Kolb-List Digest Archive

Sun 10/12/08


Total Messages Posted: 26



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 04:09 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (pj.ladd)
     2. 04:15 AM - Re: Looking to buy (Thomas R. Riddle)
     3. 06:39 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Dana Hague)
     4. 06:54 AM - Re: Looking to buy (John T. Schmidt)
     5. 07:05 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Dana Hague)
     6. 08:14 AM - Re: Airport Attitudes (George Alexander)
     7. 08:32 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Dana Hague)
     8. 08:36 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (robert bean)
     9. 09:47 AM - Re: Looking to buy (Thom Riddle)
    10. 10:01 AM - Re: Looking to buy (Thom Riddle)
    11. 10:15 AM - Re: Looking to buy (Thom Riddle)
    12. 10:43 AM - The one and only reason for the Sport Pilot Rule; was Airport Attitudes (Richard Girard)
    13. 10:48 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Jim Baker)
    14. 10:55 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Jim Baker)
    15. 11:08 AM - Re: The one and only reason for the Sport Pilot Rule; was Airport Attitudes (Dana Hague)
    16. 01:03 PM - Re: The one and only reason for the Sport Pilot Rule; was Airport Attitudes (Richard Girard)
    17. 03:13 PM - Re: Looking to buy (John T. Schmidt)
    18. 05:11 PM - Re: Looking to buy (Denny Rowe)
    19. 05:45 PM - carburetor mounting (Dana Hague)
    20. 05:50 PM - Re: Looking to buy (Dana Hague)
    21. 06:01 PM - CT MKIII crash (Dana Hague)
    22. 06:22 PM - Re: Re: Looking to buy (Denny Rowe)
    23. 06:32 PM - LSA (Was Airport Attitudes) (Charles Davis)
    24. 06:50 PM - Re: LSA (Was Airport Attitudes) (Dana Hague)
    25. 07:37 PM - Re: Re: Looking to buy (robert bean)
    26. 09:52 PM - HKs Twinstar with vg's (robcannon)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 04:09:31 AM PST US
    From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
    Subject: Re: Airport Attitudes
    the over weight was only due to the addition of a starter, I would think that you would have a very good case to defend.>> Hi all, I just love the different attitude about the law in the US and the UK that shows in the recent posts. We seem to generally accept that the rules are there for everyones protection, and they were introduced for a good reason. That is not to say we are happy with everything or that there isn`t a little bending of the rules here and there. You on the other hand seem to take any rule as a direct challenge and set out to circumvent it in some way.. I don`t think anyone here would think for a moment that `only fitting a starter` would be a `good case to argue`..There is no case to argue. You are overweight and that is that. You may as well argue that `I only fitted a 50 gallon tank for extra safety` I don`t think that there are any `spot ramp checks` here. I have never heard of such a thing. On the other hand all UL must be weighed every 5 years when the have their annual C of A renewal. There is certainly a lot of unscrewing of extra`s to make sure that the weight is correct as the C of A date approaches. I once explained to an American friend of mine the difference in our respective attitudes like this. `We move into Africa or India where the temperature is regularly in the high hundreds plus and we ignore it and continue to dress for dinner. Americans emigrate into parts of the US continent that no sane person would wish to live in. Take a look at the temperature, wrestle it three falls and invent air conditioning` He laughed. Hope you find it as funny. Vive le difference Pat


    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
    Time: 04:15:56 AM PST US
    From: "Thomas R. Riddle" <riddletr@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Looking to buy
    An aircraft w/ ELSA airworthiness certificate and a training exemption can be used for instruction until it expires in Jan 2010. After that this aircraft cannot be used legally in training except when the(an) owner is being trained. So, you might find such an animal but it is highly unlikely, especially since there are precious few MkII Xtras for sale. Thom in Buffalo


