched one of them doing touch and gos with a
student in his Skyboy trainer a few months ago. It was so obviously
overloaded and hanging on the edge of a stall all the way around the pattern
that we were sure he was going in... the elevators were up at what appeared
to be a 45 degree angle all the way around the circuit time after time...it
stayed in ground effect for a good thousand feet each takeoff before it
would stagger away...elevators way up against the stop, nose oscillating up
and down...skidding first one way then the other...he could never coax it
above about half normal pattern altitude on downwind...The Rotax was going
full-bore all the way around... This is a USUA certified instructor, busily
showing a neophyte UL pilot how it is supposed to be done....
In short, it looks to me as if the local BFI/AFI situation here is pretty
much the same closed loop Brother Hauck described up at his airfield... I
think his analysis is sound.
I could go on about items like the free-for-all traffic pattern, with
no-radio individuals arriving at all altitudes, from all points of the
compass... and departing in the same fashion....About oblivious individuals
pulling onto the active in front of traffic on short final... etc.. and I'd
be the first to admit that I've seen GA pilots pulling dumb stunts around
there too, but the truth is that the UL crew I am observing around that
airstrip is far and away the most frequent and blatant offenders.
The majority of the UL drivers on the airport seem to be knowledgable,
competent, rule-following operators, but unfortunately they aren't the guys
who get noticed... There are enough of the poorly trained ones who either
don't know better, or don't care, to ruin the situation for everyone
concerned... I have, on two separate occasions, witnessed rants by angry GA
guys who stormed into the FBO office after encounters with non-compliant
UL's doing weird, unexpected activities in the pattern... No telling how
many complaints have been lodged in total. One of these days, I fully
expect for the UL's to be invited to leave the airport... and I don't think
this privately-owned airport gets any government funding, so we'd just be
out of luck....Quite honestly, given the circus I have seen put on by the
UL crowd down there, I am surprised that the airport owners haven't elected
to cut their considerable liability risk by simply removing the UL problem
altogether.
Anyway... I am a big supporter of the UL movement and keenly appreciate our
freedom from the big-brother, heavy-handed oversight that characterizes the
GA environment... But I personally think that the UL community needs to
clean up its act, or we will all surely pay the price when the act gets
cleaned up for us... Aviation is rightfully thought of as right serious
business, particularly around common-use airports... I think the larger GA
community, right or wrong, has a tendency to see the UL community as not
completely buying into that idea yet. Unfortunately, I believe we are
playing into their hands with our lack of enforceable standards and
proficiency. Some of the UL guys I talk with seem to live in mortal fear of
actually having to undergo formal training of any sort... Regulators just
love to fill vacuums.
Fighting the airport access fight, one airport at a time, will solve only a
part of the problem... IMHO we have a lot of internal work to do...
Rant over (click)
Worth what ye paid fer it...
Beauford
FF#076
Brandon FL
Original Message -----
From: "Jack & Louise Hart" <jbhart@ldd.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Airport access
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
>
> At 10:28 PM 9/13/03 -0400, you wrote:
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Fackler, Ken" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
> >
> >DO NOT ARCHIVE
> >
> Ken,
>
> There is a jump that may be of help. It is by someone who beat the system
and has offered to help anyone who has your problem.
>
> http://www.usua.org/HotNews/Archives/20010824.html
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Jackson, MO
>
>
> Jack & Louise Hart
> jbhart@ldd.net
>
>
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: | UL's and airports |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
Unbelieveable stuff Beauford, any airport I ever parked at it was one
warning, second
time you're out. Being personally guilty one time myself, I got the uh
uh, finger-wag from
the guy in charge. I respected him immensely and reformed my ways....and
he himself
was full of gleeful shenanigans., a former P-47 driver and excellent
heavy iron instructor.
I certainly continued to enjoy lots of low level stuff, pylon turns
around inanimate
objects, etc, but always observed strict protocol in the pattern. -BB
do not archive
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: LandingSpeed #s |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: GeoR38@aol.com
In a message dated 9/13/03 5:55:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rwpike@charter.net writes:
>
> No, I try not to vary my technique any. No matter if I have 500' or 5,000'
> or runway, I try to shoot every approach the same - steep, 60 mph and full
> flaps at idle power aimed at a point just prior to the runway, (or where I
> imagine the runway threshold to be) then start to round out the steep
> descent at the threshold, 8 feet up with airspeed approx 50 crossing the
> threshold, and plan to touch down at approx 35 after 100-150' of float down
> the runway.
> Since I only have one technique, I don't have to try and remember any
> variations. I have one technique and I practice it consistently.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
to this I merely say....Hear, hear!!! Change the 60 to 55 and add 45 degree
drop after the power and telephone lines which are immediately before the
strip.......
Sounds almost exactly the way I land my KX...and I don't have an uphill
touchdown....but I do take up a lot of runway...about 750Ft
George Randolph
'Firestar driver experiencing 7 bent gears, 3 of which have been
restraightened to no particular detriment!...but none since using the approach
identified
above
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Fackler, Ken" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
do not archive
You make very valid points, Beauford, as did John, and I agree with you that
ultralighters who behave as you describe deserve what they get and are
likely to cause problems for everyone.
There are 10 active ultralights at my field, and there's only one
knucklehead, a trike driver. Not one of the others is, to my knowledge,
guilty of doing boneheaded stunts such as you describe. In fact, we all try
to be the shining example of how to handle both in-flight and ground
protocol. And we spend minimal time in the pattern, exiting and entering as
quickly as we can and going elsewhere to do our flying. Yet there are Pitts
pilots doing aerobatics directly over the field, Skymasters who make high
speed low passes at sunset pulling up into barrel rolls and chondelles,
C182s who park (yes, park) on active taxiways, Bonanzas cutting across and
under the pattern at high speed, and all manner of other silliness.
