Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:08 AM - Getting through ELSA (Lanny Fetterman)
2. 05:50 AM - Re: Getting through ELSA (Richard Girard)
3. 06:23 AM - Re: Re: New guy with questions (Richard Girard)
4. 06:27 AM - Re: New guy with questions (lucien)
5. 08:00 AM - Re: Re: New guy with questions (Richard Girard)
6. 08:15 AM - Re: New guy with questions (lucien)
7. 08:33 AM - Re: Re: New guy with questions (John Hauck)
8. 08:51 AM - Re: New guy with questions (lucien)
9. 10:26 AM - Re: Re: New guy with questions (Richard Girard)
10. 10:38 AM - Re: Re: New guy with questions (Richard Girard)
11. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: New guy with questions (Richard Girard)
12. 12:16 PM - heatin & beatin (robert bean)
13. 12:59 PM - Bad Possum (possums)
14. 01:06 PM - Re: heatin & beatin (planecrazzzy)
15. 01:32 PM - Re: Bad Possum (John Hauck)
16. 02:23 PM - Re: New guy with questions (lucien)
17. 03:07 PM - Did It Again. (Jack B. Hart)
18. 04:07 PM - Re: Bad Possum (Richard Girard)
19. 04:18 PM - Re: Re: New guy with questions (Richard Girard)
20. 04:34 PM - Re: Did It Again. (planecrazzzy)
21. 05:15 PM - Re: New guy with questions (lucien)
22. 06:18 PM - Re: Re: New guy with questions (flymichigan@comcast.net)
23. 06:54 PM - Re: Did It Again. (Ralph B)
24. 06:54 PM - Re: Re: Did It Again. (Jack B. Hart)
25. 06:56 PM - Re: Getting through ELSA (Jim ODay)
26. 07:06 PM - Re: Did It Again. (Ralph B)
27. 07:18 PM - Re: Did It Again. (Jim ODay)
28. 08:27 PM - landing on taxiway (Bob Noyer)
29. 08:32 PM - Re: Re: Did It Again. (David Key)
30. 08:51 PM - Re: Getting through ELSA (The BaronVonEvil)
31. 09:18 PM - Re: Re: Did It Again. (APilot@webtv.net)
32. 11:06 PM - Re: Re: New guy with questions (Richard Girard)
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: | Getting through ELSA |
Carlos and all, I went through the ELSA process last year. The inspector
looked at everything that is listed on the EAA pre-inspection sheet, (too
much to list here). He checked that every bolt he could see was the correct
length for it`s application, and that there were two threads sticking out
past the nut.
He found two things I had to do before he passed my FSII. First he
required that I strap down my 12 volt battery, up to that time it was in a
battery box and was held in place by the battery cables. He felt if I ever
crashed or went inverted, the battery may come free and fly around the
cockpit. Second he required that I put torque seal on all the self locking
nuts, so that I could tell if they were coming loose during my preflight
inspection.
I thought both of these suggestions were valuable, and completed them as
soon as I could.
The FAA inspector I had was there to help me get through the process, not
to make my life miserable. He was concerned with my safety and the
airworthiness of the aircraft. By the same token, If my FSII was unsafe, he
would not hesitate to refuse to issue the airworthiness
certificate. Lanny Fetterman November five niner eight lima
foxtrott. ( I`m practicing my radio skills ).
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: Getting through ELSA |
Baron, It depends on the DAR. How much variance can there be between DAR's?
How long is a piece of string? Some just want your paperwork in order and
cha ching. Other's, the good ones, IMHO, spend an hour or two with you and
the aircraft.
At least one, with whom I have personal experience, wanted a conditional
inspection in the aircraft's log book, and never even went into the hangar
to look at the aircraft. I know, because I did the conditional inspection
and I was sitting in the office and saw the whole thing. He came in, handed
the owner the paperwork, took the cash, chatted for a bit, got back in his
car and drove away. 20 minutes for $400. Of course he did the paperwork at
home and is a slow typist, so maybe he earned his money, at least in his own
mind, if not anyone else's.
Another I know, does a thorough inspection, not only to see that you have
all the requirements, placards, instrument markings, and such, but
effectively does a conditional inspection, since he sees his sign off as the
equivalent, which, for legal purposes, it is.
He scared the **** out of one aircraft's owner with a long list of the
things he recommended fixing. You should have seen the owner's face light up
when his instructor, from whom he bought the aircraft, explained that the
DAR was real anal about the details. The list came with the certificate, so
relax.
Another example, the E-LSA trike I flew to get my logbook endorsement while
I was at Sun n Fun, had the most common, glaring error one can make, and got
away with it.
