Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:44 AM - Re: 1985 Firestar (Thom Riddle)
2. 07:14 AM - Re: Flying Naked (JetPilot)
3. 07:58 AM - q (russ kinne)
4. 08:22 AM - Re: q (John Hauck)
5. 08:22 AM - Insurance :( (JetPilot)
6. 08:32 AM - Re: Re: Flying Naked (ray anderson)
7. 08:51 AM - post (russ kinne)
8. 09:18 AM - Re: Insurance :( (John Hauck)
9. 09:26 AM - Re: q (Eugene Zimmerman)
10. 10:01 AM - Mode C Veil Answer (John Murr)
11. 10:19 AM - Re: Insurance :( (Richard Pike)
12. 10:52 AM - Re: Mode C Veil Answer (Robert Laird)
13. 11:14 AM - Firestar for Sale (Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL)
14. 11:44 AM - Re: Re: Flying Naked (Robert Laird)
15. 11:47 AM - Re: Insurance :( (JetPilot)
16. 11:49 AM - Re: Firestar for Sale (JetPilot)
17. 12:08 PM - Re: available Mark III's (David Key)
18. 12:41 PM - Re: Flying Naked (pat ladd)
19. 12:53 PM - Re: Re: Flying Naked (Ed Chmielewski)
20. 12:58 PM - Re: Flying Naked (pat ladd)
21. 01:42 PM - Re: Insurance :( (John Hauck)
22. 01:56 PM - Re: q (Ralph Hoover)
23. 02:28 PM - Re: 1985 Firestar (planecrazzzy)
24. 02:58 PM - Insurance (John Murr)
25. 02:58 PM - mode c veil (John Murr)
26. 03:01 PM - Mode c Veil (John Murr)
27. 03:05 PM - Re: Mode C Veil Answer (planecrazzzy)
28. 03:13 PM - Re: mode c veil (planecrazzzy)
29. 03:25 PM - Remember to whitelist me (Chuck)
30. 04:52 PM - Re: Remember to whitelist me (David Key)
31. 04:56 PM - Re: Flying Naked (Terry Frantz)
32. 05:08 PM - Re: Insurance :( (JetPilot)
33. 05:17 PM - Fw: Re: mode c veil (John Murr)
34. 05:26 PM - Re: Flying Naked (JetPilot)
35. 05:53 PM - Re: Re: Flying Naked (Kirk Smith)
36. 06:04 PM - Re: Re: Flying Naked (Steven Green)
37. 06:12 PM - Re: q (Mike Schnabel)
38. 07:25 PM - Re: mode c veil (Robert Laird)
39. 07:45 PM - Re: mode c veil (John Williamson)
40. 09:56 PM - Re: Re: mode c veil (John Murr)
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: 1985 Firestar |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Thom Riddle" <jtriddle@adelphia.net>
Subject: Pull Start in - flight.
I had a 377 powered early Firestar with pull starter. When the engine was cold
I could not start it from the pilots seat but when it was warmed up it was pretty
easy, and I'm not very strong. I just had to get my lower arm behind the pull
handle and push the rope handle (like doing a push up). I could not do it
by pulling with my arm in front of the handle.... not enough strength that way,
but pushing was not hard. This may be hard to picture but if you get into the
pilots seat and try it, you may see what I'm talking about. Fortunately, I never
lost the engine in-flight but regularly started a warm engine from the pilot's
seat while on the ground. I imagine if the engine quits in flight and you
have enough altitude, your increased adrenaline flow should allow you to rip
the whole engine off its mount :-).
Thom in Buffalo
do not archive
--------
Thom in Buffalo
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18389#18389
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: Flying Naked |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net wrote:
>
>
> Sure you can as long as your willing to jump through enough hoops, bow
> to the appropriate God's and pay the required fee. I guess that is what
> separates the Part 103 flyers from the rest of the crowd, the need to be
> free of all the regulations. The Wright Bros. would never have been
> able to leave the ground if trying to do what they did with today's
> regulations. Think they were insured?!!!!!!
>
> Every sport I know of has slowly become regulated to death for the
> convenience of those who are less daring! I also allows the formation
> of exclusive clubs where only those approved or have enough money are
> allowed to benefit.
>
>
> Terry - FireFly #95
Amen Brother !!!
Everything is being regulated according to the ability absalute weakest and stupidest
people on the planet. Its gone way past just government regulation,
with the civil court system, the personal injury lawyers do their best to get
the 6 most ignorant jurors on the panel so that they can win thier case... So
the result is nationl policy is being decided by groups of 6 of the most stupid
people this country has to offer...
Its a corrupt and very messed up system.
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18417#18417
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: russ kinne <kinnepix@earthlink.net>
Matt
I don 't want to be a pest but I still need to contact other Kolbers
around the country. There must be a way! -- I've heard of a 'map' but
have never seen it.
And I still get references to subjects that have never come into my
inbox. What am I doing wrong? Can you help me ???
Thanx,
Russ Kinne
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: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
| I don 't want to be a pest
| Russ Kinne
Hi Russ:
Here is Matt's email address:
dralle@matronics.com
Might be able to raise him quicker this way than through the Kolb
List.
Take care,
john h
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: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Where can I get hull insurance for my MK-III ??? I dont care about or even want
liability or any type of in flight insurance. I just want insurance for the
plane itself incase a tornado picks it up and drops it down in the next state
[Evil or Very Mad]
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18448#18448
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: Flying Naked |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote: --> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot"
tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net wrote:
>> <<<<<<Every sport I know of has slowly become regulated to death for the
convenience of those who are less daring! I
Terry - FireFly #95
Amen Brother !!!