    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
    Time: 06:39:49 AM PST US
    From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Airport Attitudes
    At 09:46 PM 10/11/2008, Mike Welch wrote: > Eventually, the FAA's position was IF the medical requirement is > dropped, then there WILL >be several flight restrictions, aircraft limitations, etc, etc.......... > > That's just what I was under the impression of. Again, I'm arguing > with you. I just wonder >if you have a document or two to back up your consensus. There were several petitions from various ultralight organizations and individuals to codify the rules on 2 seat "trainers", increase the 254# weight, etc. The FAA had also stated that they intended to eliminate "rulemaking by exemption" as they called it. At the same time, there was the push from the other direction to eliminate the medical (something that had been hoped for when the Rec pilot certificate had been proposed). And, there was a real need to streamline the aircraft certification process. All these things met in the middle and nobody got exactly what they wanted. From http://www.sportpilot.org/news/010223.html : >"Sport pilot began its travels through the rulemaking process several >years ago when the United States Ultralight Association (USUA) asked the >FAA to expand Part 103 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to include >two-seat ultralight vehicles. By following the steps in FAR Part 11, >anyone can petition the FAA to change a rule. To get the public's comments >on the petition, the FAA publishes it in the Federal Register. > >"After considering the comments received, if the administrator determines >there are sufficient reasons to proceed, the FAA will begin the rulemaking >process, and the USUA petition followed this route. > >"When developing new rules, the FAA includes industry input from the start >by creating an aviation rulemaking advisory committee (ARAC) whose members >(including EAA) have expertise in the area being considered, light and >ultralight aircraft in this case. After years of hard work, the ARAC >decided to propose a new pilot certificate instead of changing Part 103. >Calling the new certificate "sport pilot," the ARAC drafted the initial >rule proposal and submitted it to the FAA." -Dana -- How is it that 2 teenagers in the back of an original Volkswagen Beetle, in a crowded drive-in theater, can reproduce, yet it takes 2 spotted owls 10,000 acres?


    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
    Time: 06:54:38 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Looking to buy
    From: "John T. Schmidt" <adlerflug1@yahoo.com>
    Thom Riddle: Good morning, as a fellow New Yorker I would have expected you to have your facts straight. Please, I truly encourage you and all who post on forums such as this, to check your accuracy of the intended message. Thom, your overall statement is false and misleading, not to mention discouraging to owners of ELSA aircraft. Any properly equipped ELSA aircraft can be used for instruction and the Flight Instructor can be compensated for his/her time. And, I further encourage you to become more familiar with the CFRs they are the rules we must adhere to. Now, as a point of interest, I used the term properly equipped ELSA aircraft for a reason, No instructor is permitted to give flight instruction to a student in a Single-center stick A/C again please ref the CFRs. Thom, congratulations on your Sport Pilot Instructors certificate, now correct me if I am wrong, that was less than 90 days ago, right! Thank you. Sincerely, John T. Schmidt, CFI [Idea] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8361#208361


    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
    Time: 07:05:57 AM PST US
    From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Airport Attitudes
    At 07:08 AM 10/12/2008, pj.ladd wrote: >I just love the different attitude about the law in the US and the UK that >shows in the recent posts. > >We seem to generally accept that the rules are there for everyones >protection, and they were introduced for a good reason. That is not to say >we are happy with everything or that there isn`t a little bending of the >rules here and there. > >You on the other hand seem to take any rule as a direct challenge and set >out to circumvent it in some way.. Yes, over here we tend to have an inherent distrust of the government. It came to a head at least once around 1776... >I once explained to an American friend of mine the difference in our >respective attitudes like this. `We move into Africa or India where the >temperature is regularly in the high hundreds plus and we ignore it and >continue to dress for dinner. Americans emigrate into parts of the US >continent that no sane person would wish to live in. Take a look at the >temperature, wrestle it three falls and invent air conditioning` Good one! Here's some interesting trivia, to relate it back to aviation: During the American Civil War, one Thaddeus Lowe was instrumental in creating the Union Army Balloon Corps, flying observation balloons over Confederate positions. Disputes with the Army (over pay and other things), however, resulted in him being forced out, and the Balloon Corps were abandoned not long after. After the war, Lowe invented refrigeration (you wondered where this was coming from, right?), probably after observing that the hydrogen cylinders got cold while inflating his balloons, and made a fortune. His granddaughter was none other than "Pancho" Barnes, early woman aviator and owner of the notorious Happy Bottom Riding Club adjacent to Edwards AFB during the grand days of test flying in the 1950's. She, too, was hassled by the Air Force when they tried to take her land, but in the end she won a substantial lawsuit against the Air Force. -Dana -- Son - you're going to have to make up your mind about growing up and becoming a pilot. You can't do both.