When I inspected the aircraft's documents, prior to my first flight, using
the standard AROW method, I saw that the manufacturer was listed as Air
Creations on both the registration and the airworthiness certificate.
Now, common knowledge is that the builder of any experimental aircraft is
the manufacturer, right? I thought the instructor had put trick documents in
the aircraft to see if I would catch it, so I asked how in the world that
had gotten through? It seems the aircraft had been put through the process
in 2004, just after the LSA rule became law. The registration was done by
Lockwood Aviation, from whom my instructor bought the trike, and it had
slipped through. Their were no DAR's with the function code for E-LSA then
and the inspection had been done by the FAA. The process was brand new and
it slipped by since all the paperwork was in agreement. Go figure.
Because there is this kind of leeway in the process, the best thing you can
do is ask the DAR. For the kind of money he/she is getting, a DAR should be
willing to take the time to explain anything of personal interest, so when
he/she does come out, everything goes smoothly.
If it's the paperwork you're worried about, I recommend the pack from
Rainbow Aviation Services. It's five bucks well spent, because Carol puts in
sample forms so you can see how they all must tie together.
The #1 failure, as documented by others on this forum, is not having EXACTLY
the same entry in boxes requiring the same information on different forms.
Simple stuff like calling your plane a Baron Von Evil Firestar II on one
form and a Baron Von Evil FS II on another is a failure.
Hope this helps.
Rick
On 9/1/07, The BaronVonEvil <grageda@innw.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am in the process of getting my FS II through the ELSA hoops. Has anyone
> else completed the process yet ? I realize Arty Trost did her drifter
> recently but , I was looking for more of a Kolb specific info and was
> wondering what your inspectors were looking for during their inspections.
>
> Unfortunately, the FAA is delegated this process to DAR's. This may may
> have its good points but, I'm not real happy that I may have to pay for this
> service that the FAA once did for free.
>
> For me, I have two planes (I have a Drifter 447 as well) to get through
> the process. So I take a hit twice, and depending upon the DAR, this can be
> in excess of $1000.00 by the time it is all said and done, :-(
>
> So I'm trying to gather information about the process so that I can get
> through it the first time with hopefully very little difficulty.
>
> Thank You for your Help
>
> Carlos
> AKA BaronVonEvil
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132309#132309
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: New guy with questions |
Lucien et al, The guinea hens woke me up at dawn, again, and in the early
morning clarity I thought of a very simple way to settle this debate.
All those who think an existing, i.e. built and flying, illegal aircraft can
be certificated Experimental - Amateur Built, do this.
Create a legal binding contract with the person to whom you are giving this
advice that says you will buy the aircraft, at it's full purchase price plus
any money spent on DAR fees, N numbers and the like, if you're wrong.
My guess is the silence will be deafening.
Rick
On 9/1/07, Richard Girard <jindoguy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lucien, You still don't address how you're going to make an old airplane
> look freshly built. Good luck with that one.
>
> Rick
>
> On 9/1/07, lucien <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > > Steve, The answer is on form 8050-88, the form for E-AB. It requires a
> > receipt from the kit manufacturer or a pile of receipts from aircraft
> > vendors. How are you going to get those? A receipt from the builder won't do
> > as it makes it plain to anyone with two neurons to rub together that you are
> > not the builder. One or two receipts from Aircraft Spruce and Wick's won't
> > cut it either since they won't add up to an airplane.
> > > Then there's the builder's log. How are you going to put that
> > together?
> > > Last, a used airplane looks used, not your freshly built pride and joy
> > still out gassing the aroma of resins, glues and PolyFiber.
> > > You might be able to find a willing DAR to fake all of the above, or
> > ignore the lack, but that's a mighty big might with an awful lot of money in
> > the balance.
> > > Last there's that little bugaboo of both of you committing perjury at
> > the federal level. How much will a DAR charge to risk loosing all his
> > certificates permanently.
> > > Personally, I recommend leaving perjury to the pros, like Attorney's
> > General. ;-)
> > >
> > > Rick
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well remember, you don't have to show necessarily that _you_ were the
> > builder to get an Exp A/B AW certificate for the plane. As long as you can
> > show 51% of it was built by _an_ amateur for recreation/education you can
> > get the AW cert.
> >
> > Documentation that you built it is only required if you want the
> > repairman's certificate for it.
> >
> > If it's a Kolb, the chances are vert very very good it was built from a
> > pile of parts or a kit, and practically as good that it was built by an
> > amateur. A builder's log for the plane would certainly be worth its weight
> > in gold in this respect for sure, so of course look for that being available
> > for the plane if you intend to buy it.