<<<<<<< the personal injury lawyers do their best to get the 6 most ignorant jurors
on the panel so that they can win their case... So the result is national
policy is being decided by groups of 6 of the most stupid people this country
has to offer... >>>>>>>
.
I shared the above sentiments until I became the victim. What to do? What to do?
I have a nice Ultra Star sitting in the hanger for months now because of what
the personal injury 'trial lawyers' declare to be a case of medical malpractice.
Should one ask for compensation? Or feel that is something only "white trash"
does. A few months ago, driving from where I keep the Ultra Star to my home a
few miles away, my left eye suddenly filled with a rash of small black dots that
soon changed to small flashes of colored light. By the time I got home, I
was blind In that eye. Too late to see my ophthalmologist until the next morning.
Saw him early and he examined and concluded I was having an infection in the
inner eye. Placed on regimen of steroid eye drops and anti biotics. Saw him
every few days, total of 16 visits for eye examination, still treating for infection
(iritis). Numerous blood tests, sample of the fluid in the eye sent for
culture. All negative. This over a period of 2-1/2 months. Still blind.. See
a second ophthalmologist for second opinion. In five minutes he says, you have
had a detached retina for a long time. It is badly scared, torn and wrinkled.
Need major surgery to try and reattach but don't expect any sight. To his surprise,
I have what is called ambulatory sight in it.
Can
walk about with the eye, slowly, without bumping into objects, no depth perception,
can't read with the eye. Objects distorted and tilted and out of sync with
the good eye so I wear an eye patch when driving or reading with the good eye.
My life is upside down because the first doctor, in 16 visits and 2-1/2 months,
failed to see the detached retina although he advertises on his web site
that he is a retina specialist. Would have perfect vision in the eye if reattached
within a few days or even a week.
Now what would you do? Consult with one of the despised personal injury 'trial
lawyers' and be accused of helping run up the cost of medicine, or do nothing.
I'm still doing nothing because of the stigma of suing a doctor.
I'm still not ready to start flying the Ultra Star again with one eye, although
it is legal. Many do. I will this summer I'm sure. There are two side to the
coin about personal injury 'trial lawyers'
ULTRA STAR -----Tenn.
Do Not Archive.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18417#18417
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
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: russ kinne <kinnepix@earthlink.net>
To all, my apologies for sending the last message to The List. I
tried, and thought I was, sending it only to Matt. Sorry.
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: | Re: Insurance :( |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
insurance. Evil or Very Mad]
|
| Michael A. Bigelow
I'm just the opposite. Rather have liability insurance than hull.
Liability is much cheaper. A small incident in the aviation world
could cost a fortune if I was at fault. The possibility to getting
involved in a liable suit is great, whether we like it or not.
Paid my bills this morning. One check was for $1,500.00 for my MKIII
insurance from Falcon, the EAA recognized insurance company. That
covers $30,000.00 hull and $1,000,000.00 liability any where in the
Lower 48, Canada, and Alaska. Unlike AVEMCO, Falcon covers me
"anywhere" in Alaska and Canada. AVEMCO covered me up to the Arctic
Circle. Had to pay a super big additional fee to be covered north of
the Arctic Circle. Another plus is no deductible for in flight or on
the ground claims.
Prerequisite is EAA member ship and member of an EAA Chapter. If I
need it, it is more than worth it.
Another thought. I don't want an uninsured individual to destroy my
MKIII with his Challenger, Quicksilver, etc. The possibility of that
happening, especially at flyins, is great. We have had thunderstorms
rip and tear airplanes loose from their tie downs, slamming them into
other airplanes, like mine, that were tied down properly and did not
break loose. There are also all levels of pilot ability. I saw a
Kolb Twinstar T-Bone a future Sun and Fun Grand Champion Twinstar
because the pilot made a very dumb decision.
I did fly my first two airplanes, US and FS, without insurance,
because there was no insurance of any kind available at that time.
Glad I did not need it then.
Take care,
john h
MKIII
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62@earthlink.net>
You can find a google map of Kolb flyers here.
http://www.frappr.com/kolbaircraft
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:55 AM, russ kinne wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: russ kinne <kinnepix@earthlink.net>
>
> Matt
> I don 't want to be a pest but I still need to contact other Kolbers
> around the country. There must be a way! -- I've heard of a 'map' but
> have never seen it.
> And I still get references to subjects that have never come into my
> inbox. What am I doing wrong? Can you help me ???
> Thanx,
> Russ Kinne
>
>
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: | Mode C Veil Answer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
A while ago I asked the question about entering the Mode C veil with an
utralight. I posted the question to the FAA and here is their response.
My Question:
I operate an ultralight "vehicle" under part 103. I have no certified
electrical system. I do not have a transponder with Mode C and altitude
encoding. I do however, have a battery, an electric starter, and a radio.
My question is can I pass through the mode C 30 nm veil in my "vehicle"
without notifying ATC or asking their permission? I realize that I cannot
enter the class B airspace in my "vehicle". My question relates the area
between the outermost blue circle of the class B airspace and the 30nm mode
C veil only. Thank you in advance for your response.
Response:
Dear Mr. Murr:
First, please accept our apologies on the lateness of this response -- we
understand that it is terrible overdue.
I hope that this answer will still be able to help you.
A pilot can not do this without approval of the affected AT manager('s)
Please visit this web page for more information:
http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/FAC/Ch5/s0504.html
If you need any other assistance, please do not hesitate to write back.
Thank you, and again our apologies for the lateness.
Looks to me that they need to be notified and permision granted prior to
entering the mode C veil.