I should also have stated in my first post that registering my Kolb as an
experimental isn't an option for me. I can't obtain a third class medical
due to diabetes. Many of you have suggested registration as one avenue to
fight back, and I wish it were one I could use, but I'm afraid there's no
cure for me.
-Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: UL's and Airport s
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>
> Listers:
> Am following the access thread with interest...
>
> It is good that they won this one battle with a local airport... but IMHO,
> until the UL community comes up with enforceable training and proficiency
> standards, it will only be a matter of time until we lose the overall
war...
> Losing the UL war can come about in several ways... getting thrown off
> airports because the local airport management/GA community doesn't like
UL's
> is only one way we can lose... I think having the feds step in and put the
> screws down on UL's because we are killing too many people and showing too
> high a dumb-stunt profile is the real long-term threat.
>
>
> Some anecdotal input:
>
> The little airport where I fly is about 50/50 GA and UL ...there is
palpable
> hostility between the two camps, and I have to admit that, based on what I
> have seen, the GA guys have some legitimate basis for complaints-----
>
> In the past two years, I have knowledge of seven crashes (two fatal) or
> other significant damage-producing incidents on the airport... all
involving
> UL's... I have seen several people with literally zero aviation experience
> attempting to teach themselves to fly ... I have seen people flying junk,
> cobbled-together UL's, with rusty hardware store bolts in primary
> structure and masking tape holding wiring, windshields, open rips and
holes
> in fabric in important places, etc... I saw a elderly guy with half a tank
> of year-old gas mix attempt to fly a Phantom he had bought earlier that
day;
> It had been sitting out for a year... quit on takeoff twice... he
persevered
> and after a third attempt he finally coaxed it to sputter around the
pattern
> at about 200 feet... (that one had an engine out a few days later and
ended
> up in the scrub trees off the approach end)... Saw another gent accidently
> launch himself while practising "fast" taxiing... he also had very little,
> very old gas aboard, but his sputtering 503 kept him up for four circuits
> and attempted landings where he was all-over the airfield with it, first
on
> up on one wing, then on the other... We had a guy killed by flying his
> trike into the ground while playing in a grab ass circling chase with
> another trike less than half a mile off the end of the runway (under
> departing traffic)...Another guy stalled and killed himself in his brand
new
> machine at mid-field after an impossibly steep climbout attempt (he had
less
> than 8 hours experience)... Had another ace, who owns a Drifter, get
> himself a 15 minute BFI "checkout" in one of those slick A-20
> Ukranian-built jobs... Following his first solo takeoff, he flew around in
> panic for about 20 more minutes holding the stick forward with all his
> might... It finally got away from him and he stalled and crashed it on
short
> final (same busy trees that ate the Phantom mentioned earlier)... Airplane
> was a total loss, but he crawled away... Seems the A-20 had one of those
> new-fangled items called an elevator trim tab, and it was set full nose-up
> because the BFI left it that way when he climbed out of the airplane ...
> During the "checkout" the subject of trim somehow never seemed to come
up...
> Standards?
>
> .. The "instructors" here seem to have one incident after another... BFI
> off-airport landings seem to be a new fad... Really unpredictible
act-of-God
> things like no oil in the injection tank...running out of gas 15 minutes
> after take-off... Exciting stuff.
>
> Several of us stood and watched one of them doing touch and gos with a
> student in his Skyboy trainer a few months ago. It was so obviously
> overloaded and hanging on the edge of a stall all the way around the
pattern
> that we were sure he was going in... the elevators were up at what
appeared
> to be a 45 degree angle all the way around the circuit time after
time...it
> stayed in ground effect for a good thousand feet each takeoff before it
> would stagger away...elevators way up against the stop, nose oscillating
up
> and down...skidding first one way then the other...he could never coax it
> above about half normal pattern altitude on downwind...The Rotax was going
> full-bore all the way around... This is a USUA certified instructor,
busily
> showing a neophyte UL pilot how it is supposed to be done....
>
> In short, it looks to me as if the local BFI/AFI situation here is pretty
> much the same closed loop Brother Hauck described up at his airfield... I
> think his analysis is sound.
>
> I could go on about items like the free-for-all traffic pattern, with
> no-radio individuals arriving at all altitudes, from all points of the
> compass... and departing in the same fashion....About oblivious
individuals
> pulling onto the active in front of traffic on short final... etc.. and
I'd
> be the first to admit that I've seen GA pilots pulling dumb stunts around
> there too, but the truth is that the UL crew I am observing around that
> airstrip is far and away the most frequent and blatant offenders.
>
> The majority of the UL drivers on the airport seem to be knowledgable,
> competent, rule-following operators, but unfortunately they aren't the
guys
> who get noticed... There are enough of the poorly trained ones who either
> don't know better, or don't care, to ruin the situation for everyone
> concerned... I have, on two separate occasions, witnessed rants by angry
GA
> guys who stormed into the FBO office after encounters with non-compliant
> UL's doing weird, unexpected activities in the pattern... No telling how
> many complaints have been lodged in total. One of these days, I fully
> expect for the UL's to be invited to leave the airport... and I don't
think
> this privately-owned airport gets any government funding, so we'd just be
> out of luck....Quite honestly, given the circus I have seen put on by the
> UL crowd down there, I am surprised that the airport owners haven't
elected
> to cut their considerable liability risk by simply removing the UL problem
> altogether.