> >
> > But Exp A/B still seems very doable for most unregistered fat-UL's from
> > what I can see, though the repairmans certificate might be a lot harder to
> > obtain...
> >
> > LS
> >
> >
> > It's
> >
> > --------
> > LS
> > FS II
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132298#132298
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: New guy with questions |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Lucien, You still don't address how you're going to make an old airplane look
freshly built. Good luck with that one.
>
> Rick
>
Huh? It doesn't have to have been freshly built, whatever that means.
Again, for the AW certificate, all you need is documentation that the plane was
amateur built by some amateur builder for recreation/education. Doesn't matter
when it was built or who built it (the builder doesn't even have to be alive
anymore).
You're probably still thinking of the repairman's cert, which can only be granted
to the original builder.
But even if you don't have the repairman's cert., that only means you can't do
the annual condition inspection unless you're an AnP.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132334#132334
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: | Re: New guy with questions |
Lucien, I'm not confused about anything we're talking about on the issue of
E-AB certification as a substitute for E-LSA certs. Let me put my post from
early this morning in very plane English. pun intended.
You're guessing you're right, and you're wrong, period.
Except as an aberration, no DAR or FAA official is ever going to sign off a
fat ultralight, ultralight trainer, or other previously built and flown
illegal aircraft as E-AB because someone missed the 1-31-08 deadline.
First, go to the EAA and let them tell you how wrong your guesses are. Their
experts know as much about E-AB requirements as anyone on the planet. That's
their business and they're very, very good at it.
Then have the decency to come back and apologize to the forum.
If you're too lazy to check with the experts and still insist on passing out
this rubbish in the guise of good advice, put your money where your mouth
is.
Sign a legally binding binding contract with Steve, or anyone else willing
to take your misinformed guessing as good advice, saying you'll buy the
aircraft, at its full purchase price,
when you're proven wrong.
Rick
On 9/2/07, lucien <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > Lucien, You still don't address how you're going to make an old airplane
> look freshly built. Good luck with that one.
> >
> > Rick
> >
>
>
> Huh? It doesn't have to have been freshly built, whatever that means.
>
> Again, for the AW certificate, all you need is documentation that the
> plane was amateur built by some amateur builder for recreation/education.
> Doesn't matter when it was built or who built it (the builder doesn't even
> have to be alive anymore).
>
> You're probably still thinking of the repairman's cert, which can only be
> granted to the original builder.
>
> But even if you don't have the repairman's cert., that only means you
> can't do the annual condition inspection unless you're an AnP.....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132334#132334
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: New guy with questions |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Lucien, I'm not confused about anything we're talking about on the issue of
E-AB certification as a substitute for E-LSA certs. Let me put my post from early
this morning in very plane English. pun intended.
> You're guessing you're right, and you're wrong, period.
>
Sorry, but you need to review the rules for experimental a/b certification.
If you can show it was amateur built, you can get it certificated as experimental
amateur built.
I don't know where you're getting your information that all this has changed, but
I'd suggest not consulting those sources anymore. All this is in the regs....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132343#132343
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: New guy with questions |
Richard G/Lucien:
Would it not be sufficient to post your reference reg, to include page,
paragraph, and line?
Think that would end your arguments.
john h
mkIII
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: New guy with questions |
John Hauck wrote:
> Richard G/Lucien:
>
> Would it not be sufficient to post your reference reg, to include page,
> paragraph, and line?
>
> Think that would end your arguments.
>
> john h
> mkIII
The relevant FARs for Experimental certificates are in FAR part 21 subpart H.
The rules concerning amateur built certification start in 21.191 and continue on
from there.
Like I said, this is all in the regs, when in doubt read the rules....
I think steve is simply confusing the difference between ELSA and EAB regarding
the EAA's comments about the grace period that expires in Jan.
The rules for EAB have changed very little with the introduction of ELSA to my
knowledge and it's still available for anything that flies through the air and
can be shown to have been 51% built by an amateur for recreation/education.
Dem's the facts....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132347#132347
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: | Re: New guy with questions |
John, Tried that once, maybe the second time is the charm. FAR 21.191 covers
the issuance of experimental certificates. 21.191g is E-AB. 21.191i (1)
covers E-LSA before 1-31-2008. (2) and (3) covers after that date.
Rick
PS going out to build a new radiator mount for the Mk III. Much more
interesting.
On 9/2/07, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Richard G/Lucien:
>
> Would it not be sufficient to post your reference reg, to include page,
> paragraph, and line?
>
> Think that would end your arguments.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: New guy with questions |
Lucien, Thanks for taking the time to prove my point. And I quote:
21.191 Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
21.191(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major
portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook
the construction process solely for their own education or recreation.