John Murr
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance :( |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
I will add just a bit to John's reply because I also have Falcon, with
$20,000 hull and one million liability, but the hull coverage is "not in
motion." If I crash it, I lose it, but if it is sitting still and
something else trashes it, or a tree falls on the hangar, I get paid
off. This saves me a bundle, premium is $672 a year. And most of that is
for the liability - if I drop the hull coverage, I only save a little,
can't remember how much, not enough to matter. Food for thought.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
John Hauck wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
> | I dont care about or even want liability or any type of in flight
> insurance. Evil or Very Mad]
>
> I'm just the opposite. Rather have liability insurance than hull.
> Liability is much cheaper. A small incident in the aviation world
> could cost a fortune if I was at fault. The possibility to getting
> involved in a liable suit is great, whether we like it or not.
>
> Paid my bills this morning. One check was for $1,500.00 for my MKIII
> insurance from Falcon, the EAA recognized insurance company. That
> covers $30,000.00 hull and $1,000,000.00 liability any where in the
> Lower 48, Canada, and Alaska. Unlike AVEMCO, Falcon covers me
> "anywhere" in Alaska and Canada. AVEMCO covered me up to the Arctic
> Circle. Had to pay a super big additional fee to be covered north of
> the Arctic Circle. Another plus is no deductible for in flight or on
> the ground claims.
>
> Prerequisite is EAA member ship and member of an EAA Chapter. If I
> need it, it is more than worth it.
>
> Another thought. I don't want an uninsured individual to destroy my
> MKIII with his Challenger, Quicksilver, etc. The possibility of that
> happening, especially at flyins, is great. We have had thunderstorms
> rip and tear airplanes loose from their tie downs, slamming them into
> other airplanes, like mine, that were tied down properly and did not
> break loose. There are also all levels of pilot ability. I saw a
> Kolb Twinstar T-Bone a future Sun and Fun Grand Champion Twinstar
> because the pilot made a very dumb decision.
>
> I did fly my first two airplanes, US and FS, without insurance,
> because there was no insurance of any kind available at that time.
> Glad I did not need it then.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> MKIII
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Mode C Veil Answer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Robert Laird" <rlaird@cavediver.com>
Well, this proves that the FAA doesn't even read their own regulations. The
reference he used is for only two situations:
a. Operations at and above 10,000 feet MSL and below the floor of Class A
airspace.
b. Operations within a Mode C veil and within and above Class C airspace up
to 10,000 feet MSL
Neither one of those applies to someone who is flying within the Mode C veil
but not meeting either of those two critieria.
Believe me, more than once I've had to correct an FAA type, to his face,
because they simply don't know the ultralight regs.
(When I went in and asked for a Student Sport Pilot license, I got a "deer
in the headlights" look, and he asked, "What is that?" I had to lead him
through the whole thing.)
-- Robert
On 2/28/06, John Murr <jdm@wideworld.net> wrote:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
>
> A while ago I asked the question about entering the Mode C veil with an
> utralight. I posted the question to the FAA and here is their response.
>
> My Question:
>
> I operate an ultralight "vehicle" under part 103. I have no certified
> electrical system. I do not have a transponder with Mode C and altitude
> encoding. I do however, have a battery, an electric starter, and a radio.
> My question is can I pass through the mode C 30 nm veil in my "vehicle"
> without notifying ATC or asking their permission? I realize that I cannot
> enter the class B airspace in my "vehicle". My question relates the area
> between the outermost blue circle of the class B airspace and the 30nm
> mode
> C veil only. Thank you in advance for your response.
>
> Response:
>
> Dear Mr. Murr:
>
> First, please accept our apologies on the lateness of this response -- we
> understand that it is terrible overdue.
> I hope that this answer will still be able to help you.
> A pilot can not do this without approval of the affected AT manager('s)
> Please visit this web page for more information:
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/FAC/Ch5/s0504.html
> If you need any other assistance, please do not hesitate to write back.
> Thank you, and again our apologies for the lateness.
>
> Looks to me that they need to be notified and permision granted prior to
> entering the mode C veil.
>
> John Murr
>
>
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: | Firestar for Sale |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
Kolb Friends -
There is a Firestar for sale at my home airport in Edgewood, New Mexico:
1999 Kolb FireStar(37.0 Flight Hrs) 2 seater
503 UL DCDI Engine (38.1 Hrs)
3 Bladed IVO Prop
Two - 5 gal fuel tanks
Instrumentation includes - EGT, CHT, Eng RPM, Alt, A/S, Compass, Hobbs
BRS - Leading edge soft pack safety chute, repacked and inspected in Jan 05
Covered Trailer Included
Many extras from original build (fabric, 1 prop blade, all documentation)
Color: Yellow
Asking $10,000.00
I've seen this aircraft, and it is beautiful!
It is being offered by Kolb List lurker Guy Gleason.
Contact me for pictures.
Dennis Kirby
Do not archive
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: Flying Naked |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Robert Laird" <rlaird@cavediver.com>
Ray --
I have sight issues, too, with my left eye, and am an avid flyer, so don't
think for a minute that you can't fly any longer.
I'd ignore these anti-personal-injury-lawyer yahoos... Lawyers are people,
and just like opthalmologists, there are good lawyers and bad lawyers. It's
the bad ones that I think are causing 90% of the tort problems. But if you
find a good lawyer, then I'd sue the bastard. I've been lucky... been under
the care of a top ophthalmologist for over 25 years, and done a lot of
studying of eye problems. From your description, I could have told you it's
a detached retina, and I'm not a doctor! The first ophthalmologist is a
menance to anyone that goes to him, and even if you don't get any monetary
result from a suit, you need to send a message. As for anyone that
complains about personal injury lawyers, let them walk (half-blindly) a mile
in your shoes and I'd bet they'd change their tune. This, of course, is
just my opinion.