>
> Anyway... I am a big supporter of the UL movement and keenly appreciate
our
> freedom from the big-brother, heavy-handed oversight that characterizes
the
> GA environment... But I personally think that the UL community needs to
> clean up its act, or we will all surely pay the price when the act gets
> cleaned up for us... Aviation is rightfully thought of as right serious
> business, particularly around common-use airports... I think the larger GA
> community, right or wrong, has a tendency to see the UL community as not
> completely buying into that idea yet. Unfortunately, I believe we are
> playing into their hands with our lack of enforceable standards and
> proficiency. Some of the UL guys I talk with seem to live in mortal fear
of
> actually having to undergo formal training of any sort... Regulators just
> love to fill vacuums.
>
> Fighting the airport access fight, one airport at a time, will solve only
a
> part of the problem... IMHO we have a lot of internal work to do...
>
> Rant over (click)
>
> Worth what ye paid fer it...
> Beauford
> FF#076
> Brandon FL
>
>
> Original Message -----
> From: "Jack & Louise Hart" <jbhart@ldd.net>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Airport access
>
>
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
> >
> > At 10:28 PM 9/13/03 -0400, you wrote:
> > >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Fackler, Ken"
<kfackler@ameritech.net>
> > >
> > >DO NOT ARCHIVE
> > >
> > Ken,
> >
> > There is a jump that may be of help. It is by someone who beat the
system
> and has offered to help anyone who has your problem.
> >
> > http://www.usua.org/HotNews/Archives/20010824.html
> >
> > Jack B. Hart FF004
> > Jackson, MO
> >
> >
> > Jack & Louise Hart
> > jbhart@ldd.net
> >
> >
>
>
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: ps receiving kits |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Airgriff2@aol.com
Paul, Be careful when receiveing shipments from trucking companies. I think
the usuaual procedure is to visually inspect the shipment when it arrives in
front of the driver. At least make a note on the shipping papers that it was
received in poor condition & possible conceiled damage. They did'nt pick the
tubes up from TNK like that most likely?
Bob Griffin
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: UL's and Airport s |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
With your permission, this will be the feature article in our next EAA
chapter newsletter. I have seldom heard it said better or more persuasively.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
do not archive
At 02:20 PM 9/14/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>
>Listers:
>Am following the access thread with interest...
>
>It is good that they won this one battle with a local airport... but IMHO,
>until the UL community comes up with enforceable training and proficiency
>standards, it will only be a matter of time until we lose the overall war...
>Losing the UL war can come about in several ways... getting thrown off
>airports because the local airport management/GA community doesn't like UL's
>is only one way we can lose... I think having the feds step in and put the
>screws down on UL's because we are killing too many people and showing too
>high a dumb-stunt profile is the real long-term threat.
>
>
>Some anecdotal input: <snip>
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: UL's and Airport s |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
Reverend:
You flatter me, Sir...
I am humbled that you think it worth anything... please use it any way you
wish...
Regards,
Beauford
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <rwpike@charter.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UL's and Airport s
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
>
> With your permission, this will be the feature article in our next EAA
> chapter newsletter. I have seldom heard it said better or more
persuasively.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> do not archive
>
>
> At 02:20 PM 9/14/03 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
> >
> >
> >Listers:
> >Am following the access thread with interest...
> >
> >It is good that they won this one battle with a local airport... but
IMHO,
> >until the UL community comes up with enforceable training and proficiency
> >standards, it will only be a matter of time until we lose the overall
war...
> >Losing the UL war can come about in several ways... getting thrown off
> >airports because the local airport management/GA community doesn't like
UL's
> >is only one way we can lose... I think having the feds step in and put
the
> >screws down on UL's because we are killing too many people and showing
too
> >high a dumb-stunt profile is the real long-term threat.
> >
> >
> >Some anecdotal input: <snip>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Beauford/All:
I don't think I have seen you post your intentions for the
Annual Kolb Flyin.
Hope you make it again this year.
Also doing a little CAVU dance for the week following the
predicted hurricane. Don't want to get interfered with by a
hurricane and cruddy weather.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Airport access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
Ken:
I totally agree with you that the relatively few bad UL drivers I mentioned
have no monopoly on stupid stunts or lack of consideration for other
aviators... Don't forget, you're talking to a guy who witnessed a goon
wearing Gucci sandals and ten pounds of gold chains dead-stick an
out-of-fuel twin engine turboprop onto the taxiway of a grass strip into the
teeth of departing takeoff traffic...... Clearly, testosterone-sodden
egomania, bad judgement and poor technical proficiency do not permanently
vanish with the injection of an FAA pilot's license (or a lot of money) into
one's wallet...
That said, however, I believe the "look, some of them do stupid things too"
argument is an attractive trap we cannot let ourselves fall into... Like it
or not, we in the UL community are on the "double secret probation" that
Dean Wormer immortalized in Animal House.... The fairness of that probation
makes for interesting debate, but has little practical effect on the
eventual outcome if we fail to get a handle on the UL standards and
proficiency issue... The highly visible nature of UL operations in small
airport environments, leveraged by the fact that there is a ton of money
plus most of the entrenched governmental bureaucracy on the other side, all
work against us. I think we are vulnerable; I believe there are
substantial interests that want unregulated UL's out of the public
airport/airspace picture, and if we let it (Part 103) slip away, we are
unlikely to get the freedom-related portions of it back. I kinda like most
of 103....
Whaddya think?
Beauford
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fackler, Ken" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Airport access
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Fackler, Ken" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
>
> do not archive
>
> You make very valid points, Beauford, as did John, and I agree with you
that
> ultralighters who behave as you describe deserve what they get and are
> likely to cause problems for everyone.