    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
    Time: 08:14:46 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Airport Attitudes
    From: "George Alexander" <gtalexander@att.net>
    Dana wrote: > At 09:46 PM 10/11/2008 > -----SNIP----- > All these things met in the middle and nobody got exactly what they wanted. > -----SNIP----- > > > -Dana > Dana... I don't feel your statement above "nobody got exactly what they wanted" is entirely true.... I now fly out of a municipally owned airport in SW FL. There are a couple of hundred airplanes birthed there. The significant number of the fliers are of the "mature" variety.... retired military, retired commercial, retired people in general, etc.... The movement by a large number of these people into aircraft that qualify as Light Sport is very noticeable. The bulletin boards around the field have an increasing number of GA planes "For Sale" on them and the J3s, Ercoupes, T-Craft, Champs, Luscombes, etc... don't stay posted very long at all. My own view (for what it's worth) is that the manufacturers selling more/new aircraft and providing a way for older pilots to continue to fly were the two biggest drivers behind Sport. Those who had that as their objective came close to getting exactly what they wanted. Almost as a tag-along, offering the opportunity for those who were so inclined to get out of the "fat ultralight" situation satisfied (albeit at a price) a number of us. Granted us ULers didn't get "OK, increase your weight, add fuel and add a second seat and continue to fly under (a modified) Part 103." But that was never going to happen anyway. My $.02 worth. DO NOT ARCHIVE PS: Lose the Pit Bull signature file. Not funny. -------- George Alexander FS II R503 N709FS http://gtalexander.home.att.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8370#208370


    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
    Time: 08:32:33 AM PST US
    From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Airport Attitudes
    At 11:14 AM 10/12/2008, George Alexander wrote: >Dana... I don't feel your statement above "nobody got exactly what they >wanted" is entirely true.... >providing a way for older pilots to continue to fly were the two biggest >drivers behind Sport. Those who had that as their objective came close to >getting exactly what they wanted. Almost as a tag-along, offering the >opportunity for those who were so inclined to get out of the "fat >ultralight" situation satisfied (albeit at a price) a number of us. >Granted us ULers didn't get "OK, increase your weight, add fuel and add a >second seat and continue to fly under (a modified) Part 103." But that >was never going to happen anyway... Well, the people who let their medical lapse got what they wanted, but those who'd lost the medical didn't. The people who wanted to fly a 2 seat UL got what they wanted, but only if they wanted to jump through all the licensing hoops, AND if they managed to get the paperwork done before the deadline. UL's were the big losers... no good way to get training now, and we're still saddled with the 254# / 5 gallon limitations which _decrease_ safety. Oh yeah, Cesna and a bunch of European manufacturers definitely got what they wanted... for those few of us who can afford the price tag... -Dana do not archive -- If people behaved like governments, you'd call the cops.


