Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:30 AM - Re: Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO (Todd Fredricks)
2. 03:56 AM - Re: Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO (Denny Rowe)
3. 04:41 AM - Re: Transponder for separation (David Lucas)
4. 06:36 AM - Re: Transponder for separation (Thom Riddle)
5. 07:06 AM - Mark III Classic for Sale (Rick Hundley)
6. 07:13 AM - Re: Transponder for separation (Richard Pike)
7. 07:48 AM - Re: Transponder for separation (Thom Riddle)
8. 08:10 AM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (Robert Laird)
9. 08:12 AM - New Cuyuna engine (and new ultralight, to boot) (David Kulp)
10. 08:43 AM - Re: Transponder for separation (Thom Riddle)
11. 08:58 AM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (Jim Dunn)
12. 09:21 AM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (Robert Laird)
13. 09:34 AM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (Jim Dunn)
14. 10:15 AM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (Dana Hague)
15. 10:16 AM - Re: New Cuyuna engine (and new ultralight, to boot) (Dana Hague)
16. 10:25 AM - Re: Transponder for separation (Thom Riddle)
17. 12:26 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (Richard Pike)
18. 12:38 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (N27SB@aol.com)
19. 12:47 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation/Capacitors (John Hauck)
20. 02:12 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (Dana Hague)
21. 02:14 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation/Capacitors (Richard Pike)
22. 02:23 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (Dana Hague)
23. 02:23 PM - Re: Most economical cruse speed for a FireFly (Jack B. Hart)
24. 02:44 PM - Re: Transponder for separation (planecrazzzy)
25. 02:50 PM - Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO (grabo172)
26. 03:21 PM - Dangerous UL Pilots??? (John Hauck)
27. 03:23 PM - Re: Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO (John Hauck)
28. 03:32 PM - Txp's (Russ Kinne)
29. 04:31 PM - Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? (Dana Hague)
30. 05:11 PM - Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? (Charlie England)
31. 05:15 PM - Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? (Steven Green)
32. 05:18 PM - Re: Transponder for separation (Richard Pike)
33. 05:41 PM - Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? (John Hauck)
34. 06:01 PM - Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? (Dana Hague)
35. 06:19 PM - Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? (Dana Hague)
36. 06:21 PM - Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? (John Hauck)
37. 07:01 PM - Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? (Charlie England)
38. 07:04 PM - Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? (Dana Hague)
39. 07:36 PM - Gas Tank Study (JRatcli256@aol.com)
40. 08:13 PM - Re: Transponder for separation (JetPilot)
41. 08:19 PM - Re: Gas Tank Study (Richard Pike)
42. 08:22 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (Richard Pike)
43. 08:25 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (Richard Pike)
44. 08:30 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for separation (John Hauck)
45. 08:38 PM - Re: Gas Tank Study (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: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO |
Admittedly not being there and seeing only 40 degrees of the entire thing, I
was struck by that as well. I am wondering why he pulled the chute. It did
not appear to have been a mid air. Did I miss something as well?
Todd
On 2/11/07 8:36 PM, "planecrazzzy" <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Captain Ron,
> We don't hear from you much...
>
> How bout some picture "updates"...
> s plane looked
>
> "Flyable" ...Did he just Panic , and pull it too soon ?
>
> Did anybody notice that ?
>
> Gotta Fly...
> Mike in MN
>
> --------
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94377#94377
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Fredricks" <flyingfox@copper.net>
> Admittedly not being there and seeing only 40 degrees of the entire thing,
> I
> was struck by that as well. I am wondering why he pulled the chute. It did
> not appear to have been a mid air. Did I miss something as well?
>
> Todd
>
> Todd,
Looked to me like the tow rope on the other plane wrapped around his prop
and yanked him up hard.
Also looked like he pulled up into the tow rope before it got caught,
instead of diving away to the right as the incident called for.
My sound card has died so I did not base this on the audio, and not being
there our Monday morning quarterbacking is worth nothing.
No doubt though that the tow plane saw him and was avoiding him before he
was aware of its presence.
Denny
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: Transponder for separation |
> Even when ATC is busy, and not talking to you, the TCAS always shows traffic
in the area that have transponders and gives a warning if it calculates a possible
collision.
Just for your info, the TCAS display in the cockpit of those jet aircraft show
the distance to the target accurately BUT the bearing can be off. EG. Iv'e done
many ILS approaches in VMC conditions with traffic ahead and established on
the localizer with visual contact with them, i.e. directly in line between me
and the runway, but the TCAS display showed them about 20 degrees off to the left.
So if they're trying to see you based on that TCAS display info only, they
may not be looking at exactly the right place to see you, plus if your transponder
doesn't have altitude mode they wont know your relative height compared
to them. And also, if your transponder doesn't transmit altitude information
their TCAS only gives a warning of your presence and NOT avoidance information,
they need both parameters to produce avoidance guidance.
Finaly, please be aware that if your mixing it with the 'heavies', their proceedures
etc at these relatively low levels keep their heads inside the cockpit
quite a bit of the time which cuts down on the time to look out the window and
see you. It's a very busy phase of flight for them.
Fly safe ! David.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94666#94666
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: Transponder for separation |
Arty,
Actually, the electric starter per se has nothing to do with the Mode C rule. From
the EAA website, I copied the following:
MODE C
There are two exceptions to the Mode C transponder requirement in the FAA regulation
Part 91. One for gliders, balloons, and those aircraft which do not have
an electrical system, and a second exemption for those who do not have a transponder
installed, or who's transponder is not functioning.
First, aircraft which were not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical
system can operate within the mode C Vail without a transponder. This
is allowed by FAR 91.215(b)(3), which states:
(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;
Note that this exception does not allow operations within Class B or C airspace,
but only within the 30 nautical mile mode C "veil" which exists around the primary
airport in Class B airspace.
The second exception authorizes air traffic control (ATC) to allow any aircraft
to deviate from mode C requirements. This exception is outlined in FAR 91.215(d),
which states:
(d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must be made
to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within
the time periods specified as follows:
(1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but without operating
automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability,
the request may be made at any time.
(2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the airport
of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a
place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request may be made at
any time.
(3) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request
must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation.