>
> There are 10 active ultralights at my field, and there's only one
> knucklehead, a trike driver. Not one of the others is, to my knowledge,
> guilty of doing boneheaded stunts such as you describe. In fact, we all
try
> to be the shining example of how to handle both in-flight and ground
> protocol. And we spend minimal time in the pattern, exiting and entering
as
> quickly as we can and going elsewhere to do our flying. Yet there are
Pitts
> pilots doing aerobatics directly over the field, Skymasters who make high
> speed low passes at sunset pulling up into barrel rolls and chondelles,
> C182s who park (yes, park) on active taxiways, Bonanzas cutting across and
> under the pattern at high speed, and all manner of other silliness.
>
> I should also have stated in my first post that registering my Kolb as an
> experimental isn't an option for me. I can't obtain a third class medical
> due to diabetes. Many of you have suggested registration as one avenue to
> fight back, and I wish it were one I could use, but I'm afraid there's no
> cure for me.
>
> -Ken
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kolb-List: UL's and Airport s
>
>
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
> >
> >
> > Listers:
> > Am following the access thread with interest...
> >
> > It is good that they won this one battle with a local airport... but
IMHO,
> > until the UL community comes up with enforceable training and
proficiency
> > standards, it will only be a matter of time until we lose the overall
> war...
> > Losing the UL war can come about in several ways... getting thrown off
> > airports because the local airport management/GA community doesn't like
> UL's
> > is only one way we can lose... I think having the feds step in and put
the
> > screws down on UL's because we are killing too many people and showing
too
> > high a dumb-stunt profile is the real long-term threat.
> >
> >
> > Some anecdotal input:
> >
> > The little airport where I fly is about 50/50 GA and UL ...there is
> palpable
> > hostility between the two camps, and I have to admit that, based on what
I
> > have seen, the GA guys have some legitimate basis for complaints-----
> >
> > In the past two years, I have knowledge of seven crashes (two fatal) or
> > other significant damage-producing incidents on the airport... all
> involving
> > UL's... I have seen several people with literally zero aviation
experience
> > attempting to teach themselves to fly ... I have seen people flying
junk,
> > cobbled-together UL's, with rusty hardware store bolts in primary
> > structure and masking tape holding wiring, windshields, open rips and
> holes
> > in fabric in important places, etc... I saw a elderly guy with half a
tank
> > of year-old gas mix attempt to fly a Phantom he had bought earlier that
> day;
> > It had been sitting out for a year... quit on takeoff twice... he
> persevered
> > and after a third attempt he finally coaxed it to sputter around the
> pattern
> > at about 200 feet... (that one had an engine out a few days later and
> ended
> > up in the scrub trees off the approach end)... Saw another gent
accidently
> > launch himself while practising "fast" taxiing... he also had very
little,
> > very old gas aboard, but his sputtering 503 kept him up for four
circuits
> > and attempted landings where he was all-over the airfield with it, first
> on
> > up on one wing, then on the other... We had a guy killed by flying his
> > trike into the ground while playing in a grab ass circling chase with
> > another trike less than half a mile off the end of the runway (under
> > departing traffic)...Another guy stalled and killed himself in his brand
> new
> > machine at mid-field after an impossibly steep climbout attempt (he had
> less
> > than 8 hours experience)... Had another ace, who owns a Drifter, get
> > himself a 15 minute BFI "checkout" in one of those slick A-20
> > Ukranian-built jobs... Following his first solo takeoff, he flew around
in
> > panic for about 20 more minutes holding the stick forward with all his
> > might... It finally got away from him and he stalled and crashed it on
> short
> > final (same busy trees that ate the Phantom mentioned earlier)...
Airplane
> > was a total loss, but he crawled away... Seems the A-20 had one of
those
> > new-fangled items called an elevator trim tab, and it was set full
nose-up
> > because the BFI left it that way when he climbed out of the airplane ...
> > During the "checkout" the subject of trim somehow never seemed to come
> up...
> > Standards?
> >
> > .. The "instructors" here seem to have one incident after another...
BFI
> > off-airport landings seem to be a new fad... Really unpredictible
> act-of-God
> > things like no oil in the injection tank...running out of gas 15 minutes
> > after take-off... Exciting stuff.
> >
> > Several of us stood and watched one of them doing touch and gos with a
> > student in his Skyboy trainer a few months ago. It was so obviously
> > overloaded and hanging on the edge of a stall all the way around the
> pattern
> > that we were sure he was going in... the elevators were up at what
> appeared
> > to be a 45 degree angle all the way around the circuit time after
> time...it
> > stayed in ground effect for a good thousand feet each takeoff before it
> > would stagger away...elevators way up against the stop, nose oscillating
> up
> > and down...skidding first one way then the other...he could never coax
it
> > above about half normal pattern altitude on downwind...The Rotax was
going
> > full-bore all the way around... This is a USUA certified instructor,
> busily
> > showing a neophyte UL pilot how it is supposed to be done....
> >
> > In short, it looks to me as if the local BFI/AFI situation here is
pretty
> > much the same closed loop Brother Hauck described up at his airfield...
I
> > think his analysis is sound.
> >
> > I could go on about items like the free-for-all traffic pattern, with
> > no-radio individuals arriving at all altitudes, from all points of the
> > compass... and departing in the same fashion....About oblivious
> individuals
> > pulling onto the active in front of traffic on short final... etc.. and
> I'd
> > be the first to admit that I've seen GA pilots pulling dumb stunts
around
> > there too, but the truth is that the UL crew I am observing around that
> > airstrip is far and away the most frequent and blatant offenders.
