Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:08 AM - Re: Insurance (Thom Riddle)
2. 09:05 AM - Re: Re: club planes? (Malcolm Brubaker)
3. 09:26 AM - Re: Re: club planes? (Ron @ KFHU)
4. 09:38 AM - Re: Re: club planes? (Ron @ KFHU)
5. 09:59 AM - Re: Re: club planes? (John Hauck)
6. 10:07 AM - Re: Heavy Passengers (Jason Omelchuck)
7. 10:56 AM - Re: Re: club planes? (Richard Girard)
8. 11:05 AM - Re: Re: Heavy Passengers (Richard Girard)
9. 12:01 PM - Re: Re: club planes? (Charlie England)
10. 03:37 PM - Re: Re: Heavy Passengers (b young)
11. 03:51 PM - Re: Heavy Passengers (Jason Omelchuck)
12. 06:24 PM - Re: Re: Heavy Passengers (Richard Girard)
13. 07:04 PM - Re: Re: Heavy Passengers (Dennis Souder)
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 |
|
Since I have been correctly accused of not always being easy to get along with,
I've made it a policy not to be worth more dead than alive, so the only life
insurance I ever had was provided by my employers if/when they provided it for
no cost to me. Ooops, not quite true. When I divorced my first wife, I carried
life insurance for our daughter until she came of age.
Life insurance is a misnomer anyway, it is income or wealth insurance that requires
one's death to give it value.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
Don't accept your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful.
Ann Landers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330571#330571
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: club planes? |
Another point of view, same basic subject - flight training in ELSA, a diff
erent =0Aconcept of dealing with it.=0ARoger Mills has posted this followin
g a conversation with EAA.=0A=0ADate: Thu, February 10, 2011 11:58 am=0ATo:
<fly-ul@yahoogroups. com>=0A=0APer EAA---(as of 1 hour ago)=0A=0AAn E is a
n E is an E! Regardless of whether it is kit or plans built, EAB or =0AELSA
.=0A=0AAn experimental category aircraft of any type cannot be formally ren
ted out or =0Aused by anyone "for hire" in any way!!!!!=0A=0ACost sharing f
or 'friendly' use by other than the owner is OK to a point--be =0Aready to
prove it.=0A=0AA group of people can form a "club" as an LLC, corp or partn
ership for the =0Apurpose of building, owning and flying any experimental a
ircraft.=0A=0AThe orgainization that functions as a fund raiser must be a s
eparate entity from =0Athe one that owns the experimental aircraft.=0A=0ATh
e members or partners can be the same people, BUT, separate organizational
=0Achart etc.=0A=0A(Even EAA chapters, as the rules stand now, can build bu
t not own an aircraft. =0AThis is being worked on to correct.)=0A=0APlans o
r scratch built automatically qualify for the "51%", only approved kits =0A
qualify, ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA.=0A=0AA repairmans cert
ificate for an EAB can be issued to only one person for any =0Aspecific air
craft by N number only.=0A=0AA repairmans certificate for an ELSA requires
the course and MAY include the =0Amodel???=0A=0AWithout a repairmans certif
icate only an AP or better can sign the annual.=0A=0AAny flight instructor
can be paid to teach in any experimental aircraft as long =0Aas they have t
he qualifications necessary.=0A=0AThe flight instructor may or may not be a
n owner/partner in the aircraft.=0A=0AFlight instruction may be given to th
e level allowed by the equipment installed =0Ain the aircraft.=0A=0A(I thin
k this last one means that you can get full IFR if the aircraft has the =0A
stuff)=0A=0AThe individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has r
eceived an N =0Anumber for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" a
nyone else to fly =0Athat aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight inst
ructor has been "taught".=0A=0A(I am not sure how to really works--on the s
urface it seems to mean that if you =0Abuilt it, flew off the restrictions
and got an N number-you are a qualified =0Aflight instructor for that aircr
aft only?????, and can be paid to teach in that =0Aaircraft???)=0A=0A=0A(I
was specifically told that since flight instruction is desired--the FAA has
=0Anot restricted the ability of a flight instructor to teach in an experi
mental- =0A--EAB or ELSA. You just CANNOT charge a fee for the aircraft its
elf.)=0A=0A(I was also told that insurance is problematic in an experimenta
l of any =0Akind--Falcon insurance does it---rates are much different for a
Christen Eagle =0Avs a Pete etc. I have not spoken with them.)=0A=0AAgain,
Per the EAA. (my comments)=0A=0A-One small item to add--my comment---bas
ed on the sum of the conversation and =0Anot specifically stated:=0A=0AThe
way the rule is written it gets real grey if one partner pays more than his
=0Aor her share of the hourly cost. Say 6 people form a partnership to bui
ld an =0Aexperimental aircraft---If one partner pays the entire cost of a o
ne hour flight =0Athen the others partners benefit. Confused me for a while
but I can see where =0Athe FAA may see that as 5 owners renting the aircra
ft to the sixth partner. I =0Asuspect that this kind of thing is why the FA
A frouns on "club" ownership of an =0Aexperimental.=0APosted by : Roger Mil
ls on UL forum=0A=0A=0A-Malcolm Brubaker =0AMichigan Sport=0APilot Repair