No where does it say "for the purpose of a used aircraft bought complete and
ready to fly"
Rick
On 9/2/07, lucien <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> John Hauck wrote:
> > Richard G/Lucien:
> >
> > Would it not be sufficient to post your reference reg, to include page,
> > paragraph, and line?
> >
> > Think that would end your arguments.
> >
> > john h
> > mkIII
>
>
> The relevant FARs for Experimental certificates are in FAR part 21 subpart
> H.
>
> The rules concerning amateur built certification start in 21.191 and
> continue on from there.
>
> Like I said, this is all in the regs, when in doubt read the rules....
>
> I think steve is simply confusing the difference between ELSA and EAB
> regarding the EAA's comments about the grace period that expires in Jan.
>
> The rules for EAB have changed very little with the introduction of ELSA
> to my knowledge and it's still available for anything that flies through the
> air and can be shown to have been 51% built by an amateur for
> recreation/education.
> Dem's the facts....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132347#132347
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: New guy with questions |
See also AC 20-27F, downloadable in PDF format. Paragraph 7 g (1) discusses
kit built aircraft.
Notice the matrix of eligibility and the big fat X in the INELIGIBLE column
for the scenario "You hired someone to build the aircraft for you, and
hiring this person means you DID NOT FABRICATE AND ASSEMBLE THE MAJOR
PORTION OF THE AIRCRAFT. Note: Capitalization mine.
Now, I'm not sure how you can construe buying a used, unregistered,
previously flown aircraft as anything other than you paid to have the
aircraft constructed for you.
Also note that 7 f (2) and 7 g (3) concerns taking over projects, f is for
plans built aircraft, g is for kit built. Both describe keeping the previous
builder's log and adding your efforts to them. Both end with the sentence,
"This information may help us to determine that your aircraft is eligible
for amateur-built certification."
What are you going to show the DAR or FAA. "Here's a picture of me pulling
the airplane from the hangar." Here's a picture of me putting it on the
trailer". Or, alternately, "Here's a picture of me flying the aircraft
away."
Whoa, boy, worked up a sweat doing that part of the fabrication and
assembly.
You keep saying the rules are the rules, Well there you have them.
Rick
9/2/07, Richard Girard <jindoguy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lucien, Thanks for taking the time to prove my point. And I quote:
> 21.191 Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
> 21.191(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the
> major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who
> undertook the construction process solely for their own education or
> recreation.
>
> No where does it say "for the purpose of a used aircraft bought complete
> and ready to fly"
>
> Rick
>
> On 9/2/07, lucien < lstavenhagen@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > John Hauck wrote:
> > > Richard G/Lucien:
> > >
> > > Would it not be sufficient to post your reference reg, to include
> > page,
> > > paragraph, and line?
> > >
> > > Think that would end your arguments.
> > >
> > > john h
> > > mkIII
> >
> >
> > The relevant FARs for Experimental certificates are in FAR part 21
> > subpart H.
> >
> > The rules concerning amateur built certification start in 21.191 and
> > continue on from there.
> >
> > Like I said, this is all in the regs, when in doubt read the rules....
> >
> > I think steve is simply confusing the difference between ELSA and EAB
> > regarding the EAA's comments about the grace period that expires in Jan.
> >
> > The rules for EAB have changed very little with the introduction of ELSA
> > to my knowledge and it's still available for anything that flies through the
> > air and can be shown to have been 51% built by an amateur for
> > recreation/education.
> > Dem's the facts....
> >
> > LS
> >
> > --------
> > LS
> > FS II
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132347#132347
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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 |
|
I added the last pic to Thom's FS gallery. Now I can go do some bush
hogging.
http://tinyurl.com/2jaugy
BB
do not archive
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 |
|
OK - I saw the deadlines that you posted.
I am sitting here looking at my package from EAA
"How to Register and Certify You Ultralight".
I assume I am supposed to send in form 8050-1
and form 8050-88A to get an N-number (don't care which one).
I have a "Bill of Sale" from the kit manufacturer
so I guess I will check that box.
Then after the N-number is assigned the DAR comes out, right?
Our club has a DAR that does all our planes......so
have I missed any deadlines yet or was the August 15th
just a suggestion.
I would hate to continue to be illegal after 25 years, would like
to come from the cold. I'm gonna kinda stick out with no N-numbers
after Jan. 31. I guess that's the point in doing all of this.
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
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: heatin & beatin |
Hey Bob,
Lookin good !
A welding shop that I used to work for , wanted a discription of your work
on the Time card... Sometimes I'd write:
Pushin, Pullin , Heat'n & Beat'n....