> >
> > The majority of the UL drivers on the airport seem to be knowledgable,
> > competent, rule-following operators, but unfortunately they aren't the
> guys
> > who get noticed... There are enough of the poorly trained ones who
either
> > don't know better, or don't care, to ruin the situation for everyone
> > concerned... I have, on two separate occasions, witnessed rants by
angry
> GA
> > guys who stormed into the FBO office after encounters with non-compliant
> > UL's doing weird, unexpected activities in the pattern... No telling how
> > many complaints have been lodged in total. One of these days, I fully
> > expect for the UL's to be invited to leave the airport... and I don't
> think
> > this privately-owned airport gets any government funding, so we'd just
be
> > out of luck....Quite honestly, given the circus I have seen put on by
the
> > UL crowd down there, I am surprised that the airport owners haven't
> elected
> > to cut their considerable liability risk by simply removing the UL
problem
> > altogether.
> >
> > Anyway... I am a big supporter of the UL movement and keenly appreciate
> our
> > freedom from the big-brother, heavy-handed oversight that characterizes
> the
> > GA environment... But I personally think that the UL community needs to
> > clean up its act, or we will all surely pay the price when the act gets
> > cleaned up for us... Aviation is rightfully thought of as right
serious
> > business, particularly around common-use airports... I think the larger
GA
> > community, right or wrong, has a tendency to see the UL community as not
> > completely buying into that idea yet. Unfortunately, I believe we are
> > playing into their hands with our lack of enforceable standards and
> > proficiency. Some of the UL guys I talk with seem to live in mortal
fear
> of
> > actually having to undergo formal training of any sort... Regulators
just
> > love to fill vacuums.
> >
> > Fighting the airport access fight, one airport at a time, will solve
only
> a
> > part of the problem... IMHO we have a lot of internal work to do...
> >
> > Rant over (click)
> >
> > Worth what ye paid fer it...
> > Beauford
> > FF#076
> > Brandon FL
> >
> >
> > Original Message -----
> > From: "Jack & Louise Hart" <jbhart@ldd.net>
> > To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Airport access
> >
> >
> > > --> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
> > >
> > > At 10:28 PM 9/13/03 -0400, you wrote:
> > > >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Fackler, Ken"
> <kfackler@ameritech.net>
> > > >
> > > >DO NOT ARCHIVE
> > > >
> > > Ken,
> > >
> > > There is a jump that may be of help. It is by someone who beat the
> system
> > and has offered to help anyone who has your problem.
> > >
> > > http://www.usua.org/HotNews/Archives/20010824.html
> > >
> > > Jack B. Hart FF004
> > > Jackson, MO
> > >
> > >
> > > Jack & Louise Hart
> > > jbhart@ldd.net
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
John:
Unfortunately, gotta work... business is a tad too good right now...
Sure would like to go. Mebbe next year... Hope y'all have a fine old time
up there... I have a child-like faith that the storm will miss London...
Take lots of pictures for me to look at...
The airstrip finally dried out enough to fly some yesterday... And the 447
reluctantly started after 8 weeks of sitting in the mudhole. Did nothing
but shoot touch and go's for an hour or so as fast as I could fly tight
patterns... Had the strip to myself... one good rain shower hanging
stationary out over the Bay Bridge... nice cool cloud shade over the
airport... grass was fresh-cut... smelled good... only picked up 2 or 3 lbs.
of love-bugs.... Have determined through empirical testing that Love-bugs
are the only insect the FireFly is actually capable of smashing...evidently
they are of substandard construction. The airplane just pushes all the
others aside without hurting them unless they are unfortunate enough to go
through the prop or into my mouth...(I fly with it open) Far as I know,
nothing of significance came off the airplane.... It appears reusable.
One observation; those VG's really do make a difference, especially with the
big 'ol ailerons drooped all the way... It has noticably more bouyancy in
the power-off flare... it used to just drop right on through like a bowling
ball... now it actually tries to float a tad in ground effect... I am
moderately encouraged. May not go on the diet after all.
Have a great trip to Kentucky, Sir... Be thou exceedingly cautious.
Regards,
Beauford
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb Flyin
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
> Beauford/All:
>
> I don't think I have seen you post your intentions for the
> Annual Kolb Flyin.
>
> Hope you make it again this year.
>
> Also doing a little CAVU dance for the week following the
> predicted hurricane. Don't want to get interfered with by a
> hurricane and cruddy weather.
>
> john h
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
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: Airport access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Fackler, Ken" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
I couldn't agree more, Beauford! My own "finger pointing" is just my
frustration showing, and I'm well aware it won't boil any parsnips, or make
any friends either!
I think 103 is mostly okay but if it continues to allow dummies to get
themselves nominated for Darwin Awards, it's very likely going to affect
some of us who just want to fly, safely and without hassles. I don't pretend
to have the wisdom to know what the answer is, and just trying to keep my
own flight status as "active" will be enough of a fight for me! If I can't
win on principle (or luck), then I'm grounded. I don't have the money to
pursue it, not legally, not for long. (Of course, I'm not the only guy in
this perforated rowboat, but you get my point.)
The problem has another element, though, that I'd like to mention just for
the sake of argument but without meaning to be argumentative, if you get my
drift, to wit: If we all agree that GA has an abundance of stupid pilots
doing stupid things AND they already have all the regulation, inspection,
certification, etc. that we're discussing, what makes anyone think that
doing the same thing will fix ultralighters? The training they give GA
pilots doesn't seem to have any ability to weed out fools.