-- Robert
do not archive
On 2/28/06, ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
>
>
> JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote: --> Kolb-List message posted
> by: "JetPilot"
>
>
> tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net wrote:
>
> >> <<<<<<Every sport I know of has slowly become regulated to death for
> the
> convenience of those who are less daring! I
>
> Terry - FireFly #95
>
> Amen Brother !!!
>
> <<<<<<< the personal injury lawyers do their best to get the 6 most
> ignorant jurors on the panel so that they can win their case... So the
> result is national policy is being decided by groups of 6 of the most stupid
> people this country has to offer... >>>>>>>
> .
> I shared the above sentiments until I became the victim. What to do? What
> to do? I have a nice Ultra Star sitting in the hanger for months now because
> of what the personal injury 'trial lawyers' declare to be a case of medical
> malpractice. Should one ask for compensation? Or feel that is something only
> "white trash"
> does. A few months ago, driving from where I keep the Ultra Star to my
> home a few miles away, my left eye suddenly filled with a rash of small
> black dots that soon changed to small flashes of colored light. By the time
> I got home, I was blind In that eye. Too late to see my ophthalmologist
> until the next morning. Saw him early and he examined and concluded I was
> having an infection in the inner eye. Placed on regimen of steroid eye drops
> and anti biotics. Saw him every few days, total of 16 visits for eye
> examination, still treating for infection (iritis). Numerous blood tests,
> sample of the fluid in the eye sent for culture. All negative. This over a
> period of 2-1/2 months. Still blind.. See a second ophthalmologist for
> second opinion. In five minutes he says, you have had a detached retina for
> a long time. It is badly scared, torn and wrinkled. Need major surgery to
> try and reattach but don't expect any sight. To his surprise, I have what is
> called ambulatory sight in it.
> Can
> walk about with the eye, slowly, without bumping into objects, no depth
> perception, can't read with the eye. Objects distorted and tilted and out of
> sync with the good eye so I wear an eye patch when driving or reading with
> the good eye. My life is upside down because the first doctor, in 16 visits
> and 2-1/2 months, failed to see the detached retina although he advertises
> on his web site that he is a retina specialist. Would have perfect vision in
> the eye if reattached within a few days or even a week.
> Now what would you do? Consult with one of the despised personal injury
> 'trial lawyers' and be accused of helping run up the cost of medicine, or
> do nothing. I'm still doing nothing because of the stigma of suing a doctor.
> I'm still not ready to start flying the Ultra Star again with one eye,
> although it is legal. Many do. I will this summer I'm sure. There are two
> side to the coin about personal injury 'trial lawyers'
> ULTRA STAR -----Tenn.
>
> Do Not Archive.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D18417#18417
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance :( |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Richard Pike wrote:
> I will add just a bit to John's reply because I also have Falcon, with
> $20,000 hull and one million liability, but the hull coverage is "not in
> motion." If I crash it, I lose it, but if it is sitting still and
> something else trashes it, or a tree falls on the hangar, I get paid
> off. This saves me a bundle, premium is $672 a year. And most of that is
> for the liability - if I drop the hull coverage, I only save a little,
> can't remember how much, not enough to matter. Food for thought.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
Who is your insurance company Richard ????
I guess it all adds up to dollars, if liability is only a little more I would
do it. But im more worried about stuff like others running into my plane, thunderstorms,
tornados, etc. etc.
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18492#18492
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: Firestar for Sale |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
That sounds like a GREAT buy :) If I had 10,000 dollars extra...... [Idea]
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18493#18493
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | available Mark III's |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Key" <dhkey@msn.com>
Here's one.
http://exp-aircraft.com/class/class.html
>From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel@kfalls.net>
>To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kolb-List: available Mark III's
>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:55:53 -0800
>
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel@kfalls.net>
>
>Anyone out there, preferably in the NW wanting to part with their Mark III.
>I have a friend that is looking for one.
>Larry, Oregon
>
>
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: Flying Naked |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
insure a legal ultralight vehicle.>>
Hi Jack,
things are very different here. If you fly you MUST have a license. Your
aircraft will either be an ultralight, and be below a certain weight, wing
loading and stall speed or you will be a Light Aircraft.
In either case your plane type will have been through the laid down tests to
make sure that it is flyable and that the wings won`t fall off or the fuel
supply dry up at full throttle etc., and your individual machine will have
been scrutinised during the build process to ensure that the workmanship is
up to scratch and that you have not departed from the plans, stuck a 20
gallon fuel tank in the tail or similar foolishness. A Permission to Test
Certificate will then be issued and there is a fairly straightforward test
schedule to be carried out and a certain number of hours flown within a
certain distance from your field. Mine has a couple of hours of the Test
Schedule on at the moment, flown by Kiwimick who is the dealer.
Unfortunately he is quite a bit further North than I am and the weather
there has been pretty awful so that has curtailed things a bit.
Sticking in a different engine from the `approved` one will take you back
to the original testing. Part of the reason that mine is taking so long,
it has been ready to fly for months now, is a problem with the weight and
the fact that the engineering dept. of the PFA which has to sign mine off
has had 3 staff leave in the last 3 months or so and one guy is trying to do
everything.
Although this may strike you as being needless bureaucracy the up side is
that there is no problem getting insurance because insurers know that the
machine is built to a proper standard and the pilot will have had a proper
training course.
There is no such thing as an unregistered aircraft. All UK a/c prefix with a
`G` and within limits you can choose the registration. Things like G-WHIZ
for instance. Mine is G-PLAD. Unfortunately G-LADD had already been issued
to a helicopter in Ireland.