    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
    Time: 08:36:22 AM PST US
    From: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
    Subject: Re: Airport Attitudes
    Makes sense George. Just step back from it for a minute and think about the inherent conflict in the term "two place ultralight" nahhhhh. If a guy wants to jeopardize himself in a contraption, that's his option. But letting him expose an unwitting passenger to same is not right. Even then, I would not like to be in the CFI's shoes who is obligated to pass a check ride on a pilot who, technically did everything right, but in your bones you know the guy is not going to be a good pilot. I've ridden with a couple of these chaps and the experience was uncomfortable. BB On 12, Oct 2008, at 11:14 AM, George Alexander wrote: > <gtalexander@att.net> > > > Dana wrote: >> At 09:46 PM 10/11/2008 >> -----SNIP----- >> All these things met in the middle and nobody got exactly what >> they wanted. >> -----SNIP----- >> >> >> -Dana >> > > > Dana... I don't feel your statement above "nobody got exactly what > they wanted" is entirely true.... > I now fly out of a municipally owned airport in SW FL. There are a > couple of hundred airplanes birthed there. The significant number > of the fliers are of the "mature" variety.... retired military, > retired commercial, retired people in general, etc.... The > movement by a large number of these people into aircraft that > qualify as Light Sport is very noticeable. The bulletin boards > around the field have an increasing number of GA planes "For Sale" > on them and the J3s, Ercoupes, T-Craft, Champs, Luscombes, etc... > don't stay posted very long at all. > My own view (for what it's worth) is that the manufacturers selling > more/new aircraft and providing a way for older pilots to continue > to fly were the two biggest drivers behind Sport. Those who had > that as their objective came close to getting exactly what they > wanted. Almost as a tag-along, offering the opportunity for those > who were so inclined to get out of the "fat ultralight" situation > satisfied (albeit at a price) a number of us. > Granted us ULers didn't get "OK, increase your weight, add fuel and > add a second seat and continue to fly under (a modified) Part > 103." But that was never going to happen anyway. > > My $.02 worth. > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > PS: Lose the Pit Bull signature file. Not funny. > > -------- > George Alexander > FS II R503 N709FS > http://gtalexander.home.att.net > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8370#208370 > >


    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
    Time: 09:47:45 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Looking to buy
    From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr@gmail.com>
    Herr Schmidt: I know the FARS regarding the use of ELSA and SLSA for training. I had to know them for my CFI-SP practical test and was quizzed on this particular issue on July 19, 2008. Since you are disputing my summary of the facts, I suggest YOU look up the FARS (I know they are no longer called that by the FAA) and quote chapter and verse where it says that an ELSA can be used for training (other than for owners as students) after the expiration date which I am pretty sure is Jan 30, 2010 and that it does not have to have an exemption for this which is actually a very specific type of airworthiness certificate. At the end of this exemption period, if the owner does not change it to a regular ELSA airworthiness certificate, it becomes an aircraft that is illegal to fly, not just illegal to instruct in. I have a friend who owns just such an ELSA certificated Sky Ranger that he built (he is the WNY Sky Ranger Dealer), in Chafee, NY. His partner in the airplane is urging him to get the A/W changed before it becomes a lawn ornament in January of 2010. I wish you luck finding the Xtra of your dreams and wish you were correct about the ELSA's being eligible as training platforms after 2010, but you are mis-informed. -------- Thom Riddle CFI-SP Power Plant Mechanic N1208P RANS S6S, Tailwheel, 912UL N197BG FS1/447 -------------------- Scratch any cynic, he said, and youll find a disappointed idealist. George Carlin Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8383#208383


    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
    Time: 10:01:39 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Looking to buy
    From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr@gmail.com>
    John Schmidt, The following is NOT a direct quote from the 14 CFR but is a quotation from the EAA publication entitled CFI's Guide to Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft. Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft ....Two-seat E-LSA are eligible to be used for hire for flight training through January 31, 2010.... Please let us all know if you can find a CFR that disputes this. It would make all our lives much easier and there would be no shortage of airplanes eligible for use as SP trainers. -------- Thom Riddle CFI-SP Power Plant Mechanic N1208P RANS S6S, Tailwheel, 912UL N197BG FS1/447 -------------------- Scratch any cynic, he said, and youll find a disappointed idealist. George Carlin Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8385#208385


    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
    Time: 10:15:47 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Looking to buy
    From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr@gmail.com>
    What the heck, John, I decided to look it up myself. It is in 91.319, which see: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/91.319 If the previous line is broken, try this http://tinyurl.com/43yhmm Note in particular 91.319(e)(2). This references 21.191, which see: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/21.191 If this line is broken, try this http://tinyurl.com/5x2mgo Note that this applies to ALL aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate, not just ELSA. Apologies accepted :-). -------- Thom Riddle CFI-SP Power Plant Mechanic N1208P RANS S6S, Tailwheel, 912UL N197BG FS1/447 -------------------- Scratch any cynic, he said, and youll find a disappointed idealist. George Carlin Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8386#208386