Note that there is no specific requirement for the request for deviation to come
to ATC through any particular means. The request can be made by telephone or
by radio. Note too that if the aircraft is not equipped with a transponder at
all, the request must be made at least an hour before the operation is to take
place, but if the aircraft has a transponder installed that is malfunctioning
the request can be made at any time.
NO RADIO
No radio operations may be conducted in Class D airspace as long as the Air Traffic
Control facility having jurisdiction over the airspace provides the pilot
permission to operate without a radio. The ATC Facility you would contact is
the air traffic control tower overseeing the airspace. The pilot should call the
particular ATC tower responsible and submit his request including the estimated
time of arrival, type and color of the aircraft. The tower will typically
then ask the pilot to enter the airspace in a particular manner and within a
specific time frame. The regulation dealing with this permission is as follows:
91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having
jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area, each person operating an aircraft
in Class D airspace must comply with the applicable provisions of this section.
In addition, each person must comply with 91.126 and 91.127. For the purpose
of this section, the primary airport is the airport for which the Class D
airspace area is designated. A satellite airport is any other airport within the
Class D airspace area.
(b) Deviations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this section under
the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility having jurisdiction
over the airspace concerned. ATC may authorize a deviation on a continuing
basis or for an individual flight, as appropriate.
Summary:
As you can see, by combining the deviations allowed in the transponder and radio
communications requirements, a pilot could operate an aircraft in Class D airspace
that lies within the mode C veil even though the aircraft is not equipped
with a radio or a transponder so long as the aircraft meets the requirements
of the mode C deviation, and the pilot requests a deviation from the two-way
radio communications requirement for the Class D airspace.
do not archive
--------
Thom in Buffalo
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94688#94688
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: | Mark III Classic for Sale |
I just listed my Mark III Classic on Barnstormers.com at http://
www.barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=search
If the link doesn't work just search "kolb". It should be near the top.
This is a beautiful plane built in 2005 with the assistance of Bryan
Melburn.
Offered at $28,000 OBO
Contact me off list if you have questions or spec sheet. Thanks
Rick Hundley
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: Transponder for separation |
If you don't have electric start, the FAA will pretty much consider that
your aircraft has no "real" electrical system even though you might have a
battery and charging system. And therefore are not required to have a
transponder.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "TheWanderingWench" <thewanderingwench@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Transponder for separation
> <thewanderingwench@yahoo.com>
>
>
> Mike (planecrazzy) wrote...
>>
>> As "I" said , I needed one [a transponder] because
> Class "B" is
>> all over me... and with elec start , I need it to
>> fly in the Mode "C" ring....
>
> Mike -
>
> What difference does having electric start make re:
> needing a transponder?
>
> Arty
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
>
> "Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
> Helen Keller
>
> "I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder for separation |
Richard,
Your interpretation is as good as any and probably correct from a practical standpoint.
FAA has written rules without explicitly defining terms which are open
to various interpretations. This is just one example. Another that affects UL
flyers is the flying over "congested area" rule. Since these and other terms
are not defined explicitly by the FAA, we are left to our own devices to interpret
them for ourselves... and defend our interpretations if push comes to shove.
I know of no one who has been called on the carpet by the FAA for flying low and
slow aircraft within Mode C with an electrical system but without a functioning
transponder. However, I was contacted via an FBO where I landed, by a controller
in Omaha once when I flew below their Class C shelf without a transponder
with Mode C and a dysfunctional radio. He said he had no way of knowing what
my altitude was so he could not effectively keep aircraft separated from me.
I politely reminded him that no radio nor transponder of any type was required
equipment where I was flying and that it was up to him to either assume that
I was flying below the shelf or to be more certain by routing all traffic around
me. He agreed, reluctantly that was his only choice with the current rules.
I have flown for years under the Buffalo (KBUF) class C shelf without radio
contact or transponder equipment and never received such a call from any controller.
Obviously, interpretation and attempts to enforce rules are not universal
amongst the FAA regions. I now have a transponder and regularly monitor BUF
approach freq.
do not archive
--------
Thom in Buffalo
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94716#94716
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: Transponder for separation |
Thom --
Not to change the subject (nor change the point of your message),
"congested area" is defined, somewhat:
========================================================
"General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook, Order 8700.1".
The congested nature of an area is defined by what exists on the
surface, not the size of the area. While the presence of the
nonparticipating public is the most important determination of
congested, the area may also be congested with structures or objects.
An area considered congested for airplane operations could be equally
congested for helicopters. If an airplane flying over a congested area
at less than 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) is in violation of 14
CFR 91.119(b), the area may also be a congested area for a
helicopter conducting external load operations. However, the most
important word in this concept is 'over.' Helicopters can operate over
relatively small uncongested areas because of their maneuvering
abilities.
(b) Densely Populated Area. Title 14 CFR 91.313 and 133.45(d)
use the term "densely populated" area. Those areas of a city, town, or
settlement that contain a large number of occupied homes, factories,
stores, schools, and other structures are considered densely
populated. Additionally, a densely populated area may not contain any
buildings but could consist of a large gathering of persons on a
beach, at an airshow, at a ball game, or at a fairground. NOTE: While
the presence of the nonparticipating public is the most important
determination of congested, this definition also applies to
structures, buildings and personal property. The congested nature of
an area is defined by what exists on the surface, not the size of the
area.
========================================================
http://blogs.chron.com/lightflight/archives/2006/02/defining_conges.html
-- Robert
On 2/13/07, Thom Riddle <jtriddle@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Your interpretation is as good as any and probably correct from a practical standpoint.
FAA has written rules without explicitly defining terms which are open
to various interpretations. This is just one example. Another that affects
UL flyers is the flying over "congested area" rule. Since these and other terms
are not defined explicitly by the FAA, we are left to our own devices to interpret
them for ourselves... and defend our interpretations if push comes to
shove.
>
> I know of no one who has been called on the carpet by the FAA for flying low
and slow aircraft within Mode C with an electrical system but without a functioning
transponder. However, I was contacted via an FBO where I landed, by a controller
in Omaha once when I flew below their Class C shelf without a transponder
with Mode C and a dysfunctional radio. He said he had no way of knowing what
my altitude was so he could not effectively keep aircraft separated from me.
I politely reminded him that no radio nor transponder of any type was required
equipment where I was flying and that it was up to him to either assume that
I was flying below the shelf or to be more certain by routing all traffic around
me. He agreed, reluctantly that was his only choice with the current rules.