.
.
Gotta Fly...
Mike & "Jaz" in MN
.
.
.
--------
.
.
.
.
.
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132386#132386
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mike_at_checker_mach_585.bmp
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 |
|
> I would hate to continue to be illegal after 25 years, would like
> to come from the cold. I'm gonna kinda stick out with no N-numbers
> after Jan. 31. I guess that's the point in doing all of this.
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
Stan:
Your little possum heart will feel so much better after you become a legal
possum. Something like realizing you ain't dead, dying, bleeding or broken
up after a bad crash. Well........maybe not that good. ;-)
john h
mkIII
PS: Never built an airplane I did not total. Nothing like a perfect
record. Haven't totaled one in over 15 years. That is a record, for sure.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> See also AC 20-27F, downloadable in PDF format. Paragraph 7 g (1) discusses kit
built aircraft.
> Notice the matrix of eligibility and the big fat X in the INELIGIBLE column for
the scenario "You hired someone to build the aircraft for you, and hiring this
person means you DID NOT FABRICATE AND ASSEMBLE THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE
AIRCRAFT. Note: Capitalization mine.
>
No, this statement addresses building the plane _for hire_. It does _not_ suggest
a general requirement that _you_ have to be the original builder of the aircraft.
>
> Now, I'm not sure how you can construe buying a used, unregistered, previously
flown aircraft as anything other than you paid to have the aircraft constructed
for you.
Huh? Easy - if the plane was originally built by an amateur solely for the purpose
of recreation/education AND you can document that, the plane was amateur-built.
Where are you getting this stuff?
>
> Also note that 7 f (2) and 7 g (3) concerns taking over projects, f is for plans
built aircraft, g is for kit built. Both describe keeping the previous builder's
log and adding your efforts to them. Both end with the sentence, "This
information may help us to determine that your aircraft is eligible for amateur-built
certification."
> What are you going to show the DAR or FAA. "Here's a picture of me pulling the
airplane from the hangar." Here's a picture of me putting it on the trailer".
Or, alternately, "Here's a picture of me flying the aircraft away."
> Whoa, boy, worked up a sweat doing that part of the fabrication and assembly.
> You keep saying the rules are the rules, Well there you have them.
>
Yep, you really do need to reread them, it doesn't sound like you've looked at
them too carefully to me.
Nothing you've presented supports anything you're saying.
Nobody ever said the regs allowed getting an EAB certificate for a plane WITHOUT
satisfying the requirements for that certification. You still have to do that,
clearly.
And finally.....
> Lucien, Thanks for taking the time to prove my point. And I quote:
> 21.191 Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
> 21.191(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion
of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the
construction process solely for their own education or recreation.
>
> No where does it say "for the purpose of a used aircraft bought complete and
ready to fly"
>
Exactly and nobody ever said otherwise.
Now, notice the regs ONLY say "which has been fabricated and assembled by persons.....
soley for their own education and recreation"........
The reg does NOT say "only if you built the plane can you get the AW cert" or some
such.....
It only has to have been amateur built and can be documented as such....
hence my point....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132392#132392
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 |
|
Kolbers,
Yesterday, I flew up to Marion, Indiana to a fly-in. When I got there I
found they had closed the cross wind runway and I could not merge into the
GA traffic pattern. To get down, I cross the main runway at mid field and
made a right hand pattern for the parallel taxiway. On the first pass a
Varieze took the first ramp and I had to abort. On the second attempt I had
the taxiway made, and the engine quit.
At this point I made a poor decision to restart and diverted my attention
from landing. Thinking back, I wonder why I did this because I have
finished many flights with a quiet engine. I just dropped the nose a little
and made a nice approach and restarted the engine on the runway and taxi on
in. I glanced at the airspeed indicator and it said 40 mphi and I knew I
was in trouble because I was close to gross weight and I would not have
chance of making a good flare. I dropped the nose and picked up a little
more speed and flared. Impact was soft but I ended up with two bent landing
gear legs. Restarted the engine and taxied up to the fly-in proper. Ended
up with a prime spot, and talked with loads of people. Most did not notice
the bent gear. I was the only Kolb there.
Cranked up and carefully taxied it out and flew it back to Winchester. No
problems at all.
Now I have two legs to straighten because, I didn't continue to fly the
plane, got too slow, and I didn't make use of the flaperons. I purchased a
shop press for the hangar. I figure I may have to use it again, and having
it there will remind me to forget the unimportant things and keep flying the
FireFly.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Wichester, IN
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 |
|
Possum, Might as well catch heck twice today.