I recently had a GA pilot railing to me that ultralighters don't have the
same training as GA and therefore shouldn't be allowed to fly. I asked him,
"Which is better? Ten hours of really good training, or fifty hours of bad
training?" No answer. Moreover, and I speak as a person who makes a living
in the business of education, just because a person manages to get through a
class, course, training session, degree program, etc., doesn't guarantee
squat. I know many people, and I'm sure you do too, who are "educated" or
"trained" in any number of things, including aviation, who nevertheless lack
skill at the topic in question. (Of course, there are significant
implications about the process of education and training involved here, too,
but that's another forum, hey?) The only reasonable measurement of
"qualifications" should be performance. We come close to this with the BFR,
at least in its intent, but again, I hear stories all the time about the "60
second check ride." Just yesterday I heard one of the GA pilots at my
airport who was -bragging- about the fact that he hasn't had a real BFR in
over ten years. He just goes to the examiner (a personal friend and the one
who taught him how to fly) and says, "Sign here." BFR done.
If there were a consistent, objective way for pilots to demonstrate their
skill at handling an aircraft, one that could be used by all levels of
pilots and all types of aircraft within the sport flying community, I would
be soooooo in support of it. (I do think that anyone doing flying for hire,
particularly pasengers, should be held to a higher standard.) But some of
the most highly skilled pilots I've met were still guilty of doing dumb
things with that skill, such as spiraling down via a spin(!) to enter the
pattern, an experience I had while riding with a CFI, and one I hope never
to repeat. Interestingly enough, that chap has been "invited to leave" our
airport, but NOT for his flying antics, rather for authorizing a repair on a
rental plane at the wrong facility!
For my short-term problem of maintaining a place to fly, I'd be willing to
sign up for almost any "program." But long term, I don't believe more
regulation up front is the answer. Rather, I think more stringent
"punishment" for violations would get better results. But that begs the
whole question of monitoring, not to mention Quis custodiet ipsos
custodient? (Who will guard the guardians?) Well, like I said earlier, I
don't have the wisdom for this kind of thing. I don't break the rules, I fly
safely, and I do everything possible to minimize even the hint of
interfering with GA, and I just want to continue to do that.
Isn't it funny, as in ironic? With the exception of 4 men, three are the
CFIs and one is a repairman, there's NO ONE at this airport making a living
from aviation. It's all JUST a hobby, recreation, social activity. I'm sure
most airports where there are ultralights and/or experimentals are the same.
So why is everyone so geeked up, so emotional, so incredibly polarized on
this issue? If our mutual hobby was boating, or horseback riding, would this
still be happening? I dunno.
-Ken
do not archive (Please! It's all just hot air.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Airport access
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
>
> Ken:
> I totally agree with you that the relatively few bad UL drivers I
mentioned
> have no monopoly on stupid stunts or lack of consideration for other
> aviators... Don't forget, you're talking to a guy who witnessed a goon
> wearing Gucci sandals and ten pounds of gold chains dead-stick an
> out-of-fuel twin engine turboprop onto the taxiway of a grass strip into
the
> teeth of departing takeoff traffic...... Clearly, testosterone-sodden
> egomania, bad judgement and poor technical proficiency do not permanently
> vanish with the injection of an FAA pilot's license (or a lot of money)
into
> one's wallet...
>
> That said, however, I believe the "look, some of them do stupid things
too"
> argument is an attractive trap we cannot let ourselves fall into... Like
it
> or not, we in the UL community are on the "double secret probation" that
> Dean Wormer immortalized in Animal House.... The fairness of that
probation
> makes for interesting debate, but has little practical effect on the
> eventual outcome if we fail to get a handle on the UL standards and
> proficiency issue... The highly visible nature of UL operations in small
> airport environments, leveraged by the fact that there is a ton of money
> plus most of the entrenched governmental bureaucracy on the other side,
all
> work against us. I think we are vulnerable; I believe there are
> substantial interests that want unregulated UL's out of the public
> airport/airspace picture, and if we let it (Part 103) slip away, we are
> unlikely to get the freedom-related portions of it back. I kinda like
most
> of 103....
>
> Whaddya think?
> Beauford
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fackler, Ken" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Airport access
>
>
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Fackler, Ken" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> > You make very valid points, Beauford, as did John, and I agree with you
> that
> > ultralighters who behave as you describe deserve what they get and are
> > likely to cause problems for everyone.
> >
> > There are 10 active ultralights at my field, and there's only one
> > knucklehead, a trike driver. Not one of the others is, to my knowledge,
> > guilty of doing boneheaded stunts such as you describe. In fact, we all
> try
> > to be the shining example of how to handle both in-flight and ground
> > protocol. And we spend minimal time in the pattern, exiting and entering
> as
> > quickly as we can and going elsewhere to do our flying. Yet there are
> Pitts
> > pilots doing aerobatics directly over the field, Skymasters who make
high
> > speed low passes at sunset pulling up into barrel rolls and chondelles,
> > C182s who park (yes, park) on active taxiways, Bonanzas cutting across
and
> > under the pattern at high speed, and all manner of other silliness.
> >
> > I should also have stated in my first post that registering my Kolb as
an
> > experimental isn't an option for me. I can't obtain a third class
medical
> > due to diabetes. Many of you have suggested registration as one avenue
to
> > fight back, and I wish it were one I could use, but I'm afraid there's
no
> > cure for me.
> >
> > -Ken
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
> > To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Kolb-List: UL's and Airport s
> >
> >
> > > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > Listers:
> > > Am following the access thread with interest...
> > >
> > > It is good that they won this one battle with a local airport... but
> IMHO,
> > > until the UL community comes up with enforceable training and
> proficiency
> > > standards, it will only be a matter of time until we lose the overall
> > war...
> > > Losing the UL war can come about in several ways... getting thrown off
> > > airports because the local airport management/GA community doesn't
like
> > UL's
> > > is only one way we can lose... I think having the feds step in and put
> the
> > > screws down on UL's because we are killing too many people and showing
> too
> > > high a dumb-stunt profile is the real long-term threat.