We went through the stage of `build what you like and fly it` a long time
ago and although a lot of fun was had in those days there were a lot of
injuries and a few fatalities. At that point an Association was formed,
rules drawn up etc., and in general we look after our own bureaucracy under
the generally watchful eye of the CAA and escape the worst of governmental
interference.
There is a nasty case on at the moment where an instructor who it is alleged
did not make sure that a Mandatory Modification, involving some extra rivets
was done properly is being charged with manslaughter of the guy who was
killed in the resulting crash. Things are being tightened up all round as
you can imagine.
Cheers
Pat
--
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: Flying Naked |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel@mindspring.com>
Well said, Ray. I'm sorry for your vision problems and the doc who wasn't
on the ball when you needed it. It's good you present the other side of the
coin. It's amazing what viewing things from a more balanced perspective
will do. I know several trial lawyers, and count them as friends. Most
don't make the megabucks that's alleged, and do much more good than their
corporate brethren.
Jett Pilot, with that spelling, I want you on my jury!!
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "ray anderson" <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Flying Naked
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
. There are two side to the coin about personal injury 'trial lawyers'
> ULTRA STAR -----Tenn.
>
> Do Not Archive.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18417#18417
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
>
>
>
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: Flying Naked |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
The Wright Bros. would never have been able to leave the ground >>
Hi Mike,
you are of course quite right but no early factory, building site,coal
mine, foundry etc., would have started if they had to labour under todays
regulations.
Although in theory it was great and carefree I doubt if you would be happy
working under those conditions. It is all very well being tough and gung-ho
but what happens to the guy you kill when you are driving your car or plane
with no insurance?
When the old timers go on about `what we did then` and scoff at the modern
pantywaists ask them how many ended their careers as basket cases with
busted bodies or lungs full of coal dust or asbestos.
Sure we are over controlled now and I deplore it but it is OK as long as it
concerns just you. As soon as some other party is involved then they should
expect some consideration. Falling out of the sky on an innocent bystander
in a plane you have built yourself is not a chance I am prepared to take.
Of course the chance of falling on someone here is probably rather higher
than in the States.
Cheers
Pat
do not archive
--
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: Insurance :( |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
[quote will add just a bit to John's reply because I also have Falcon, with
$20,000 hull and one million liability, but the hull coverage is "not in
motion."]
Mike B: My reference is the first line of Richard P's reply to you. ;-)[/quote]
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18519#18519
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Ralph Hoover" <flht99reh@netzero.com>
Man, I went to the frapper site. I had a Commador Vic-20 in 1967 that worked faster
than that. How about we all gather together our old processer chips and send
them to the frapper web site. They could use all the help they can get!
Fast Ralphy in Ohio
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18526#18526
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: | Re: 1985 Firestar |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "planecrazzzy" <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
I'd like to hear "HOW" you would add these Extra Ribs....Their evenly spaced....you
gonna make it 9 ribs or move the existing ribs and leave a bunch of holes
in the wing spar.......???
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN FSII / 503 / 7 ribs
JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> If I had the wing uncovered though, and I could add some more ribs while it was
open, I MOST DEFINATELY would while it was easy to do. Being that we know
where the weakest spot of the wing is, and it is and easy fix that just adds
a couple more pounds, one would be foolish not to fix the weak spot.
>
>
> Michael A. Bigelow
--------
The more people I know....
The more I like MY DOG
.
.
.
.
.Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18535#18535
Message 24
| 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 Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
Here is my situation. I have a fat Firestar ( no N-number). I have a PPL.
I am a member of EAA (not any specific chapter) and USUA. I have not had any
ultralight training or certification. I have 40 hours in my Firestar and 42
hours in GA planes.
I need to get some type of liability insurance incase I cause some property
damage at or away from the airport I fly out of. Also I need to be protected
against lawsuits from people who want to make a quick buck.
Could someone please let me know my options including phone numbers and
prices? Thanks!
John Murr
Message 25
| 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 Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
b. States: Operations within a Mode C veil and within and above Class C airspace
up to 10,000 feet MSL.
NOTE-
A Mode C veil is that airspace within a 30 NM radius of a Class B airspace
primary airport from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL excluding the Class B
airspace itself.
I read it as referencing two separate conditions. The mode C veil
reference applies to my question. It further goes on to describe the mode C veil.
See note above. I don't believe it means the area in question is only the
mode C veil above class C airspace, because class C airspace doesn't have a 30
MN class C veil. Therefore it has to be referencing two separate conditions.
The note defines Mode C veil as surface to 10,000 MSL. This is where we fly.
Notwithstanding, this is for general aviation. My question specifically said part
103 ultralights, which was ignored. I re-posted my question for clarification.
I will let you know in two months when they get back to me
again.
John Murr
John
Message 26
| 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 Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
I guess I need to make a phone call or write a letter and get written permission
to fly in the Philly Mode C Veil and carry it with me at all times when I'm
inside the veil.
Does any one have an address and/or phone number handy for Philly? Thanks.
John Murr
Message 27
| 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: Mode C Veil Answer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "planecrazzzy" <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
The "KEY" in your post....."Electric Start".....Mode C needs Transponder.
unless you get permission from who ever you said (every time)
You'll find ultralight fields, on the charts, UNDER Class B even.....They are
allowed to be there because they DON"T have Electric Start....
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN N381PM / NARCO AT155 Transponder w/AR850 ALT Encoder
also AK-450 ELT.....( GLP Electric Start )
--------
The more people I know....
The more I like MY DOG
.
.
.
.
.Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18551#18551
Message 28
| 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: "planecrazzzy" <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
You "GUESS" wrong....If all we had to do was get a "NOTE" from somebody ( Who told
you that ???) anyway...That would be the CHEAP way and we ALL would do that......