Here is what I was told by a DAR about 8050-88A. You obviously want to check
the Second Option box.
Then check the last box, Evidence.....cannot be provided for one of the
reasons below.
Under the evidence of ownership......for the following reason, check the
first box.
The original evidence...has been lost and I am unable to obtain.........
Why?
According to him, the FAA is obligated to check evidence if you supply it.
They gave this option, figuring most of the aircraft are old and the
evidence probably will be lost. That's what they expect to see and since you
will sign and have that signature notarized, they'll take your word for it.
It just makes everyone's life easier.
Another reason is that you're probably going to hear from the revenooers and
having no receipt puts the burden on them to prove your Possum Whizbang Mk
III is worth more than what you claim. Have a receipt for them to point to
and they will.
Not my interpretation, just passing on what I was told to do for my own
good. I did and it was.
Rick
On 9/2/07, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I would hate to continue to be illegal after 25 years, would like
> > to come from the cold. I'm gonna kinda stick out with no N-numbers
> > after Jan. 31. I guess that's the point in doing all of this.
> >
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
>
>
> Stan:
>
> Your little possum heart will feel so much better after you become a legal
> possum. Something like realizing you ain't dead, dying, bleeding or
> broken
> up after a bad crash. Well........maybe not that good. ;-)
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
> PS: Never built an airplane I did not total. Nothing like a perfect
> record. Haven't totaled one in over 15 years. That is a record, for
> sure.
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: New guy with questions |
Lucien, This is getting pointless. The EAA will get back to me in a day or
two and I'll post their reply. I need to check in with my airworthiness guy
at the FSDO anyway, so I'll ask Jim, too, get his take and publish.
If I'm wrong, and I'm not, I'll buy you a cold one sometime.
Rick
On 9/2/07, lucien <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > See also AC 20-27F, downloadable in PDF format. Paragraph 7 g (1)
> discusses kit built aircraft.
> > Notice the matrix of eligibility and the big fat X in the INELIGIBLE
> column for the scenario "You hired someone to build the aircraft for you,
> and hiring this person means you DID NOT FABRICATE AND ASSEMBLE THE MAJOR
> PORTION OF THE AIRCRAFT. Note: Capitalization mine.
> >
>
>
> No, this statement addresses building the plane _for hire_. It does _not_
> suggest a general requirement that _you_ have to be the original builder of
> the aircraft.
>
>
> >
> > Now, I'm not sure how you can construe buying a used, unregistered,
> previously flown aircraft as anything other than you paid to have the
> aircraft constructed for you.
>
>
> Huh? Easy - if the plane was originally built by an amateur solely for the
> purpose of recreation/education AND you can document that, the plane was
> amateur-built. Where are you getting this stuff?
>
>
> >
> > Also note that 7 f (2) and 7 g (3) concerns taking over projects, f is
> for plans built aircraft, g is for kit built. Both describe keeping the
> previous builder's log and adding your efforts to them. Both end with the
> sentence, "This information may help us to determine that your aircraft is
> eligible for amateur-built certification."
> > What are you going to show the DAR or FAA. "Here's a picture of me
> pulling the airplane from the hangar." Here's a picture of me putting it on
> the trailer". Or, alternately, "Here's a picture of me flying the aircraft
> away."
> > Whoa, boy, worked up a sweat doing that part of the fabrication and
> assembly.
> > You keep saying the rules are the rules, Well there you have them.
> >
>
>
> Yep, you really do need to reread them, it doesn't sound like you've
> looked at them too carefully to me.
>
> Nothing you've presented supports anything you're saying.
>
> Nobody ever said the regs allowed getting an EAB certificate for a plane
> WITHOUT satisfying the requirements for that certification. You still have
> to do that, clearly.
>
> And finally.....
>
>
> > Lucien, Thanks for taking the time to prove my point. And I quote:
> > 21.191 Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
> > 21.191(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the
> major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who
> undertook the construction process solely for their own education or
> recreation.
> >
> > No where does it say "for the purpose of a used aircraft bought complete
> and ready to fly"
> >
>
>
> Exactly and nobody ever said otherwise.
>
> Now, notice the regs ONLY say "which has been fabricated and assembled by
> persons..... soley for their own education and recreation"........
>
> The reg does NOT say "only if you built the plane can you get the AW cert"
> or some such.....
>
> It only has to have been amateur built and can be documented as such....
>
> hence my point....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132392#132392
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: Did It Again. |
Two questions....
1. Why couldn't you use the runnway ???
2. Is it "legal" to land on a taxi way.....
I don't understand why you couldn't enter the pattern ,
I know you have a radio......?
Gotta Fly...