I have flown for years under the Buffalo (KBUF) class C shelf without radio
contact or transponder equipment and never received such a call from any controller.
Obviously, interpretation and attempts to enf!
> orce rules are not universal amongst the FAA regions. I now have a transponder
and regularly monitor BUF approach freq.
>
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> Thom in Buffalo
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: | New Cuyuna engine (and new ultralight, to boot) |
Hello all, but especially Ultrastar owners,
In the current issue of Penny Power, a local classified paper, is an ad
for a new Rotec Rally 2B ultralight, with, and here's the interesting
part, a NEW Cuyuna engine. I Googled the Rotec Rally and found it's an
older kingpost and cable aircraft, which could still be a cheap and fun
way to fly the patch. I called the number and the man told me it
belongs to a boys' club who never got past assembling part of the
"cockpit" and now it's for sale.
One of you Ultrastar owners may be interested in buying it for the
engine and getting a few bucks back selling the rest. I asked him what
he expected to get for it (ad says "make offer") and he hoped to get
$2,500. That was last week and I just called him and he still has it.
I mentioned telling you folks about it and he was happy about that.
So, if you want to try to deal a new, never run, Cuyuna with a sky
vehicle to boot, the number to call is 215.257.9771. It's located near
Quakertown, PA, which is about 40 miles north of Philly and about 15
miles south of Bethlehem, PA.
Dave Kulp
Bethlehem, PA
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: Transponder for separation |
Robert,
I appreciate your clarifying response. I've not seen this before. My inquiries
to the FAA and EAA for explicit definitions of this term have yeilded nothing
of substance. Unfortunately, this clarification still uses unquantifiable terms,
so it is still not really explicit. That said, the definition I've always used
for congested area is an area in which I cannot with some confidence land
the aricraft without damage to other's property or person. That being the case,
a congested area depends largely on the type of aircraft I'm flying. A Kolb
Firestar's congested area by this definition would be much different from that
of a Mooney. My definition of a congested area if flying gyroplane would be
different still, due to its ability to land in very small areas.
do not archive
--------
Thom in Buffalo
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94739#94739
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: Transponder for separation |
My feeling is that if I can fly through an area and continually be in
gliding distance of a suitable emergency landing site (e.g., golf course,
large back yard, etc.), then it is neither congested or densely populated.
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: Transponder for separation |
Thom --
I think the spirit of the definition would, unfortunately, have to
exclude the skill of the pilot. I.e., you might be able to land in a
field without affecting anything there, but I might not be able to.
So, the FAA would probably cite you if it thought it was possible for
you (or anyone) to affect any structure, etc.
Besides, we may have some cavalier idea about the "spirit" of the
rule, but I'm sure the FAA has different ideas. :-(
Oh, and, what I find lacking in the "Order 8700.1" is the scenario
where there is a "congested" field surrounded by miles and miles of
uncongested fields. Assuming the congested field is, say, an acre or
less, then when I fly over it I have ample areas for a safe landing.
Only a total breakup of the aircraft would endanger the
structures/people below me, yet by the Order 8700.1 definition, I
should not fly OVER that congested field. That's simply not logical.
-- Robert
On 2/13/07, Thom Riddle <jtriddle@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> I appreciate your clarifying response. I've not seen this before. My inquiries
to the FAA and EAA for explicit definitions of this term have yeilded nothing
of substance. Unfortunately, this clarification still uses unquantifiable terms,
so it is still not really explicit. That said, the definition I've always
used for congested area is an area in which I cannot with some confidence land
the aricraft without damage to other's property or person. That being the case,
a congested area depends largely on the type of aircraft I'm flying. A Kolb
Firestar's congested area by this definition would be much different from that
of a Mooney. My definition of a congested area if flying gyroplane would be
different still, due to its ability to land in very small areas.
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> Thom in Buffalo
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94739#94739
>
>
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: Transponder for separation |
The Key West voltage regulator ($60-$65) does not require a battery and
will put out about 12 Amps at 13.8vdc from a Rotax 503. Transponder with
or without encoder take about 1.6A. Plus you'll need Antenna, cable,
circuit breaker.
>
> You need a 12 volt battery to give you a good clean twelve volts to run
> it,
> and a regulator/rectifier to keep the battery charged.
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: Transponder for separation |
At 12:20 PM 2/13/2007, Robert Laird wrote:
>
>...what I find lacking in the "Order 8700.1" is the scenario
>where there is a "congested" field surrounded by miles and miles of
>uncongested fields. Assuming the congested field is, say, an acre or
>less, then when I fly over it I have ample areas for a safe landing.
>Only a total breakup of the aircraft would endanger the
>structures/people below me...
The "order 8700" is actually part of a document for evaluating helicopter
external load operations... which, like ultralight flying, cannot be
conducted over congested areas.
This gets discussed quite a bit on the PPG list. Two PPG pilots recently
got nailed on a congested area rap for crossing a 4 lane highway during
rush hour-- not flying over it for an extended time, but simply crossing
it. A PPG, of course, can land nearly anywhere, but looking at the aerial
photos of the area it's clearly a bad place to fly... open areas
interspersed with congested areas, and though they stayed (or at least
claimed they did) over the open areas (except for the road), there were
enough people close enough that somebody was bound to get pissed off.
I look at it a bit differently. The ability to make a safe landing is one
thing, but if you're over mountains or forest you may well not be able to
make a safe landing, but those areas aren't considered
"congested". Remember that ultralights need have no inspections, so
structural failure isn't out of the question (else why are so many BRS
systems sold?). But you don't need to have a total structural failure to
endanger somebody... what if your muffler goes through the prop, or some
other part comes loose? Falling debris could kill somebody directly under
the plane even though the airplane can easily glide to a safe landing some
distance away.
Looking only at landing areas, you could make a case for flying (airspace
issues aside) directly over Manhattan, as long as you were within gliding
distance of Central Park. I think the feds would consider Manhattan
"congested".
In the end, though, it usually comes down to whether you piss somebody off,
or have an accident that the FAA can't ignore. Cross over the edge of town
at 1000', nobody notices. Do it at 200' and people call the cops.
I have a document somewhere with a bunch of related information and
specific rulings... if anybody's interested I'll dig it up and post it here.
