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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Looking to buy |
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Airport Attitudes |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Looking to buy |
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Looking to buy |
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Looking to buy |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Looking to buy |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | HKs Twinstar with vg's |
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
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! --
|