Mike & "Jaz" in MN
.
.
.
--------
.
.
.
.
.
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132410#132410
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: New guy with questions |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Lucien, This is getting pointless. The EAA will get back to me in a day or two
and I'll post their reply. I need to check in with my airworthiness guy at the
FSDO anyway, so I'll ask Jim, too, get his take and publish.
> If I'm wrong, and I'm not, I'll buy you a cold one sometime.
>
> Rick
>
I don't agree that it's a pointless discussion, since it's kind of an important
point - it's relevant to us in particular because we fly amateur built aircraft,
so knowing the correct interp of the rules is pretty crucial for us.
In any case, you can't be right that noone other than the original builder of an
amateur built aircraft can apply for the AW cert. for it, not only because aircraft
have been certificated in these circumstances in the past but also because
the regs don't require this to be case to my knowledge.
You are, of course, quite right that EAB is NOT available for any aircraft that
CAN'T be shown to have been 51% amateur built - I don't want that point to get
lost in the shuffle of this, and I fully support your point on that.
I also agree that there are probably a fair number of "fat-UL" uncertificated planes
out there that won't pass EAB muster in this respect either.
This is a fact of the expiration of the so-called "(i) 1" ELSA provision that we've
been discussing.
But I am quarrelling with the misinterpretations that
a) EAB is not available for _any_ "fat-UL", _even if it can be shown to satisfy
the EAB cert. requirements_ merely as a consequence of the expiration of "(i)
1" at the end of Jan. That's simply wrong, as none of the EAB regulations have
changed substantively with the introduction of the ELSA category.
b) Noone other than the original builder can apply for and get an EAB cert. for
an amateur built a/c (provided that documentation exists for that plane that
it was in fact amateur built). Again I am reasonably sure that the regs support
me on this, which is why I'm arguing the point.
Of course, I could always be wrong in these cases, and I don't think I am, but
if so I will of course retract my argument. Either way, hopefully the correct
interp will come out in the end.
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132416#132416
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: New guy with questions |
Rick,
Suppose I build a Kolb from a kit. It is complete, but I have not registered it
yet, or gotten an air worthiness cert. Then I get hit by a bus and die. Is
it your opinion that the plane can never be registered?? Someone buying the
plane did not hire it built. They bought a plane that was built for recreational
purposes.
Bryan Dever
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: Did It Again. |
I glanced at the airspeed indicator and it said 40 mphi and I knew I was in trouble
because I was close to gross weight and I would not have chance of making
a good flare. I dropped the nose and picked up a little more speed and flared.
Impact was soft but I ended up with two bent landing gear legs.
Jack, I have the same question. How come you couldn't land on the runway? Were
you short on fuel? Did anyone say anything about landing on a taxiway? I would
think this would not be good, especially at a fly-in. Coming in at 40 is ok.
That's best glide speed for your Firefly. How did you happen to bend the gear?
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132425#132425
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: Did It Again. |
At 04:34 PM 9/2/07 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Two questions....
>
>1. Why couldn't you use the runnway ???
>
>2. Is it "legal" to land on a taxi way.....
>
Mike,
When I crossed mid field I could see planes on the downwind to my right as
far as I could see and when I looked to the left they proceeded on out of
sight to turn base. I could not keep up with the radio chatter as to who
was ahead or behind. I flew in tight and came about and tried to pace them
to see if I could merge, but full throttle was not enough. So, I climbed
and passed back over mid field and landed on the end of the parallel taxi
way. Not many GA planes will land on the approach and turn off on the end
ramp.
Since the FireFly is an ultralight vehicle, I do not worry much about
landing on taxiways. It seems prudent to use them this way knowing that no
GA pilot would consider doing the same. I have not had a complaint. I am
nervous in this situation due to an experience at Perryville Municipal
Airport in Missouri. I was flying the runway to land just before the first
turn off. No chatter on the radio. I looked down and a jet passed by below
on the runway. He turned off at the same ramp, but to the other side. I
slipped over to a short parallel taxiway and landed. I assume he didn't see
me, and so I try to avoid mixing it up with aircraft that fly much faster
than the FireFly. Let them have the runway.
Next year, I will call and see if they will let me use the closed cross runway.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: Getting through ELSA |
With the deadline looming, I got off my butt and got to work. The process took
me about 2 months from submitting for the registration to getting my certificate.
(I got my FSII an E-LSA certificate a few weeks ago)
I bought the EAA transition kit and I found it helpful. The forms are straight
off the FAA website, but what is helped me is the tip sheet on how to fill them
out is included. This was all basic stuff, but I did not check any wrong boxes
and the paperwork was all in order.