Lose the Electric start and you can fly all you want in the "MODE C"
Gotta Fly...
--------
The more people I know....
The more I like MY DOG
.
.
.
.
.Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18554#18554
Message 29
| 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: | Remember to whitelist me |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Chuck" <cstonex@msn.com>
I use a good spam filter, and you probably do the same.
I have whitelisted you and that means that I will receive all the emails you send
to me.
I would appreciate it if you would whitelist my email address: cstonex@msn.com
in your spam filter.
If you don't have a spam filter, I can recommend SPAMfighter. It is a highly effective
free spam filter for Outlook and Outlook Express.
You can get the free SPAMfighter here:
http://www.spamfighter.com/Pro
I hope that you will whitelist me, so we can continue to communicate safely via
email in the future.
Best regards
Chuck
Message 30
| 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: | Remember to whitelist me |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Key" <dhkey@msn.com>
Chuck, are you spamming us?
>From: "Chuck" <cstonex@msn.com>
>To: "kolb-list@matronics.com" <kolb-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kolb-List: Remember to whitelist me
>Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:21:12 -0000
>
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Chuck" <cstonex@msn.com>
>
>I use a good spam filter, and you probably do the same.
>I have whitelisted you and that means that I will receive all the emails
>you send to me.
>I would appreciate it if you would whitelist my email address:
>cstonex@msn.com in your spam filter.
>
>If you don't have a spam filter, I can recommend SPAMfighter. It is a
>highly effective free spam filter for Outlook and Outlook Express.
>
>You can get the free SPAMfighter here:
>http://www.spamfighter.com/Pro
>
>I hope that you will whitelist me, so we can continue to communicate safely
>via email in the future.
>
>Best regards
>
>Chuck
>
>
Message 31
| 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: Flying Naked |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Terry Frantz <tkrolfe@usadatanet.net>
pat ladd wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
>
> The Wright Bros. would never have been able to leave the ground >>
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>you are of course quite right but no early factory, building site,coal
>mine, foundry etc., would have started if they had to labour under todays
>regulations.
>Although in theory it was great and carefree I doubt if you would be happy
>working under those conditions. It is all very well being tough and gung-ho
>but what happens to the guy you kill when you are driving your car or plane
>with no insurance?
>When the old timers go on about `what we did then` and scoff at the modern
>pantywaists ask them how many ended their careers as basket cases with
>busted bodies or lungs full of coal dust or asbestos.
>Sure we are over controlled now and I deplore it but it is OK as long as it
>concerns just you. As soon as some other party is involved then they should
>expect some consideration. Falling out of the sky on an innocent bystander
>in a plane you have built yourself is not a chance I am prepared to take.
>Of course the chance of falling on someone here is probably rather higher
>than in the States.
>
>Cheers
>
>Pat
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
>
Pat,
I believe what you have just stated what defines the difference that has
existed for more than two hundred years between our two cultures.
There's the very rational thinking of submitting to authority for it's
benefits with their lost of individual freedom and the rash independence
of individuals who believe they should be allowed to fail on their own
without government oversight. I believe some wars have been fought over
this concept. Sadly, I see our country following the same path as you
describe. I am surprised they haven't done away with Part 103 all
together, now with the new Sports Aviation coming on board. One of the
reasons I belong to EAA is because they fought to keep it intact.
I too do not wish to subject others to danger because of my actions, but
should be allowed to risk my own neck in pursuit of life fulfilling
ambitions. I could have fallen on someone while sky diving and injured
them that way, didn't have insurance for that either. If someone
follows Part 103 regs. in the conduct of their flying, they are putting
very few people at risk and no one can eliminate all risk or provide
near enough money for those few incidents that that will occur. The
insurance companies would like us all to believe otherwise so that they
can make their millions. Guess who tries to get out of paying when
there is an incident!
I too would consider buying liability insurance to protect others if it
was made easier to obtain and more reasonable in cost based on actual
lost/cost on our type of flying. I should not have to join a particular
organization to qualify. What I was saying is that the artificial
hurdles placed in the path to do so are objectionable.
Terry - FireFly #95
P's. I promise not to fly over your house!!
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 32
| 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: Insurance :( |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Ok, I got it now, Falcon Insurance... I was thinking A Flacon airplane [Embarassed]
! I will give them a call tomorrow and see what kind of deal they
have for me.
Thanks !
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18582#18582
Message 33
| 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 Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: mode c veil
> >>>You "GUESS" wrong....If all we had to do was get a "NOTE" from somebody
> ( Who told you that ???) anyway...That would be the >>>CHEAP way and we
> ALL would do that......
>
>
> Reply from the FAA:
>
> Dear Mr. Murr:
>
> First, please accept our apologies on the lateness of this
> response -- we understand that it is terrible overdue.
>
> I hope that this answer will still be able to help you.
>
> A pilot can not do this without approval of the affected AT
> manager('s)
>
> Please visit this web page for more information:
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/FAC/Ch5/s0504.html
>
> If you need any other assistance, please do not hesitate to write
> back.
>
> Thank you, and again our apologies for the lateness.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "planecrazzzy" <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:12 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: mode c veil
>
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "planecrazzzy" <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
>>
>> You "GUESS" wrong....If all we had to do was get a "NOTE" from somebody
>> ( Who told you that ???) anyway...That would be the CHEAP way and we ALL
>> would do that......
>>
>> Lose the Electric start and you can fly all you want in the "MODE C"
>>
>> Gotta Fly...
>>
>> --------
>> The more people I know....
>> The more I like MY DOG
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .Do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18554#18554
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Message 34
| 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: Flying Naked |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com wrote:
>
> Although in theory it was great and carefree I doubt if you would be happy
> working under those conditions. Falling out of the sky on an innocent bystander
> in a plane you have built yourself is not a chance I am prepared to take.