-Dana
--
--
Don't put it off, procrastinate today.
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: New Cuyuna engine (and new ultralight, to boot) |
At 11:11 AM 2/13/2007, David Kulp wrote:
>Hello all, but especially Ultrastar owners,
>
>In the current issue of Penny Power, a local classified paper, is an ad
>for a new Rotec Rally 2B ultralight, with, and here's the interesting
>part, a NEW Cuyuna engine. I Googled the Rotec Rally and found it's an
>older kingpost and cable aircraft,...
The Rotec Rallye was one of the many "Quickalikes" of the mid 1980's. The
"new" Cuyuna engine has likely been sitting on a shelf for 20+ years, and
if not properly preserved, could be pretty crispy inside.
-Dana
--
--
Don't put it off, procrastinate today.
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: Transponder for separation |
.....I have a document somewhere with a bunch of related information and
specific rulings... if anybody's interested I'll dig it up and post it here.....
Dana,
Please post what you have. If it is online, then a link will do, at least for me.
do not archive
--------
Thom in Buffalo
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94770#94770
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: | Re: Transponder for separation |
I would still like to have a 12V battery in the circuit. I am using a Terra
720 handheld as my "installed" radio, and wired it so that the aircraft's
12V (including motorcycle battery) system ties into the radio's power leads,
same circuit my transponder is on. Tried the radio without the 10 AA
batteries it normally has, and it was a whining, howling mess. Stuck the 10
AA's in it and it quieted down nicely. If the radio did that without it's
usual onboard batteries, wonder how the transponder would do if the 12V
battery was not in the circuit? Moral to the story, I am convinced that
batteries make great sponges for sucking up random electrical noise and
damping odd transients. And I am using a Key West voltage regulator.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Transponder for separation
>
> The Key West voltage regulator ($60-$65) does not require a battery and
> will put out about 12 Amps at 13.8vdc from a Rotax 503. Transponder with
> or without encoder take about 1.6A. Plus you'll need Antenna, cable,
> circuit breaker.
>
>>
>> You need a 12 volt battery to give you a good clean twelve volts to run
>> it,
>> and a regulator/rectifier to keep the battery charged.
>
>
>
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: Transponder for separation |
In a message dated 2/13/2007 1:16:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
d-m-hague@comcast.net write
Remember that ultralights need have no inspections, so
structural failure isn't out of the question (else why are so many BRS
systems sold?).
Hi Dana,
I take issue with this statement. The FAA does not require inspections but
I think that most of us do them. Also I am not so sure that my Firefly is
prone to structural failure. The reason that I put a BRS on my Firefly is
because I can. They were not available for my Long EZ or any other aircraft that
I
flew. Don't mean to jump on you but I hate to see statements about UL's that
lead the average person to draw the conclusion that they are fragile unsafe
machines.
Steve
Firefly 007 on Floats
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: Transponder for separation/Capacitors |
Tried the radio without the 10 AA
| batteries it normally has, and it was a whining, howling mess. |
Richard Pike
Richard:
Try installing a 21,000 mf capacitor right after the reg/rec, 12VDC
and good ground. It will soak up all that whining from the
alternator. I operate my little ICOM A3 without the ICOM battery
installed. Works for me.
john h
PS: During the Firestar days, I had an STS followed by a KX99 which I
recharged from the 447 alternator. Tried it once without the
capacitor, then promptly reinstalled it. However, this was a small
capacitor that I got in a kit from JC Whitney called a battery
eliminator for dirt bikes.
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: Transponder for separation |
At 01:24 PM 2/13/2007, Thom Riddle wrote:
>Please post what you have. If it is online, then a link will do, at least
>for me.
OK, this is what I have... bits and pieces, in no particular order:
from http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/8700_vol2/2_102_00.pdf:
(CHAPTER 102. EVALUATE A PART 133 CONGESTED AREA PLAN (CAP))
(a) Congested Area. The congested nature
of an area is defined by what exists on the surface, not
the size of the area. While the presence of the nonparticipating
public is the most important determination
of congested, the area may also be congested with
structures or objects. An area considered congested for
airplane operations could be equally congested for
helicopters. If an airplane flying over a congested area
at less than 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) is in
violation of 14 CFR 91.119(b), the area may also be
a congested area for a helicopter conducting externalload
operations. However, the most important word in
this concept is over. Helicopters can operate over relatively
small uncongested areas because of their maneuvering
abilities.
from http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4188.PDF:
NTSB Order No. EA-4188, about low flying over a highway:
...The deputy sheriff riding in the passenger seat
testified that the aircraft operated over the freeway for at
least 30 seconds, at an altitude of 75-100 feet....
...In the Board's view, even if Interstate 5, a major
California freeway, is not "bumper to bumper" on a late Saturday
afternoon, moderate traffic in every lane still renders it
"congested," for purposes of the regulation. See also
Administrator v. Dutton, NTSB Order No. EA-3204 (1990)(Moderate
traffic on a highway at 12:55 p.m. is a congested area for
purposes of the minimum safe altitude regulation).9
from http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3646.PDF
...the Shepard Mesa subdivision -- comprised of a minimum of
20 houses, in an area approximately .5 mi. x .66 mi.7 -- would
qualify as a congested area.... "the aircraft flew at least as low as
300 feet."
DMH note: .33 square miles = 211 acres, average 10 acre lots (!)
from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI568Y2001.html
IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY (RULES OF THE AIR) ORDER, 2001
"congested area" means in relation to a city, town or settlement, an area
substantially used for residential, commercial or recreational purposes
without adequate safe forced landing areas"
DMH note: Not U.S., but interesting that other countries DO define it.
from http://www.faa.gov/programs/en/ane/noise/submit.cfm:
There is no regulatory definition of 'congested area'. Administrative case
law has determined what is congested on a case-by-case basis. [Case
references are available on request]). The public should be aware that an
area does not have to be completely free of persons or properties to be
considered noncongested. Additionally, it is possible that small,
noncongested areas as small as an acre or two may allow aerobatics to be
performed without violating 91.303's stipulations.
from
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=1200&file=1200jar.htm,
a discussion of prposed new European regulations:
"Hostile environments," as defined under JAR-OPS 3.480, include areas where
"a safe forced landing cannot be accomplished because the surface is
inadequate"; where there is "an unacceptable risk of endangering persons or
property on the ground"; and "those parts of a congested area without
adequate safe forced landing areas."...