I used the "Affidavit of Ownership" for my Registration even though I could have
come up with the receipts. Sample was in the kit.
I did the condition inspection and signed it as the "owner". I used the generic
form from the kit.
My certificate lists the manufacturer as "Kolb" and the data plate says the same.
This is how the kit instructed me to complete the documents. You can look
it up N24989 to see.
I used the format for the W&B from the kit and did not use the Kolb % format.
It is the same thing, but presented in the FAA way.
I used the "program letter" from the kit.
Joe Noris at the EAA was helpful giving me advice and answered some paperwork questions
I had. My W&B did not work out with a "170 pilot" and Joe told me it
must. I added 12# of lead strap to the nose and that cured that.
I was lucky to have the FAA FSDO office in town and one of the guys said he would
do the inspection for me if he picked the time. So when he gave me the date
and time I made myself available too.
He did a walk around the aircraft, looked at the controls, moved the controls,
asked a few questions, looked it over again and we went to the paper work. He
said it looked fine.
My plane had 9TT so he issued the Operating Limitations w/o a Phase 1 and really
no limitations outside of the the LSA rules. I needed to endorse the log book
that it flies.
Gave me the pink slip and told me to fly away and be careful.
I know the local DAR charges $500 (what I heard anyway) and another, about 150
miles from here quoted me $300 + Expenses. The FAA FSDO charged me $0, but I
do pay a lot of taxes for this.
So now I am legal and I was able to buy real liability insurance. I land it in
the bean field I do not need to worry about someone dialing 911 and the sheriff
and the FAA showing up.
I found a lot of good advice reading the list and some of you helped me off-list.
Thank you all.
Jim
do not archive
--------
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132426#132426
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/php9jsqt7pm_183.jpg
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: | Re: Did It Again. |
Since the FireFly is an ultralight vehicle, I do not worry much about landing on
taxiways.
Jack, ultralight vehicles are not exempt from the FARs, especially at airports
and at a fly-in. This is what gives ultralighters a bad name because they think
they are except from the rules.
In your situation, I would have have made sure I had plenty of reserve fuel and
circled at a safe distance from the airport. When there was a lull in traffic,
go in, make your pattern, and land.
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 ExAB
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132431#132431
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: Did It Again. |
"Fly the plane" That is what they drill into you training, it makes no difference
what plane it is. But it is so easy to get distracted.
"did it again" ......... Bent gear seems to be an epidemic with these birds.
But it seems to be only a inconvenience compared to bent legs (the walking type)
or a bent neck (the head support type).
Glad you made it on the deck OK and could even enjoy the fellowship of the fly-in.
Thanks for the PIREP Jack.
do not archive
--------
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132435#132435
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 |
|
| Subject: | landing on taxiway |
At our local arpt, ULs are SUPPOSED to use the taxiway...but no one
(me mostly) uses the rnwy.
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do not archive
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: Did It Again. |
"I could not keep up with the radio chatter as to who
was ahead or behind."
This is your main problem. Forget abuot your bent landing gear.
Get a better headset, get a better radio, change the position of your
antenna or don't go to airports where you cant deal with the "chatter".
Mainly because we are exchanging important information that everyone needs
to understand so the concert of planes lands saftly on the runway in a
predictable fasion.
You land on a taxiway in Dallas Tx and you're going to have a lot of
explaining to do and you probably wont have your license after a stunt like
that.
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: Getting through ELSA |
Hi All,
Thank you for the info. I guess I'm a little miffed about the whole ELSA business.
I'll get through it eventually.
Best Regards
Carlos
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132442#132442
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: Did It Again. |
I landed my Hummer ultralight on a taxi way one day and got a severe
chewing out by the controllers. No fine, but a memorable situation.
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: New guy with questions |
If I were buying it, I'd ask your widow to get the experimental certificate,
then I'd buy it. The other option would be to take off the covering and redo
it, so I'd have a builder's log.
Look at it another way. You can go out and buy a Quicksilver kit, assemble
it all yourself and the FAA would not give you an E-AB experimental
certificate. You didn't do enough of the work to qualify as 51%. That's why
you don't see Quicksilver listed on the approved kit list.
If Lucien's logic was correct, why would there be an approved kit list at
all?
Rick
On 9/2/07, flymichigan@comcast.net <flymichigan@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> Suppose I build a Kolb from a kit. It is complete, but I have not
> registered it yet, or gotten an air worthiness cert. Then I get hit by a
> bus and die. Is it your opinion that the plane can never be
> registered?? Someone buying the plane did not hire it built. They bought a
> plane that was built for recreational purposes.
>
> Bryan Dever
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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! --
|