> Of course the chance of falling on someone here is probably rather higher
> than in the States.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pat
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
> --
I have lived in South America recently, and people here just done realize how controlled
our lives have become and how much freedom we have lost due to the constant
worry of "liability". Protecting workers from obvious wrongdoing is great,
but the whole thing has gone WAY TO FAR. It is now a corrupt system that
enriches lawyers and judges, while harming our society far more than most
know. A good legal system that prevents obvious wrong doing by companies and
people would be great. A system that awards some stupid lady 1,000,000 dollars
because McDonalds sold her hot coffee while driving a stickshift is just bad.
Our suit happy society that makes no one responsible for thier own actions
anymore and is just plan bad for all of us.
As far as ultralights go, 50,000 people a year are killed in auto accidents by
bad drivers... None by ultralights falling on thier heads. You are more likely
to kill someone while playing a game of soccor with them than you are by crashing
your ultralight into someone. The possibility of killing people on the
ground with an ultralight is just to remote to even worry about. If there
is a place to regulate and fix things, its on the roads. Regulating our sport,
while doing very little to take drunk, old, and bad drivers off the roads is
just idiotic. The average person is a Moron, they will get up in arms over
ultralights because its something exciting and different and scarey while ignoring
the bad drivers that are really a threat to them and thier families. Auto
accidents, and everyday real threats are just not interesting or exciting enough
to get peoples attention.
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18589#18589
Message 35
| 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: Flying Naked |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
That's just the problem. Flying naked......procreation has gone nuts. More
people, more regs. We need more dogs Mike.......
Do not arcjive......
Message 36
| 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: Flying Naked |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Steven Green" <Kolbdriver@bellsouth.net>
If I wasn't already a stickler for having liability insurance this would
have convinced me. Maybe it will convince some others.
Steven Green
do not archive
> I have lived in South America recently, and people here just done realize
how controlled our lives have become and how much freedom we have lost due
to the constant worry of "liability". Protecting workers from obvious
wrongdoing is great, but the whole thing has gone WAY TO FAR. It is now a
corrupt system that enriches lawyers and judges, while harming our society
far more than most know. A good legal system that prevents obvious wrong
doing by companies and people would be great. A system that awards some
stupid lady 1,000,000 dollars because McDonalds sold her hot coffee while
driving a stickshift is just bad. Our suit happy society that makes no one
responsible for thier own actions anymore and is just plan bad for all of
us.
>
> As far as ultralights go, 50,000 people a year are killed in auto
accidents by bad drivers... None by ultralights falling on thier heads.
You are more likely to kill someone while playing a game of soccor with them
than you are by crashing your ultralight into someone. The possibility of
killing people on the ground with an ultralight is just to remote to even
worry about. If there is a place to regulate and fix things, its on the
roads. Regulating our sport, while doing very little to take drunk, old,
and bad drivers off the roads is just idiotic. The average person is a
Moron, they will get up in arms over ultralights because its something
exciting and different and scarey while ignoring the bad drivers that are
really a threat to them and thier families. Auto accidents, and everyday
real threats are just not interesting or exciting enough to get peoples
attention.
>
> Michael A. Bigelow
>
> --------
> NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have
!!!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18589#18589
>
>
Message 37
| 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: Mike Schnabel <tnfirestar2@yahoo.com>
Greetings gang...
I have not been to the Frappr site for several weeks, but tonight, it was blazing
in speed compared to when our group first hooked up. Guess all those donor
CPUs finally arrived to the Frappr server!
Its still a cool site to find other Kolbers....
PS: I am in need of finding some flight time in a like aircraft to my Firestar,
any Mark III owners near middle TN willing to trade some fuel costs for flight
time? Thanks in advance!
Mike S
Manchester TN
Firestar 2 503
Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman
You can find a google map of Kolb flyers here.
http://www.frappr.com/kolbaircraft
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:55 AM, russ kinne wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: russ kinne
>
> Matt
> I don 't want to be a pest but I still need to contact other Kolbers
> around the country. There must be a way! -- I've heard of a 'map' but
> have never seen it.
> And I still get references to subjects that have never come into my
> inbox. What am I doing wrong? Can you help me ???
> Thanx,
> Russ Kinne
>
>
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Message 38
| 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: "Robert Laird" <rlaird@cavediver.com>
John --
I still see the "AND" in the statement, meaning both sides of the "and" must
be met for it to qualify.
-- Robert
do not archive
On 2/28/06, John Murr <jdm@wideworld.net> wrote:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
>
> b. States: Operations within a Mode C veil and within and above Class C
> airspace up to 10,000 feet MSL.
>
> NOTE-
> A Mode C veil is that airspace within a 30 NM radius of a Class
> B airspace
> primary airport from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL excluding the Class B
> airspace itself.
>
> I read it as referencing two separate conditions. The mode C veil
> reference applies to my question. It further goes on to describe the mode
> C veil.
> See note above. I don't believe it means the area in question is only the
> mode C veil above class C airspace, because class C airspace doesn't have
> a 30
> MN class C veil. Therefore it has to be referencing two separate
> conditions.
> The note defines Mode C veil as surface to 10,000 MSL. This is where
> we fly.
>
> Notwithstanding, this is for general aviation. My question specifically
> said part 103 ultralights, which was ignored. I re-posted my question for
> clarification. I will let you know in two months when they get back to me
> again.
>
> John Murr
>
Message 39
| 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 Williamson" <kolbrapilot2@comcast.net>
John Murr,
I see from one of your other posts that you are a fairly low time pilot and not
fully trained in the FAR's, yet. [Shocked]
Just some quick information to clears up your dilemma.