=0ALSRM-A, PPC, WS=0A(989)513-3022 =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________
________=0AFrom: Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal@yahoo.com>=0ATo: kolb-list@m
atronics.com=0ASent: Tue, February 8, 2011 10:45:26 AM=0ASubject: Re: Kolb-
List: Re: club planes?=0A=0A=0AThere has been some significant discussion o
n the topic of training in ELSA =0Aaircraft on some other forums which I am
involved in. -CGS Hawk, FLY UL, and =0ALINKDIN are a few. -The respons
es in those forums spurred me to write this in =0Aresponse. -Please check
out those forums if you are interested!=0A=0Asent to LINKDIN=0A=0AI want t
o keep the focus. What we will be doing is essentially taking hamburger =0A
and putting it all back together to make a steak.-=0AUltra light flying i
s getting more difficult because of the non-availability of =0Atraining. No
one is going to give hours of training time and the use of an =0Aaircraft
for free. Ultra lights therefore, literally, fly under the radar.-=0ASpor
t pilots can't do that quite so readily, but unfortunately, many are trying
. =0AWhile an ELSA built to SLSA standards is an appropriate aircraft, many
=0Aexperimentals simply do not fit the bill for appropriate training aircr
aft. I =0Amake this statement to have it understood that I do not advocate
training in ALL =0Aexperimental aircraft.-=0ABack to the focus of this di
scussion.-=0AI do not have the background I believe is required for devel
oping the type of =0Aformat needed here. I came up through the ranks of ult
ra lights as a self taught =0Apilot. I received my BFI, trained several peo
ple in ultra lights, then received =0Athe training I needed when Sport Pilo
t came to be to transition to a sport pilot =0Alicense.-=0AI have passed
the first step - the FOI test - toward getting my CFI. But I do =0Anot have
the legal background or the depth of knowledge regarding the FARs I =0Afee
l is needed to produce this format in a viable and usable program for the
=0ASport Pilot training arena.-=0AMark, if you or someone else who is fol
lowing this thread, or even a group of =0Aothers, have the knowledge to pul
l this together, I would be willing to =0Acontribute what I can.-=0AThis
subject has spurred a lot of discussion as you know here and in other =0Afo
rums.-=0ALet's see if we can take it to a desired completion.-=0AThere
are some people who would be comfortable training with only a verbal =0Acon
tract.-=0AOthers will require a written contract with the basics of cost
and damage =0Adeposit and a disclaimer of liability in the event of an acci
dent included. =0AStill others will want a written contract in triplicate s
pelling out every =0Apossible nuance, required insurances, and a liability
waiver signed by the =0Atrainee's family before they feel comfortable takin
g on the responsibility. And, =0Ayet others, will require a corporation dev
elopment, corporate insurance, an =0Aaircraft meeting specified standards..
...-=0AWe now need to develop a format that can easily be adapted to allo
w each =0Ainstructor to use their own level of comfort as a guide to what t
ype of contract =0Athey want to use.-=0AFrom hamburger .... to steak.-M
alcolm Brubaker =0AMichigan Sport --=0APilot Repair =0ALSRM-A, PPC, WS
=0A(989)513-3022 =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Ma
lcolm Brubaker <brubakermal@yahoo.com>=0ATo: kolb-list@matronics.com=0ASent
: Mon, February 7, 2011 5:19:27 PM=0ASubject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: club plane
s?=0A=0A=0AWe have established the need. -We have proven viability. -We
even have an =0Aapparent precedent. -So, what next?=0AAn easy to follow
format with all the "legal" jargon included for the average =0A"layman" CFI
or old BFI properly providing for that "equity position". -Could =0Asuch
a "position" be covered by something so simple as a "damage deposit" on th
e =0Aaircraft??-=0A-Malcolm Brubaker =0AMichigan Sport=0APilot Repair
=0ALSRM-A, PPC, WS=0A(989)513-3022 =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_________________________
_______=0AFrom: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com>=0ATo: kolb-list@matron
ics.com=0ASent: Mon, February 7, 2011 9:27:30 AM=0ASubject: RE: Kolb-List:
Re: club planes?=0A=0A> The FAA regs allow instruction in any experimental
aircraft which is owned by =0A>the person receiving the instruction. > ----
----=0A> Thom Riddle=0A=0AThom, & knowledgeable 'regs'-guys,=0A-=0A-
Your statement above is excellent information, but what about the situation
=0Awhere a plane is just given it's airworthiness certificate?=0A- I get
the impression what you said is fine for a fully built, previous flown=0Aai
rplane, but what about a brand new one?=0A- Once a plane is finally finis
hed, aren't you supposed to fly off a certain=0Anumber of hours before some
one can be in the plane also?=0A- How does that work?- I never have cle
arly understood how this part works.=0A-=0A- After rereading your state
ment, I think I'm getting more confused.- If a =0Aperson=0Ahad a CFI teac
h him to fly, OF COURSE he could be taught in ANY (legal) =0Aairplane.=0A
-=0A- My question is;- How can a guy learn to fly his brand new, neve
r flown, just =0Alicenced, experimental airplane?- Can he have an instruc
tor go with him on his=0Amaiden flight?- Does anyone know how this works?