> > >
> > >
> > > Some anecdotal input:
> > >
> > > The little airport where I fly is about 50/50 GA and UL ...there is
> > palpable
> > > hostility between the two camps, and I have to admit that, based on
what
> I
> > > have seen, the GA guys have some legitimate basis for complaints-----
> > >
> > > In the past two years, I have knowledge of seven crashes (two fatal)
or
> > > other significant damage-producing incidents on the airport... all
> > involving
> > > UL's... I have seen several people with literally zero aviation
> experience
> > > attempting to teach themselves to fly ... I have seen people flying
> junk,
> > > cobbled-together UL's, with rusty hardware store bolts in primary
> > > structure and masking tape holding wiring, windshields, open rips and
> > holes
> > > in fabric in important places, etc... I saw a elderly guy with half a
> tank
> > > of year-old gas mix attempt to fly a Phantom he had bought earlier
that
> > day;
> > > It had been sitting out for a year... quit on takeoff twice... he
> > persevered
> > > and after a third attempt he finally coaxed it to sputter around the
> > pattern
> > > at about 200 feet... (that one had an engine out a few days later and
> > ended
> > > up in the scrub trees off the approach end)... Saw another gent
> accidently
> > > launch himself while practising "fast" taxiing... he also had very
> little,
> > > very old gas aboard, but his sputtering 503 kept him up for four
> circuits
> > > and attempted landings where he was all-over the airfield with it,
first
> > on
> > > up on one wing, then on the other... We had a guy killed by flying
his
> > > trike into the ground while playing in a grab ass circling chase with
> > > another trike less than half a mile off the end of the runway (under
> > > departing traffic)...Another guy stalled and killed himself in his
brand
> > new
> > > machine at mid-field after an impossibly steep climbout attempt (he
had
> > less
> > > than 8 hours experience)... Had another ace, who owns a Drifter, get
> > > himself a 15 minute BFI "checkout" in one of those slick A-20
> > > Ukranian-built jobs... Following his first solo takeoff, he flew
around
> in
> > > panic for about 20 more minutes holding the stick forward with all his
> > > might... It finally got away from him and he stalled and crashed it on
> > short
> > > final (same busy trees that ate the Phantom mentioned earlier)...
> Airplane
> > > was a total loss, but he crawled away... Seems the A-20 had one of
> those
> > > new-fangled items called an elevator trim tab, and it was set full
> nose-up
> > > because the BFI left it that way when he climbed out of the airplane
...
> > > During the "checkout" the subject of trim somehow never seemed to come
> > up...
> > > Standards?
> > >
> > > .. The "instructors" here seem to have one incident after another...
> BFI
> > > off-airport landings seem to be a new fad... Really unpredictible
> > act-of-God
> > > things like no oil in the injection tank...running out of gas 15
minutes
> > > after take-off... Exciting stuff.
> > >
> > > Several of us stood and watched one of them doing touch and gos with a
> > > student in his Skyboy trainer a few months ago. It was so obviously
> > > overloaded and hanging on the edge of a stall all the way around the
> > pattern
> > > that we were sure he was going in... the elevators were up at what
> > appeared
> > > to be a 45 degree angle all the way around the circuit time after
> > time...it
> > > stayed in ground effect for a good thousand feet each takeoff before
it
> > > would stagger away...elevators way up against the stop, nose
oscillating
> > up
> > > and down...skidding first one way then the other...he could never coax
> it
> > > above about half normal pattern altitude on downwind...The Rotax was
> going
> > > full-bore all the way around... This is a USUA certified instructor,
> > busily
> > > showing a neophyte UL pilot how it is supposed to be done....
> > >
> > > In short, it looks to me as if the local BFI/AFI situation here is
> pretty
> > > much the same closed loop Brother Hauck described up at his
airfield...
> I
> > > think his analysis is sound.
> > >
> > > I could go on about items like the free-for-all traffic pattern, with
> > > no-radio individuals arriving at all altitudes, from all points of the
> > > compass... and departing in the same fashion....About oblivious
> > individuals
> > > pulling onto the active in front of traffic on short final... etc..
and
> > I'd
> > > be the first to admit that I've seen GA pilots pulling dumb stunts
> around
> > > there too, but the truth is that the UL crew I am observing around
that
> > > airstrip is far and away the most frequent and blatant offenders.
> > >
> > > The majority of the UL drivers on the airport seem to be knowledgable,
> > > competent, rule-following operators, but unfortunately they aren't the
> > guys
> > > who get noticed... There are enough of the poorly trained ones who
> either
> > > don't know better, or don't care, to ruin the situation for everyone
> > > concerned... I have, on two separate occasions, witnessed rants by
> angry
> > GA
> > > guys who stormed into the FBO office after encounters with
non-compliant
> > > UL's doing weird, unexpected activities in the pattern... No telling
how
> > > many complaints have been lodged in total. One of these days, I
fully
> > > expect for the UL's to be invited to leave the airport... and I don't
> > think
> > > this privately-owned airport gets any government funding, so we'd just
> be
> > > out of luck....Quite honestly, given the circus I have seen put on by
> the
> > > UL crowd down there, I am surprised that the airport owners haven't
> > elected
> > > to cut their considerable liability risk by simply removing the UL
> problem
> > > altogether.
> > >
> > > Anyway... I am a big supporter of the UL movement and keenly
appreciate
> > our
> > > freedom from the big-brother, heavy-handed oversight that
characterizes
> > the
> > > GA environment... But I personally think that the UL community needs
to
> > > clean up its act, or we will all surely pay the price when the act
gets
> > > cleaned up for us... Aviation is rightfully thought of as right
> serious
> > > business, particularly around common-use airports... I think the
larger
> GA
> > > community, right or wrong, has a tendency to see the UL community as
not
> > > completely buying into that idea yet. Unfortunately, I believe we are
> > > playing into their hands with our lack of enforceable standards and
> > > proficiency. Some of the UL guys I talk with seem to live in mortal
> fear
> > of
> > > actually having to undergo formal training of any sort... Regulators
> just
> > > love to fill vacuums.
