Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:57 AM - Re: Airport Access (jerb)
2. 07:20 AM - Re: Airport Access (dama@mindspring.com)
3. 07:49 AM - Re: Airport Access (jerb)
4. 06:21 PM - Re: Hull insurance on non flying MKIII (John Hauck)
5. 07:56 PM - 912 engine idle RPM issue (Giovanni Day)
6. 08:17 PM - Re: 912 engine idle RPM issue (John Hauck)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airport Access |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
Kip,
Let's get the info correct, there are private (restricted) and public
airports. A restricted airport is generally a field that an individual
operates and limits use to prior authorization for use to reduce liability,
in other words if your not invited, it off limits other than in the case of
an emergency.
A field registered as public has nothing to do with FAA funds, it implies
that the controlling entity (owner) has elected to allow access (use) to
transit aircraft and it may or may not be used in a commercial manner. By
being public does not mean they have elected to use FAA funds. The sport
airport I am based at is public but owned and operated by the property
owners without FAA funds. As such they have more say in how can it may be
used, example limiting the shooting of touch and go's to based aircraft
only discourages aircraft from large fields in the area coming in and using
it for instruction thus increasing traffic and liability risk to the
property owners.
Hope this clears this up.
jerb
At 01:07 PM 10/1/04 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: dama@mindspring.com
>
>The big difference here is that our "shopkeepers" are getting federal
>funding and therefore they cannot be discriminatory as a public airport to
>who uses the facilities.
>Regards,
>Kip
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PATRICK LADD <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
>To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Airport Access
>
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
>
><< We had 4 "ultralights" on the field. >>
>
>Hi,
>I would have thought that you come under the same rules, assuming USA and UK
>laws are similar, as a shopkeeper who does not HAVE to sell his goods to any
>particular customer.
>The shopkeeper has goods on display, your airfield manager has space to
>sell. In each case it is an`offer to trade` and if the seller does not wish
>to oblige any particular customer, that is his prerogative.
>I know that your are a litigious mob on that side of the pond but trying to
>prove a discrimination case I suspect will only make the lawyers fat. It
>would be cheaper to move.
>
>In the early days here we had the problem that some airfields would not
>allow ultralights to land. Often that was based on ignorance sometimes on
>the fact that the discrepamcy in approach speed played hob with circuits,
>and sometimes because ultralights pilots were not up to speed with radio
>procedures and had not bothered to phone ahead for landing instructions
>where fields allowed non radio a/c.
>
>This problem has almost disappeared as ultralight speeds have increased and
>the pilots have become more professional.
>
>Cheers
>
>Pat
>
>pj.ladd@btinternet.com
>
>Do not archive
>
>
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: dama@mindspring.com
Jerb, I hear you on the public and private aspect of airport types. I am no expert
but my understanding that if an airport is using federal funds then there
are rules stating something along the lines of "the airport must be accessible
for all public aviation activities by the public" with the idea that public funds
should allow public access. This is about the limit of my knowledge on the
subject and my point is to merely point out to others that they may have a case
if someone is saying "no"...
Regards,
Kip
-----Original Message-----
From: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Airport Access
--> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
Kip,
Let's get the info correct, there are private (restricted) and public
airports. A restricted airport is generally a field that an individual
operates and limits use to prior authorization for use to reduce liability,
in other words if your not invited, it off limits other than in the case of
an emergency.
A field registered as public has nothing to do with FAA funds, it implies
that the controlling entity (owner) has elected to allow access (use) to
transit aircraft and it may or may not be used in a commercial manner. By
being public does not mean they have elected to use FAA funds. The sport
airport I am based at is public but owned and operated by the property
owners without FAA funds. As such they have more say in how can it may be
used, example limiting the shooting of touch and go's to based aircraft
only discourages aircraft from large fields in the area coming in and using
it for instruction thus increasing traffic and liability risk to the
property owners.
Hope this clears this up.
jerb
At 01:07 PM 10/1/04 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: dama@mindspring.com
>
>The big difference here is that our "shopkeepers" are getting federal
>funding and therefore they cannot be discriminatory as a public airport to
>who uses the facilities.
>Regards,
>Kip
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PATRICK LADD <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
>To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Airport Access
>
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
>
><< We had 4 "ultralights" on the field. >>
>
>Hi,
>I would have thought that you come under the same rules, assuming USA and UK
>laws are similar, as a shopkeeper who does not HAVE to sell his goods to any
>particular customer.
>The shopkeeper has goods on display, your airfield manager has space to
>sell. In each case it is an`offer to trade` and if the seller does not wish
>to oblige any particular customer, that is his prerogative.
>I know that your are a litigious mob on that side of the pond but trying to
>prove a discrimination case I suspect will only make the lawyers fat. It
>would be cheaper to move.
>
>In the early days here we had the problem that some airfields would not
>allow ultralights to land. Often that was based on ignorance sometimes on
>the fact that the discrepamcy in approach speed played hob with circuits,
>and sometimes because ultralights pilots were not up to speed with radio
>procedures and had not bothered to phone ahead for landing instructions
>where fields allowed non radio a/c.