"Congested areas," as defined in JAR-OPS 3, are essentially any densely
populated town or city where no open spaces exist to permit a safe
emergency landing in the event of an engine failure.
At The Hague meeting, industry and regulatory representatives agreed that
the "congested area" concept is made redundant by the distinction between
"hostile" and "non-hostile" environments...
Another concept created by JAR-OPS 3 was that of "exposure times."
Performance Class 1, Category A helicopters can fly over hostile and
congested areas, but JAR-OPS 3 allows Performance 2, Category A helicopters
to fly over hostile, non-congested areas with an exposure time, the length
of which depends on a target engine failure probability of 5 x 10-8,
according to Jim Lyons, secretary of the JAAs Helicopter Subcommittee and
a CAA official in Britain.
This translates, in practical terms, to exposures ranging from a few
seconds to several minutes.
* * * * *
Unfortunately, the phrase "congested area of a city, town, or settlement,
or over any open air assembly of persons" has not yet been specifically
defined by the FAA. The FAA has stated in a 1979 Legal Opinion that it will
be determined on a case-by-case basis. Below is a copy of the Opinion--note
the FAR references have changed.
__________________________
"In response to your letter dated August 28, 1979, and subsequent telephone
conversation, we offer the following answers to your three questions. The
facts on which our interpretations are based are as follows:
A fixed wing aircraft operating at an altitude of 600 feet flew directly
over a populated subdivision of Prince William County, Virginia. The
subdivision consisted of at least 40 residential homes on one acre lots.
While operating in this area, the aircraft made a number of steep turns
over one of these houses.
1. What is the interpretation of the term "congested area of a city, town
or settlement" as that term is used in Section 91.79(b) of the FARs?
The meaning of the term "congested area" is determined on a case-by-case
basis. It first appeared in the Air Commerce Regulations of 1926. No
abstract regulatory definition has yet been developed. However, the
following guidelines indicate the interpretations of the Civil Aeronautics
board (now National Transportation Safety Board) in attempting to give
meaning to the term.
a. The purpose of the rule is to provide minimum safe altitudes for flight
and to provide adequate protection to persons on the ground. Thus, it
distinguishes flight over sparsely settled areas as well as large
metropolitan areas from low flying aircraft. Thus, size of the area is not
controlling, and violations of the rule have been sustained for operation
of aircraft: (i) over a small congested area consisting of approximately 10
houses and a school (Allman, 5 C.A.B. 8 (1940)); (ii) over campus of a
university (Tobin, 5 C.A.B. 162, 164(1941); (iii) over a beach area along a
highway, and (iv) over a boy's camp where there were numerous people on the
docks and children at play on shore.
b. The presence of people is important to the determination of whether a
particular area is "congested." Thus, no violation was found in the case of
a flight over a large shop building and four one-family dwellings because,
in the words of the CAB examiner, "it is not known (to the court) whether
the dwellings were occupied." In that case, the area surrounding the
buildings was open, flat and semiarid.
c. The term has been interpreted to prohibit overflights that cut the
corners of large, heavily congested residential areas.
As made clear in FAR 91.79, the congested area must be an area of a city,
town, or settlement.
2. What is the interpretation of the term "sparsely populated areas" as
contained in Section 91.79(c)?
While this term is not expressly defined, we can conclude that it is
something other than a congested area under Section 91.79(a). A subdivision
of at least 40 occupied residential homes on adjacent one acre lots in
Price William County, VA, would not be considered a sparsely populated
area. Such a subdivision would well constitute a "settlement" under the rule.
Please feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
EDWARD P. FABERMAN
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulation and Enforcement Division
Office of the Chief Counsel"
-Dana
--
--
Don't put it off, procrastinate today.
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: Transponder for separation/Capacitors |
Thanks for the advice, that would have worked great.
However, I just stuck some nicads back in the radio,
that way I didn't need to even look at the wires.
KISS is the only way I can get anything done anymore...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Transponder for separation/Capacitors
>
>
> Tried the radio without the 10 AA
> Richard Pike
>
>
> Richard:
>
> Try installing a 21,000 mf capacitor right after the reg/rec, 12VDC
> and good ground. It will soak up all that whining from the
> alternator. I operate my little ICOM A3 without the ICOM battery
> installed. Works for me.
>
> john h
>
> PS: During the Firestar days, I had an STS followed by a KX99 which I
> recharged from the 447 alternator. Tried it once without the
> capacitor, then promptly reinstalled it. However, this was a small
> capacitor that I got in a kit from JC Whitney called a battery
> eliminator for dirt bikes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Transponder for separation |
At 03:37 PM 2/13/2007, N27SB@aol.com wrote:
>Hi Dana,
>I take issue with this statement. The FAA does not require inspections
>but I think that most of us do them. Also I am not so sure that my Firefly
>is prone to structural failure... I hate to see statements about UL's that
>lead the average person to draw the conclusion that they are fragile
>unsafe machines.
No, they're not, and that was not my meaning. My point was only that in
the absence of specific inspection criteria, the public (or the government)
has no way of insuring that ultralights *are* safe... and as such, they're
relegated to areas where people won't get hurt.
A Kolb is a pretty solid airplane... but I've heard (maybe not on a Kolb)
of mufflers coming loose, going through the prop. I lost the prop on my
PPG when the shaft sheared, which couldn't hurt somebody below (I was over
woods, and glided to an open field). I watched a Kolb crash when the prop
disintegrated. Poorly trained pilots (again remember the regs require no
training) lose control of their aircraft and crash. It was only a year or
two ago that a moron in a Quicksilver crashed into a crowd at a ball
game... you can bet he got (deservedly so) nailed on a congested area /
open air assembly rap! Things happen... though most are preventable, they
happen a lot more than they do to GA aircraft.
-Dana
--
--
Don't put it off, procrastinate today.
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: Most economical cruse speed for a FireFly |
FireFlyers,
Reworked the page for range estimation to include the effect of head winds.
It can be seen on the bottom of:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly130.html
House/snow bound again. Difficult to tell how much snow we are getting as
it is all passing by in the horizontal plane. Some good drifts just outside
the garage door and around the barn.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder for separation |
Hi Guys....