    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
    Time: 10:43:15 AM PST US
    From: "Richard Girard" <aslsa.rng@gmail.com>
    Subject: The one and only reason for the Sport Pilot Rule; was Airport
    Attitudes No, it wasn't fat ultralights, fat pilots who couldn't pass a medical, bad training, good training, EAA, what the manufacturers wanted or didn't want, or anything else dreamed up on this list.It was, simply, that someone in government asked someone else, "Say, did you know we have around (you can pick a number if you don't like mine) 30,000 aircraft out there for which we have no records, no traceability, and no way to find should we need to?" An audible gasp is heard around the room. This is from Earl Lawrence, EAA's representative to the FAA and member of the ASTM committee that wrote the rule. That some other needs were met, not met, addressed, not addressed, determined with mathematical precision, or guessed at with a divining rod, is completely beside the point. Until 9/11/2001 there was no compelling political driving force to amend the FAR's for a new category of aircraft or airmen. On 9/12/2001 there was. Rick


    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
    Time: 10:48:02 AM PST US
    From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
    Subject: Re: Airport Attitudes
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%: > We seem to generally accept that the rules are there for everyones > protection, and they were introduced for a good reason. That is > not to say we are happy with everything or that there isn`t a > little bending of the rules here and there. > > You on the other hand seem to take any rule as a direct challenge and set out to circumvent it in some way.. Those who might seem to have your best interests at heart often have another agenda. An example of "protection" if I might.... The FAA issued, despite public comment to the contrary, an Airworthiness Directive aimed at Bellanca Aircraft's Viking series of craft. There are several models within that series that have different engines, differently speced electrical systems and wholly different layouts of exhaust systems, some with running changes in the middle of a prioduction run. There are 17-30, 17-30a, 17-31, and 17-31tc models. Seems there had been a weld failure in the back of the muffler and would aim exhaust gasses back toward the firewall and the Cannon plug though which the P-leads passed, grounding the p- leads and killing the engine. How many documented times had this happened in the entire life of the aircraft? Three times that I can find. No fatalities, no injuries. Are the 17-31 and 17-31tc aircraft even suseptible to this event? No way in hell. But, the wise Ones at the FAA shotgunned the whole deal and made it apply to everyone that oned a Bellanca Viking. Just exactly whom were the FAA looking out for? Themselves. Stamp Act, Tea Tax, Townshend Acts, Prohibition.......all implemented for "everyones protection". Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK


    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
    Time: 10:55:09 AM PST US
    From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
    Subject: Re: Airport Attitudes
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%: I have never been ramp checked. > I believe the primary reason, is that there is an agreement that the > FAA will not ramp check because it would greatly reduce the number of ga > and experimental aircraft and utralight vehicles that would attend. I'm a contractor to the FAA thru Lockheed Martin. Most of the folks I work with fly and don't want their own organization to come down on them, either. My FS II is overweight and carries 10 gal in the "passengers" location. FAA guy at a fly-in says: "Ten gallons, huh?" "Yup" "Single seat, too?" "Yup" "Good." ...and that was it. Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK


    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
    Time: 11:08:45 AM PST US
    From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: The one and only reason for the Sport Pilot Rule; was
    Airport Attitudes At 01:42 PM 10/12/2008, Richard Girard wrote: >Until 9/11/2001 there was no compelling political driving force to amend >the FAR's for a new category of aircraft or airmen. On 9/12/2001 there was. That might make sense except for two things: First, the SP rulemaking process was in motion before 9/11/2001. And second, no matter how ignorant senators and congressmen may be of the basic physics involving fat ultralights, the people in the FAA certainly know that a 2 seat ultralight (or any small airplane) poses no terrorist threat. -Dana do not archive -- Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pacman affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills, and listening to repetitive music.