>
>This problem has almost disappeared as ultralight speeds have increased and
>the pilots have become more professional.
>
>Cheers
>
>Pat
>
>pj.ladd@btinternet.com
>
>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: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
Here's an interesting situation we happened into. The public airport we
used to base at did use FAA funds. The local city powers decided to
sponsor a grand prix race thus decided that they would use the airport as
part of the race course. For over a week you had to relocate your plane or
loose the use of it. If they were smart instead of greedy they would have
offered each owner a couple of tickets for their inconvenience. Well,
after the second year of this blockade some one complained to the FAA about
their using the airport for purposes other than intended. The FAA came in
and that ended the races.
jerb
At 10:20 AM 10/2/04 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: dama@mindspring.com
>
>Jerb, I hear you on the public and private aspect of airport types. I am
>no expert but my understanding that if an airport is using federal funds
>then there are rules stating something along the lines of "the airport
>must be accessible for all public aviation activities by the public" with
>the idea that public funds should allow public access. This is about the
>limit of my knowledge on the subject and my point is to merely point out
>to others that they may have a case if someone is saying "no"...
>Regards,
>Kip
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
>To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Airport Access
>
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
>
>Kip,
>Let's get the info correct, there are private (restricted) and public
>airports. A restricted airport is generally a field that an individual
>operates and limits use to prior authorization for use to reduce liability,
>in other words if your not invited, it off limits other than in the case of
>an emergency.
>
>A field registered as public has nothing to do with FAA funds, it implies
>that the controlling entity (owner) has elected to allow access (use) to
>transit aircraft and it may or may not be used in a commercial manner. By
>being public does not mean they have elected to use FAA funds. The sport
>airport I am based at is public but owned and operated by the property
>owners without FAA funds. As such they have more say in how can it may be
>used, example limiting the shooting of touch and go's to based aircraft
>only discourages aircraft from large fields in the area coming in and using
>it for instruction thus increasing traffic and liability risk to the
>property owners.
>Hope this clears this up.
>jerb
>
>
>At 01:07 PM 10/1/04 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: dama@mindspring.com
> >
> >The big difference here is that our "shopkeepers" are getting federal
> >funding and therefore they cannot be discriminatory as a public airport to
> >who uses the facilities.
> >Regards,
> >Kip
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: PATRICK LADD <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
> >To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Airport Access
> >
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
> >
> ><< We had 4 "ultralights" on the field. >>
> >
> >Hi,
> >I would have thought that you come under the same rules, assuming USA and UK
> >laws are similar, as a shopkeeper who does not HAVE to sell his goods to any
> >particular customer.
> >The shopkeeper has goods on display, your airfield manager has space to
> >sell. In each case it is an`offer to trade` and if the seller does not wish
> >to oblige any particular customer, that is his prerogative.
> >I know that your are a litigious mob on that side of the pond but trying to
> >prove a discrimination case I suspect will only make the lawyers fat. It
> >would be cheaper to move.
> >
> >In the early days here we had the problem that some airfields would not
> >allow ultralights to land. Often that was based on ignorance sometimes on
> >the fact that the discrepamcy in approach speed played hob with circuits,
> >and sometimes because ultralights pilots were not up to speed with radio
> >procedures and had not bothered to phone ahead for landing instructions
> >where fields allowed non radio a/c.
> >
> >This problem has almost disappeared as ultralight speeds have increased and
> >the pilots have become more professional.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >pj.ladd@btinternet.com
> >
> >Do not archive
> >
> >
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Hull insurance on non flying MKIII |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
| Bryan Melborn sold a used MKIII to someone that is not acurrent
pilot but
| wants to insure it while it is under repair in a hanger and not
being flown.
| Any ideas?
|
| Steve B
Steve B/All:
Yes, call an insurance company. I have used AVEMCO for my MKIII, and
am now using Falcon. Any company that insures airplanes will insure
an aircraft in storage, non-flying, building, etc. All ya gotta do is
ask them.
They want your money..............
john h
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 912 engine idle RPM issue |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Giovanni Day" <gde01@bellsouth.net>
Hello Gang,
I synced the carbs on the 912 today. I also adjusted the idle screws so
that the egts are the same at idle as per Tom Olink. Everything is good
except when I go from high RPM to idle, it wants to run at 1900 or so
rpm for 10 -15 seconds. I was thinking it could be related to the idle
mixture, but this is not a two stroke like I am used to. Idle RPM after
its settles down is ~1400. Any ideas?
Giovanni
MKIII/912 80566
Do not archive
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: 912 engine idle RPM issue |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
screws so
| that the egts are the same at idle as per Tom Olink. Any ideas?
|
| Giovanni
Giovanni/Gang:
Yep.
How do you know the EGT indications are correct?
I have had good luck setting idle mixture at 1.5 turns out and leaving
them there summer and winter. I believe this is what the book
indicates. Adjust idle speed with idle adjustment screws after
sychronizing. No problem with idle on 912 or 912S. I adjust mine to
about 1500 to 1600 rpm.
Seems to me you are describing carbs that are out of mixture
adjustment.
Take care,
john h
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! --
|