I came back and there were all kinds of posts....
Arty.... I think Richard already explained your question....(elec system)
Richard.... Thanks for jumping in....I was hoping you would...
The guy was in an Experimental (Sky Ranger ? )....
and it was a little ways away from St Paul...(aprox 10 statue miles)
Tower probly didn't know his ALT ,
and I think the Jet was a little too low.. ( scud running )
Although for that area...it's "Under" Class B
Gotta Fly...
Mike & "Jaz" in MN
--------
.
.
.
.
.
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94821#94821
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO |
flyingfox(at)copper.net wrote:
> Admittedly not being there and seeing only 40 degrees of the entire thing, I
> was struck by that as well. I am wondering why he pulled the chute. It did
> not appear to have been a mid air. Did I miss something as well?
>
> Todd
>
>
You can hear the tow rope wrap itself around the prop of his plane...
I think with the altitude he was at and the fact that he didn't know if the rope
caused any other structural failure, I think he made a good decision to pull
the chute and live to fly another day!
--------
-Erik Grabowski
Kolb Firestar N197BG
CFI/CFII/LS-I
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94826#94826
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 |
|
| Subject: | Dangerous UL Pilots??? |
Things happen... though most are preventable, they
| happen a lot more than they do to GA aircraft.
|
| -Dana
Dana:
Where have you been the last 20 or so years?
You may be enlighted by reading the FAA daily accident briefs each
morning. I am amazed at the busted and broken airplanes, dumb stunts,
and accidents GA aircraft and pilots are involved in each day. Yes,
and they kill themselves at an alarming rate. Yesterday was an
exception. One accident reported and one fatality.
I'll put my ultralight pilots up to your GA pilots any day of the
week. For example, take Oshkosh and Lakeland, we fly thousands of
hours each year at both places, in and out of very tight, short grass
airstrips, with no voice communications, no control tower, or other
type control. Very seldom do we have someone bust their ass. Can not
say that for the other side of the airport at OSH or LAL. Yes, we
have been flying that way, very safely, more than I have been around
ULs, and I started in 1984.
Prior to my interests in UL there were a lot of horror stories from
folks deciding the could fly because they thought they could. I think
most of those days have been over for a long, long time.
UL/Lt Planes are a lot more sophisticated now than they were in the
early days. One exception if Kolb aircraft. They have been built
tough since the beginning. That is why I chose to build and fly them.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
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: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO |
I think he made a good decision to pull the chute and live to fly
another day!
|
| --------
| -Erik Grabowski
Erik:
Me too.
What ever it takes to walk away from it.
john h
mkIII
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 |
|
I've read the recent comments about transponders -- and yes, they're
expensive, and no, we don't want to be 'controlled' any more than
necessary, and we don't particularly like talking to ATC when we
fly. BUT - txp's are designed to let us fly safely, with lessened
danger of a midair, and go many places where you can't otherwise; and
we can always turn them off if we feel we don't need them.
But they can also be used as a rudimentary means of comm. if the
radio quits. There are codes that indicate you can transmit but not
receive, and vice-versa; ATC may say "If you can read me, Ident"
and then follow up with yes-no-answerable questions. You can say a
lot that way. And of course there's the emergency code, which will
wake up every ATC man within a hundred miles -- but at least you
will get located quite accurately and very promptly. That alone is
worth a lot if you ever need it.
In my limited experience they pack up now & then. I once was
seriously chastised by ATC over Portland ME when my txp showed me at
1300' ( a REAL no-no!) when I was actually over 4000'. After they
bellowed awhile I told them I knew there were no windows in the
radar-room, but there WERE in the tower -- and why couldn't the tower
personnel just look out the window and see that there was no aircraft
at 1300', even if they couldn't see me at 4000'? They still
blustered & grumbled but at least took no action against me. I had no
idea that my readout was actually reading out 1300', until they told me.
But txp's do let you fly safer & I'll get one, and an encoding
altimeter too, if I can. And a BRS -- that's a luxurious bit of
equipment I've never been able to have. Avoiding a serious crash is
important to me, moreso than money.
FWIW
Russ Kinne
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: | Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? |
At 06:21 PM 2/13/2007, John Hauck wrote:
>Where have you been the last 20 or so years?
>
>You may be enlighted by reading the FAA daily accident briefs each
>morning. I am amazed at the busted and broken airplanes, dumb stunts,
>and accidents GA aircraft and pilots are involved in...
No doubt. My point was that when Part 103 was created, UL planes *were*
crashing with distressing regularity, so the congested area prohibition
made sense. Things have gotten a LOT better since then, of course, but a
person could still (perfectly legally) fly a dangerous UL, or fly with no
training.
I still suspect the UL accident rate is worse than GA's, but I don't know
by how much... and I could very well be wrong. The problem is that there
is no record keeping; the FAA / NTSB don't report or even investigate UL
crashes, except to determine that it was indeed an ultralight.
-Dana
--
--
Don't put it off, procrastinate today.
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: | Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? |
Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 06:21 PM 2/13/2007, John Hauck wrote:
>> Where have you been the last 20 or so years?
>>
>> You may be enlighted by reading the FAA daily accident briefs each
>> morning. I am amazed at the busted and broken airplanes, dumb stunts,
>> and accidents GA aircraft and pilots are involved in...
>
> No doubt. My point was that when Part 103 was created, UL planes *were*
> crashing with distressing regularity, so the congested area prohibition
> made sense. Things have gotten a LOT better since then, of course, but
> a person could still (perfectly legally) fly a dangerous UL, or fly with
> no training.
>
> I still suspect the UL accident rate is worse than GA's, but I don't
> know by how much... and I could very well be wrong. The problem is that
> there is no record keeping; the FAA / NTSB don't report or even
> investigate UL crashes, except to determine that it was indeed an
> ultralight.
>
> -Dana
>
In the homebuilt experimental world, the accident rate is significantly
higher during the test period. After that, the rate is within normal
deviation of factory planes rate. If test period hours and corporate jet
& other turbine flight hours were removed from the numbers, homebuilts
would probably have a better record than other piston a/c.
Truth is, the restrictions are political in nature, intended to give the
appearance of safety with no actual value. Kinda like when they look up
your privates before you get on an airliner.
"Be afraid. Now trust on your government to protect you."