> > >
> > > Fighting the airport access fight, one airport at a time, will solve
> only
> > a
> > > part of the problem... IMHO we have a lot of internal work to do...
> > >
> > > Rant over (click)
> > >
> > > Worth what ye paid fer it...
> > > Beauford
> > > FF#076
> > > Brandon FL
> > >
> > >
> > > Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jack & Louise Hart" <jbhart@ldd.net>
> > > To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Airport access
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
> > > >
> > > > At 10:28 PM 9/13/03 -0400, you wrote:
> > > > >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Fackler, Ken"
> > <kfackler@ameritech.net>
> > > > >
> > > > >DO NOT ARCHIVE
> > > > >
> > > > Ken,
> > > >
> > > > There is a jump that may be of help. It is by someone who beat the
> > system
> > > and has offered to help anyone who has your problem.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.usua.org/HotNews/Archives/20010824.html
> > > >
> > > > Jack B. Hart FF004
> > > > Jackson, MO
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jack & Louise Hart
> > > > jbhart@ldd.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 19
| 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: Airport access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> I kinda like most
> of 103....
>
> Whaddya think?
> Beauford
Beauford/All:
Yes, I like it also.
103 has been around about 20 years now.
I flew under it in the 80's. Got away with fat, fast, etc.
Was always looking over my shoulder because I knew I was
illegal. But in all my flying into and out of airports
around the country, no one every challenged the Firestar was
not an ultralight. I did sorta get ramp checked at the
North Florida Air Show, 1989, Lake City, Florida. An FAA
guy came waltzing by where Nell and I were sitting with my
Firestar. He had his FAA hat on backwards, not the trend in
1989, and his little ID card thing was stuck in his short
sleeved white shirt pocket. He tried to act like an
interested UL enthusiast. Asked me how fast my Firestar
would fly. I answered it would fly exactly 55 kts or 63
mph, cause that is what the reg said. He hung around a
little longer, looked at my airplane and left. Had he
wanted to, he could have made life miserable for me by doing
a "real" ramp check.
I think pushing the two place trainer thing is no worse than
what I was doing back then. But, it is a lot more obvious.
Believe it or not, GA pilots and others know the
difference between screwing around with a two place and
flying without a license, and a serious BFI trying to live
by the reg and training students. Not trying to point the
finger at anyone, because I don't have enough fingers to do
that. I have many friends guilty of the two place thing.
Just something to think about.
I usually do not realize how much I will miss flying until I
get in a situation where I can not fly, i.e., broken
airplane or broken pilot. Not a good feeling.
Take care,
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 20
| 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: Airport access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
At 05:25 PM 9/14/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>work against us. I think we are vulnerable; I believe there are
>substantial interests that want unregulated UL's out of the public
>airport/airspace picture, and if we let it (Part 103) slip away, we are
>unlikely to get the freedom-related portions of it back. I kinda like most
>of 103....
>
>Whaddya think?
>Beauford
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
Beauford and Part 103'ers,
For those of us who are "OLD" and can not make a medical, Part 103 is like a life
rope to flying within a legal frame work. But if it disappears, most will
do what they already did and that is to go on flying in out of the way places
and officials will turn their heads as long as there are no flagrant infringements
to others safety.
I see Part 103 as a solution to a problem that was similar to the illegal alien
problem. When there got to be so many, they became an embarrassment because
there was no way the "System" could find them and get rid of them, and so they
were allowed to register and receive legal status. Since the FAA wants to regulate
everything that flies that is not muscle powered and they want to appear
to be in control, they gave ultralights legal status under Part 103. I believe
that is what Part 103 has done for all the fellows who wanted to fly, but
can't pass a physical, or in some cases can't muster up enough money for the purchase
of a "real" airplane.
We are vulnerable because we fly on the cheap. We generate very little revenue
and even less political clout. You have touched on the weakest part of Part
103, training. Personality traits or lack of judgement that defy all logic will
continue to be with us where every we are in all endeavors.
Don't take my Part 103 away - there should be a song in there some where.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
Message 21
| 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: Airport access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
> >work against us. I think we are vulnerable; I believe there are
> >substantial interests that want unregulated UL's out of the public
> >airport/airspace picture, and if we let it (Part 103) slip away, we are
> >unlikely to get the freedom-related portions of it back. I kinda like
most
> >of 103....
> >
> >Whaddya think?
> >Beauford
I ain't gonna lose no sleep over it. They take this old guys legal right to
fly away and still give a 16 year old kid the right to ride a 180 mph
motorcycle and I'll find a way. Old age and treachery should not be
underated....:o) Sneaky snuf
Do not archive
Message 22
| 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: Airport access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> In
> fact, we all try to be the shining example of how to handle both
> in-flight and ground protocol.
My one experience with a bone-headed aviator was a gyrocopter
type that, while flying at a public airport, decided it was cool to fly
between hangers. Stupidity caught up with him as he caught a blade
on one of the sliding door support posts next to the hanger. A foot
too low and deader than hell. That's generally what it takes for
"God's gift to aviation" types.......
J.Baker
Message 23
| 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: | I Found Engine Cowl Photos :-) |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: BMWBikeCrz@aol.com
Hi all I found the photos of the magnificent Fiberglass engine Cowl ...And
put them up on photo share ...( did not make it ) just found the photo somewhere
...and put it up ... If any has clues to its origin , let me know ...
Dave
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! --
|