    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
    Time: 01:03:50 PM PST US
    From: "Richard Girard" <aslsa.rng@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: The one and only reason for the Sport Pilot Rule; was Airport
    Attitudes Dana, The FAA figures the average person weighs 190 lb (recently raised from 170 lb). Just as a point of argument, I imagine either weight of dynamite or C-4 could do plenty of damage. Sure seems to work with cars, trucks, and even speed boats in Iraq and elsewhere.At least as far back as 1954 Paul Poberezny (sp) was calling for some kind of license less than a PPL. FAA had already made the attempt once before with the recreational license and the primary category, both of which which went nowhere. That FAA was trying to find a solution to the problem of unregistered, non complying aircraft, I do not deny. That there was no political will to actually do anything with sport pilot until the aftermath of 9/11 is unassailable. Rick On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net> wrote: > > At 01:42 PM 10/12/2008, Richard Girard wrote: > > Until 9/11/2001 there was no compelling political driving force to amend >> the FAR's for a new category of aircraft or airmen. On 9/12/2001 there was. >> > > That might make sense except for two things: First, the SP rulemaking > process was in motion before 9/11/2001. And second, no matter how ignorant > senators and congressmen may be of the basic physics involving fat > ultralights, the people in the FAA certainly know that a 2 seat ultralight > (or any small airplane) poses no terrorist threat. > > -Dana > > do not archive > -- > Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pacman affected us as kids, > we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills, and listening > to repetitive music. > >


    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
    Time: 03:13:58 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Looking to buy
    From: "John T. Schmidt" <adlerflug1@yahoo.com>
    Thom Riddle: Good afternoon, you have been a Sport Pilot instructor a total of 86 days. 86 days ago you we issued a rating to learn, understand and hopefully understand the complete subject matter. Like I said, Please, I truly encourage you and all who post on forums such as this, to check your accuracy of the intended message Now if you had read and understood the section, the complete section you would of realized my aforementioned statements were and are correct. Thom, its now time to go back to ground school and learn a real lesson of life, you are not the 86 day wonder that you think you are. Please also note the following Sec. 91.319 (h) as listed. The Letter of Deviation Authority LODA The LODA is the path to my previous statement of Any properly equipped ELSA aircraft can be used for instruction and the Flight Instructor can be compensated for his/her time. (h) The FAA may issue deviation authority providing relief from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section for the purpose of conducting flight training. The FAA will issue this deviation authority as a letter of deviation authority. (1) The FAA may cancel or amend a letter of deviation authority at any time. (2) An applicant must submit a request for deviation authority to the FAA at least 60 days before the date of intended operations. A request for deviation authority must contain a complete description of the proposed operation and justification that establishes a level of safety equivalent to that provided under the regulations for the deviation requested. Now, Thom, ground school is out for today, class is dismissed; your homework assignment is Seek and Ye Shall Find Section 61 Subpart H as titled Flight Instructors Other Than Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating and then move onto Section 61 Subpart K Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating. Next ground school class will address correct and proper endorsements, the correct endorsement for a Certified Flight Instructor under section 61 subpart H is CFI ref Certified Flight Instructor, that is if you are certified under Section 61 Subpart H. Sincerely, John T. Schmidt, CFI :o Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8421#208421


    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
    Time: 05:11:07 PM PST US
    From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny@windstream.net>
    Subject: Re: Looking to buy
    > So, you might find such an animal but it is highly unlikely, > especially since there are precious few MkII Xtras for sale. > > Thom in Buffalo > Jetpilot has a nice looking 912s powered xtra in Florida, he is trying to sell it last I heard. Check it out. Denny Rowe, Mk-3, PA


    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
    Time: 05:45:42 PM PST US
    From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
    Subject: carburetor mounting
    I had a thought today, while warming up the mighty Cuyuna engine on my UltraStar... especially at idle, seems the carburetor is jumping all over the place. Not surprising, with the carb sticking out from the side of the engine on its rubber boot, and the air filter sticking out even farther. Seems all that shaking can't be doing the carb or the rubber boot any good, and a simple brace to the engine mount tubes on top of the engine would steady it... or it might transmit even more vibration to the carb? Perhaps a support strut with its own rubber isolator, so it'd prevent the large deflections at lower rpm but still isolate the higher frequency motion? Thoughts, anyone? -Dana -- Lottery: a tax on the mathematically challenged.


    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
    Time: 05:50:01 PM PST US
    From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Looking to buy
    At 08:10 PM 10/12/2008, Denny Rowe wrote: >>So, you might find such an animal but it is highly unlikely, >>especially since there are precious few MkII Xtras for sale. I know of two MKIII's for sale in my area (one in CT, one in RI), but I think both have 582's, not 912's. One of them, the owner also has a Thorp T-18; the other one's owner just finished building a Kitfox. -Dana -- Lottery: a tax on the mathematically challenged.