If you are flying an aircraft with an "N number" on it, then the following section
of FAR 91 applies to your operation.
91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
(Reads in part):
(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted
under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must
meet the performance and environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C74b
(Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability)
as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).
(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may
operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5)
of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an operable coded
radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096 code capability, replying
to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC, or a Mode S capability,
replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC and intermode
and Mode S interrogations in accordance with the applicable provisions
specified in TSO C112, and that aircraft is equipped with automatic pressure
altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability that automatically replies
to Mode C interrogations by transmitting pressure altitude information in
100-foot increments. This requirement applies
(1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas;
(2) All aircraft. In all airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed
in appendix D, section 1 of this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet
MSL;
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which was not
originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has
not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, balloon or glider
may conduct operations in the airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport
listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part provided such operations are conducted
(i) Outside any Class A, Class B, or Class C airspace area; and
(ii) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated
for an airport or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower; and
(4) All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries
of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport upward to
10,000 feet MSL; and
(5) All aircraft except any aircraft which was not originally certificated with
an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified
with such a system installed, balloon, or glider
(i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at
and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above
the surface; and
(ii) In the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL within a 10-nautical-mile
radius of any airport listed in appendix D, section 2 of this part, excluding
the airspace below 1,200 feet outside of the lateral boundaries of the surface
area of the airspace designated for that airport.
If you are flying a vehicle that meets the requirements of FAR 103, then the following
sections applies to your operation:
103.17 Operations in certain airspace.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or
Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class
E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization
from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.
103.20 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas designated by notice
to airmen.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in areas designated in a Notice to
Airmen under 91.137, 91.138, 91.141, 91.143 or 91.145 of this chapter, unless
authorized by:
(a) Air Traffic Control (ATC); or
(b) A Flight Standards Certificate of Waiver or Authorization issued for the demonstration
or event.
As you can gather from this info, whether you have an electric starter on your
legal Part 103 ultralight or not does not matter. Since the 30 mile circle we
call the Mode C Veil is not mentioned or referenced in Part 103, there are no
restrictions to operation in it by an ultralight. You can operate within that
30 mile circle and below the Class B airspace as long as you remain legal with
the other parts of FAR 103.
That should answer your question. But if it hasn't, here is the short answer:
There is no Mode C Veil that applies to an ultralight. :)
no not archive
--------
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolbra, 912ULS
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18621#18621
Message 40
| 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 Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
Perfect! Thanks you!
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot2@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:44 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: mode c veil
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson"
> <kolbrapilot2@comcast.net>
>
> John Murr,
>
> I see from one of your other posts that you are a fairly low time pilot
> and not fully trained in the FAR's, yet. [Shocked]
>
> Just some quick information to clears up your dilemma.
>
> If you are flying an aircraft with an "N number" on it, then the following
> section of FAR 91 applies to your operation.
>
>
> 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
>
> (Reads in part):
>
> (a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not
> conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment
> installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any
> class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude
> reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112
> (Mode S).
>
> (b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no
> person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs
> (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped
> with an operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A
> 4096 code capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code
> specified by ATC, or a Mode S capability, replying to Mode 3/A
> interrogations with the code specified by ATC and intermode and Mode S
> interrogations in accordance with the applicable provisions specified in
> TSO C112, and that aircraft is equipped with automatic pressure altitude
> reporting equipment having a Mode C capability that automatically replies
> to Mode C interrogations by transmitting pressure altitude information in
> 100-foot increments. This requirement applies
>
> (1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas;
>
> (2) All aircraft. In all airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport
> listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part from the surface upward to
> 10,000 feet MSL;
>
> (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which
> was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or
> which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed,
> balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace within 30
> nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part
> provided such operations are conducted
>
> (i) Outside any Class A, Class B, or Class C airspace area; and
>
> (ii) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace
> area designated for an airport or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower; and
>
> (4) All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral
> boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport
> upward to 10,000 feet MSL; and
>
> (5) All aircraft except any aircraft which was not originally certificated
> with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been
> certified with such a system installed, balloon, or glider
>
> (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of
> Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below
> 2,500 feet above the surface; and
>
> (ii) In the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL within a
> 10-nautical-mile radius of any airport listed in appendix D, section 2 of
> this part, excluding the airspace below 1,200 feet outside of the lateral
> boundaries of the surface area of the airspace designated for that
> airport.
>
> If you are flying a vehicle that meets the requirements of FAR 103, then
> the following sections applies to your operation:
>
> 103.17 Operations in certain airspace.
>
> No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class
> C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface
> area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has
> prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that
> airspace.
>
> 103.20 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas designated
> by notice to airmen.
>
> No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in areas designated in a
> Notice to Airmen under 91.137, 91.138, 91.141, 91.143 or 91.145 of this
> chapter, unless authorized by:
>
> (a) Air Traffic Control (ATC); or
>
> (b) A Flight Standards Certificate of Waiver or Authorization issued for
> the demonstration or event.
>
> As you can gather from this info, whether you have an electric starter on
> your legal Part 103 ultralight or not does not matter. Since the 30 mile
> circle we call the Mode C Veil is not mentioned or referenced in Part 103,
> there are no restrictions to operation in it by an ultralight. You can
> operate within that 30 mile circle and below the Class B airspace as long
> as you remain legal with the other parts of FAR 103.
>
>
> That should answer your question. But if it hasn't, here is the short
> answer:
> There is no Mode C Veil that applies to an ultralight. :)
>
>
> no not archive
>
> --------
> John Williamson
> Arlington, TX
>
> Kolbra, 912ULS
> http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18621#18621
>
>
>
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! --
|