If you are flying a cross-country in a homebuilt & using atc when near a
major metro area with class B airspace, It's quite likely that the
controller will take you directly over his active runways if you are
crossing at right angles to the runway. This path minimizes conflict
with his 'heavy' traffic.
Bottom line: we can either accept the 'show' of safety written into this
rule, or work to educate the 99.5% of the public who's never flown in
*any* small plane & are deathly afraid of the unknown.
Charlie
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: Dangerous UL Pilots??? |
I have read FAA reports where unregistered planes such as this one were
involved in a fatal accident and no investigation was done. There are
exceptions. This one got a lengthy investigation.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1
the FAA / NTSB don't report or even investigate UL
> crashes, except to determine that it was indeed an ultralight.
>
> -Dana
>
> --
> --
> Don't put it off, procrastinate today.
>
>
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: Transponder for separation |
As far as the jet "Scud Running" - jets are not really supposed to scud run, and
ATC is not to encourage it.
There has been an FAA order around for years that is universally ignored, it is
7110.22D. Controllers don't like it because the lame ones can't work traffic
two dimensionally like they usually do, some jet pilots don't like it because
they can't fly a slam dunk approach.
In essence, it says that jets descending into an airport should be at or above
5,000' AGL until they are about to turn base leg, or get within 5 miles of the
airport, or a combination of the above. It is to prevent what one US Airways
Captain referred to as "trolling for Cherokees."
Rather than explain it, I will just post the order as .jpg files and let you draw
your own conclusions.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
planecrazzzy wrote:
> Hi Guys....
> I came back and there were all kinds of posts....
>
> Arty.... I think Richard already explained your question....(elec system)
>
> Richard.... Thanks for jumping in....I was hoping you would...
>
> The guy was in an Experimental (Sky Ranger ? )....
>
> and it was a little ways away from St Paul...(aprox 10 statue miles)
>
> Tower probly didn't know his ALT ,
>
> and I think the Jet was a little too low.. ( scud running )
>
> Although for that area...it's "Under" Class B
>
>
> Gotta Fly...
> Mike & "Jaz" in MN
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94881#94881
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/711022d_large_183.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/711022d2_large_816.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/letter_to_airmen_large_848.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/map_1_large_932.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/map_2_large_154.jpg
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? |
This one got a lengthy investigation.
|
|
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1
|
Steven:
We know why this one gotten investigated. Probably had something to
do with being a multi-billionaire.
john h
mkIII
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Dangerous UL Pilots??? |
At 08:13 PM 2/13/2007, Steven Green wrote:
>
>I have read FAA reports where unregistered planes such as this one were
>involved in a fatal accident and no investigation was done. There are
>exceptions. This one got a lengthy investigation.
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1
Unregistered plane, yes... but true ultralights, no (though there are
exceptions).
-Dana
--
--
Don't put it off, procrastinate today.
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: Dangerous UL Pilots??? |
At 08:11 PM 2/13/2007, Charlie England wrote:
>
>Truth is, the restrictions are political in nature, intended to give the
>appearance of safety with no actual value. Kinda like when they look up
>your privates before you get on an airliner.
>
>"Be afraid. Now trust on your government to protect you."
In most cases (especially the current Transportation Security Gestapo) I'd
agree with you, but Part 103 is a gift... they could have just said
register all aircraft, even hang gliders, and license all pilots. That
they didn't would be unthinkable in today's political climate, and amazing
even then. Certainly there are things I'd like to change in 103 (SP/LSA
completely missed the original target), but not at the risk of having them
revise the whole thing.
>Bottom line: we can either accept the 'show' of safety written into this
>rule, or work to educate the 99.5% of the public who's never flown in
>*any* small plane & are deathly afraid of the unknown.
The public doesn't *want* to be educated. They'd rather feel safe taking
off their shoes before boarding an airliner and evacuating buildings when
somebody shakes his jelly donut and leaves "suspicious white powder" on his
desk.
-Dana
--
--
Don't put it off, procrastinate today.
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: Dangerous UL Pilots??? |
are
| exceptions).
|
| -Dana
About 99.9 % of the ULs out there are really unregistered airplanes,
by the regs.
john h
mkIII
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? |
Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 08:11 PM 2/13/2007, Charlie England wrote:
>> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Truth is, the restrictions are political in nature, intended to give
>> the appearance of safety with no actual value. Kinda like when they
>> look up your privates before you get on an airliner.
>>
>> "Be afraid. Now trust on your government to protect you."
>
> In most cases (especially the current Transportation Security Gestapo)
> I'd agree with you, but Part 103 is a gift... they could have just said
> register all aircraft, even hang gliders, and license all pilots. That
> they didn't would be unthinkable in today's political climate, and
> amazing even then. Certainly there are things I'd like to change in 103
> (SP/LSA completely missed the original target), but not at the risk of
> having them revise the whole thing.
>
>> Bottom line: we can either accept the 'show' of safety written into
>> this rule, or work to educate the 99.5% of the public who's never
>> flown in *any* small plane & are deathly afraid of the unknown.
>
> The public doesn't *want* to be educated. They'd rather feel safe
> taking off their shoes before boarding an airliner and evacuating
> buildings when somebody shakes his jelly donut and leaves "suspicious
> white powder" on his desk.
>
> -Dana
> --
We are in agreement; That's the point I was (rather inadequately) trying
to make. :-)
While I understand the pragmatic implications of your phrasing, I would
disagree that it's a 'gift'. The authorities consider *anything* we do a
'gift' from the authorities. This is a radical departure from the intent
of those who framed the constitution. We should never miss a chance to
tell our elected officials the we disagree.
Charlie
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dangerous UL Pilots??? |
At 09:21 PM 2/13/2007, John Hauck wrote:
>
>About 99.9 % of the ULs out there are really unregistered airplanes,
>by the regs.
True. Some are more blatant than others, though.
-Dana
--
--
Don't put it off, procrastinate today.
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 |
|
Hi Gang,
I'm looking into increased fuel supply for my Mark 3x. I think size, shape,
location and angle would have a large effect on the lowest usable fuel level.
also soughing of fuel fore & aft and various angles of bank would seriously
effect stability and again - useable fuel levels. Distance from the rotation
point having the most effect.