    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
    Time: 06:01:54 PM PST US
    From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
    Subject: CT MKIII crash
    Looks like the MKIII crash last month in CT (prelimnary report at http://tinyurl.com/4cv3pq ) may have been caused by water in the fuel, at least the investigator said there was water in the fuel line. AFAIK the plane had no gascolator, no means to inspect or drain out water. Pilot is home, leg healing nicely but still needing major reconstruction of the shattered ankle. Passenger should be home soon, but with a long period of taking it easy as the cracked (3 places) pelvis heals. Both are looking forward to flying again though the passenger says he'll stick to his gyrocopter! -Dana -- Lottery: a tax on the mathematically challenged.


    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
    Time: 06:22:43 PM PST US
    From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny@windstream.net>
    Subject: Re: Looking to buy
    > > Now, Thom, ground school is out for today, class is dismissed; your > homework assignment is ?oSeek and Ye Shall Find? Section 61 Subpart H > as titled Flight Instructors Other Than Flight Instructors with a Sport > Pilot Rating and then move onto Section 61 Subpart K Flight Instructors > with a Sport Pilot Rating. > > Next ground school class will address correct and proper endorsements, the > correct endorsement for a Certified Flight Instructor under section 61 > subpart ?oH? is CFI ref Certified Flight Instructor, that is if you are > certified under Section 61 Subpart ?oH?. > > Sincerely, > John T. Schmidt, CFI Yeah, Mike Bigelow (spelling?), also goes by Jetpilot, lives in Florida which should be close for you. Has a real fine 912S powered Xtra with VGs, and spades. Looks to be well equiped and super clean, plenty of pics in the archives and video links of the plane in flight. You can't miss, this is the bird you want! Denny Rowe, N616DR, registered experimental.


    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
    Time: 06:32:20 PM PST US
    From: "Charles Davis" <ceddavis@gmail.com>
    Subject: LSA (Was Airport Attitudes)
    Last year down in Frederick, MD for the 16 hours SP repair man course, we were fortunate enough to have a fellow student who is an FAA lawyer, and was heavily involved in drafting the SP / LSA rules. (He's also a CFI and retired military, all in all, a great guy.) Here is his off the record take on how the SP rule came about: USUA and other orgs had requested an expansion of part 103. This was never going to happen, for the simple reason that 103 is illegal (Yes, I did a double take on that one as well). You see, the US code (the actual law passed by Congress that the FAA is suppose to be implementing), requires that all airplanes and pilots in the US be licensed. Calling an "airplane" a "vehicle" doesn't change that fact. Never mind how the original regs got passed. Today, any amendments would never make it past a legal review. So, he predicts the only change we might ever see in 103 is it's repeal, but that since the FAA would like to keep it, their solution is to ignore 103. However, they needed to respond to the requests, so they came up with a simpler, less regulatory complex set of rules that do require pilot licence's and aircraft registrations. Yes, these regs ended up substantially different then some of the original proposals, and how taht happened is a different story. However, how they got started at all, rather then amendinng 103, is interesting in it's own right. Well, that's one person's take on it, second hand anyway. I've pretty much recounted the story as I remember it, and while I'm afraid it is the type of posting to stir up some questions, I'm not likely to be able to answer many of them Chuck Time: 02:38:06 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com> NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net wrote: > Dana/All > > The Sport Pilot rule came about because the rules were SOOOOOO badly abused. Wrong. Believe it or not, the rate of abuse of the exemptions was not terribly higher than the rate of abuse of any other of FnAA's rule sets. You'd be amazed at what's flying around up there among the big iron, pilots with no medicals, some with no certificates, planes out of annual for years and years and CFI's who don't teach. Also, the BFI program brought about one of the largest increases in safety in all of aviation. Inexpensive and proximal training UL's and fat UL's was all over the place. It did more than any program to eliminate the self-taught syndrome with all the attend