Have a program that will allow me to draw various shape/size tanks and rotate
it around an axis. Could rotate it around the center of the tank, but don't
think this would be correct. Need to determine the longitudinal and vertical
axis an aircraft rotates around, especially the Mark 3x in coordinated flight.
I can move the axis wherever I want in the program.
Think it would be at some point along the cord-line of the wing - centerline
of the airframe, possibly at the balance point.
Know there must be an engineer or someone out there that can guide me.
Any takers? John H. you must have taken this into consideration when planning
your larger tank.
Thanks -- John Ratcliffe
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder for separation |
Richard Pike wrote:
>
>
> In essence, it says that jets descending into an airport should be at or above
5,000' AGL until they are about to turn base leg, or get within 5 miles of the
airport, or a combination of the above.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
I see that date on that as 1986, it may be out of effect or long forgotten...
In reality, flying into the busiest airports in the world and also to smaller
ones, we are never at 5000 feet when we turn base leg... Be it IFR or VFR, base
is usually between 2000 to 3000 feet.
If you are worried about fast flying jets, a transponder will solve 99 % of that
problem. An altitude encoder is even better, but not necessary. When you
have TCAS shouting TRAFFIC at you while flying a jet, you can bet the guys flying
it start looking out the windows to see what they are about to run into.
Nothing is perfect, but TCAS works very very well.
The biggest reason for me to install a transponder was to open up a bunch of airspace
and many airports to you I am flying cross country. If you are low over
farmland, you can turn it off so as not to attract attention, but its nice to
have when you want it. It will give you some added safety when you are flying
high with larger aircraft or aircraft that are talking to ATC. Even though
ATC does not always have time to point out traffic to everyone, they are usually
pretty good about it and increases safety a lot in busy airspace.
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=94907#94907
Message 41
| 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: Gas Tank Study |
There are all kinds of theories, but in the real world, John has a very
workable solution that has served him well.
Mine is quite different, it is mostly in the gap seal area between the
wings, but it serves me well. And since I can't weld aluminum, it was
suitable for my skill level. As far as distance from the rotation point,
stability - I don't know about that, but at the last Kolb Homecoming
before he left us, Norm flew my MKIII and said it flew delightfully,
more like a Firefly than a MKIII. I value that very highly, so I guess
having the gas tank up high doesn't hurt.
Here's how it works -
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg1.htm
Have modified the upper part of the tank since I made that page, to see
how it looks now, go here -
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg2.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: JRatcli256@aol.com
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:35 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Gas Tank Study
Hi Gang,
I'm looking into increased fuel supply for my Mark 3x. I think size,
shape, location and angle would have a large effect on the lowest usable
fuel level. also soughing of fuel fore & aft and various angles of bank
would seriously effect stability and again - useable fuel levels.
Distance from the rotation point having the most effect.
Have a program that will allow me to draw various shape/size tanks and
rotate it around an axis. Could rotate it around the center of the tank,
but don't think this would be correct. Need to determine the
longitudinal and vertical axis an aircraft rotates around, especially
the Mark 3x in coordinated flight.
I can move the axis wherever I want in the program.
Think it would be at some point along the cord-line of the wing -
centerline of the airframe, possibly at the balance point.
Know there must be an engineer or someone out there that can guide me.
Any takers? John H. you must have taken this into consideration when
planning your larger tank.
Thanks -- John Ratcliffe
Message 42
| 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: Transponder for separation |
If it is long forgotten, then you need to let the Classic Jet Aircraft
Association know it, it is in their latest publication, pdf page 15.
http://www.classicjets.org/documents/Jet_Operations_Guide.pdf
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:13 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Transponder for separation
>
>
> Richard Pike wrote:
>>
>>
>> In essence, it says that jets descending into an airport should be at or
>> above 5,000' AGL until they are about to turn base leg, or get within 5
>> miles of the airport, or a combination of the above.
>>
>> Richard Pike
>> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>>
>
>
> I see that date on that as 1986, it may be out of effect or long
> forgotten... In reality, flying into the busiest airports in the world
> and also to smaller ones, we are never at 5000 feet when we turn base
> leg... Be it IFR or VFR, base is usually between 2000 to 3000 feet.
>
> If you are worried about fast flying jets, a transponder will solve 99 %
> of that problem. An altitude encoder is even better, but not necessary.
> When you have TCAS shouting TRAFFIC at you while flying a jet, you can bet
> the guys flying it start looking out the windows to see what they are
> about to run into. Nothing is perfect, but TCAS works very very well.
>
> The biggest reason for me to install a transponder was to open up a bunch
> of airspace and many airports to you I am flying cross country. If you
> are low over farmland, you can turn it off so as not to attract attention,
> but its nice to have when you want it. It will give you some added safety
> when you are flying high with larger aircraft or aircraft that are talking
> to ATC. Even though ATC does not always have time to point out traffic to
> everyone, they are usually pretty good about it and increases safety a lot
> in busy airspace.
>
> 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=94907#94907
>
>
>
Message 43
| 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: Transponder for separation |
Aren't you supposed to leave your transponder on all the time?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:13 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Transponder for separation
<snip>
> The biggest reason for me to install a transponder was to open up a bunch
> of airspace and many airports to you I am flying cross country. If you
> are low over farmland, you can turn it off so as not to attract attention,
> but its nice to have when you want it.
<snip>
> 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=94907#94907
>
>
>
Message 44
| 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: Transponder for separation |
bunch of airspace and many airports to you I am flying cross country.
|
| Michael A. Bigelow
Mike:
I choose to stay out of Class B and C airports. In fact, I don't care
to fly into Class D airports. I like going into uncontrolled airports
and cow pastures.
I don't have any problems with airspace as I happily fly cross country
with my ICOM A3 and Garmin 196.
john h
mkIII
Message 45
| 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: Gas Tank Study |
John R:
Designing a fuel tank for the mkIII is pretty easy. Get some good
card board or chart board. Construct the tank out of the card board
to fit the space it is going into.
Cross baffle the inside.
Design the bottom of the tank to have a lowest point that every drop
of fuel will drain out when the airplane is in straight and level
flight attitude.
Built ours out of .050" 5052 aluminum sheet. Pop riveted together,
then welded it. Sloshed four times with Randolph fuel tank slosh and
seal for auto fuel and avgas.
Any questions?
john h
mkIII
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! --
|