    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
    Time: 06:50:11 PM PST US
    From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: LSA (Was Airport Attitudes)
    At 09:31 PM 10/12/2008, Charles Davis wrote: >Last year down in Frederick, MD for the 16 hours SP repair man course, we >were fortunate enough to have a fellow student who is an FAA lawyer, and >was heavily involved in drafting the SP / LSA rules. (He's also a CFI and >retired military, all in all, a great guy.) Here is his off the record >take on how the SP rule came about: > >USUA and other orgs had requested an expansion of part 103. This was >never going to happen, for the simple reason that 103 is illegal... > >Never mind how the original regs got passed. Today, any amendments would >never make it past a legal review. So, he predicts the only change we >might ever see in 103 is it's repeal, but that since the FAA would like to >keep it, their solution is to ignore 103... Interesting... kinda makes sense. That 103 passed in the first place is something of a miracle. Note that after 9/11, a few extras were thrown into 103 (referring to not flying in NOTAM areas and TFR's), but I agree, it's highly unlikely that they will ever be willing to mess with the actual definition of an ultralight vehicle. It makes sense that the FAA would like to keep 103... they don't want to have to deal with all the hang gliders, paragliders, and PPG's out there, so we're lucky that they made it a weight and performance limit, instead of (as in the UK even today for example) keeping the original foot launch requirement. I love foot launching my PPG, but I don't think I'd want to try it with my UltraStar... :) -Dana do not archive -- Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.


    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
    Time: 07:37:10 PM PST US
    From: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
    Subject: Re: Looking to buy
    You must be a lovely fellow to take lessons from. :) I had no idea that FAA ratings had TIG like military rank. Most folks would not be interested in pursuing such "deviations" or special letters. Just as most would not want to go through the hassle of getting an STC even though you could get almost anything changed on a standard type certificated airplane with one. Maybe a helicopter rotor on your C-150? The request for a special deviation could be denied too. BB MkIII, suzuki 43250 jet engine mech USAF 1962-66 A&P commercial rotorcraft pilot PP privileges long time On 12, Oct 2008, at 9:54 AM, John T. Schmidt wrote: > <adlerflug1@yahoo.com> > > Thom Riddle: Good morning, as a fellow New Yorker I would have > expected you to have your facts straight. Please, I truly encourage > you and all who post on forums such as this, to check your accuracy > of the intended message. Thom, your overall statement is false and > misleading, not to mention discouraging to owners of ELSA aircraft. > Any properly equipped ELSA aircraft can be used for instruction and > the Flight Instructor can be compensated for his/her time. And, I > further encourage you to become more familiar with the CFRs they > are the rules we must adhere to. Now, as a point of interest, I > used the term properly equipped ELSA aircraft for a reason, No > instructor is permitted to give flight instruction to a student in > a Single-center stick A/C again please ref the CFRs. > Thom, congratulations on your Sport Pilot Instructors certificate, > now correct me if I am wrong, that was less than 90 days ago, right! > > > Thank you. > Sincerely, > John T. Schmidt, CFI > > > [Idea] > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8361#208361 > >


    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
    Time: 09:52:44 PM PST US
    Subject: HKs Twinstar with vg's
    From: "robcannon" <leecannon@telus.net>
    ck: Unbelievable !! A couple days ago I went to do some more test flying but it rained all day. Instead I spent the day making and installing some vg's on my wings as I was unhappy with the twinstars 38-40 mph stall speed. To design and place them, I read all I could find on this list and a bit more, and came up with what I thought looked best (intuitive engineering) Stall went down to 26 indicated !??! The plane will now mush along at 25-27 indicated with no scary tendancies. Yes, my airspeed may be lying when I get that slow, but the improvement is dramatic. I now fly approaches comfortably at 45-50 (instead of 55-60). Now, I need longer gear, as with the plane that slow the nose is high and the tail wants to hit first. Top end speed still seems fine, and with the hks is not an issue. The hks will easily accelerate the twinstar beyond vne. (I'm calling 80mph vne.) Sincere thanks to all those ahead of me who experimented with different shapes and positions, and made my desisions much, much easier. Cheers ! Rob Cannon Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8478#208478




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   kolb-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/kolb-list
  • Browse Kolb-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    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! --