?- =0A-=0A- We've had a few recent incidents where lowtime Kolb pilot
s bent their planes =0A(and themselves).- What does the FAA regs-say to
address this problem?=0A-=0AThanks.=0AMike Welch=0AMkIII=0A =0A=0A=0A
============ =0A=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1@cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: club planes? |
I think you ought to tell him to contact his Congressional representatives. I wrote
a fairly large detailed letter to my reps and others a while ago explaining
the strangulation the FAA is placing on aviation. So far I have heard zeep
from the over 40 letters that I sent. My take is that the mostly old gizzers in
DC there would not know how to approach that, since the FAA is executing policy
via a congressional mandate. I suppose if enough people contact their Reps,
it may create enough pressure to have them look at the overly broad mandate
that they gave the FAA, or conversely discover that the FAA is way overreaching,
which is what I think.
It's a political struggle that we in aviation cannot afford to ignore or loose,
we are already seeing the results of us deferring to AOPA and EAA, who in general
are no better than the FAA itself, or to express it clearly they are just
as much of an "Organization Men" as the drones at the FAA are. They see things
in "terms of control" not the way most of us see it as in "terms of freedom".
I think it ought to become more obvious that part of our flying will have to start
incorporating personal involvement in the political process to truncate FAA
budget (most effective) and FAA power (somewhat effective), or else sooner or
later they will start coming after our Kolbs Challengers or whatever we fly.
The FAA is an agency that is running amok intoxicated by its own power and hubris.
---- Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal@yahoo.com> wrote:
============
Ok Group. This was posted on the CGS hawk forum. I want to say Thank You to
Danny Dezauche for a well thought out and candid statement. I agree. So, after
you all have read it, chime in here and let's figure out what we are going to do
about it!
To whom it may interest
I was told by the FAA that clubs were considered a commercial
Entity and therefore were only legal for training with "certified
Aircraft". I was also told "primary" training such as a sport pilot
License has to be in a certified aircraft. I have been a member
Of the oldest club in mobile ala for several years which used
Cessnas etc for rent and training. These of course were certified
Aircraft
We here at cgs have lived with the loda and club question for
Several years now. The belief and hope that training can and will
Be allowed in Elsa aircraft has existed since the advent of the
Light sport category
Cgs has only sold 2 slsa models since 2005 and none since
April 2009 since I purchased the business. I too see the need
For trainers of the ultralight type. Remember. Two seat ultralights
Were only allowed by waiver for training purposes only from the start
The sale and use of two seaters outside the waiver was one of the reasons for
the faa to
implement this grand experiment in the U.S.known as
Sport pilot. The word from the FAA now is that they will not
Allow any More lsa models into the market without prior
Audit by the FAA as to their qualifications and engineering
Those of us in the lsa market can also expect to be audited
By the FAA In The near future to make sure we are in compliance
With all astm standards.
The confusion over the elsa training issue has had a detremental effect on this
segment of aviation obviously.
i want to make it clear what my personal and business position is on this issue
once and for all i have also said this to the faa
we as manufacturers cannot force people to buy slsa aircraft. however if no
trainers are available either slsa or elsa no new customers
are trained or exposed to our aircraft. i would rather see training in elsa
aircraft instead of not at all and that is where we are today
we can build slsa's all day long but if no one buys them whats the point an
elsa aircraft built by an individual puts most legal ramifications
on the owner builder not the factory
so i support any measures that will get this segment going and training again
however faa is not happy with the results of their audit on the lsa industry
which was done over the past two years. So we manufacturers await
the future with some fear of the unknown.
in a further effort to get slsa trainers out in the field cgs is putting on a
sun n fun sale which will be posted on the web site
i implore the group to choose someone whom is respected among you to contact the
faa and report on their findings
i dont expect anyone here to take my word for it and i prefer another voice to
concur what ive said
sincerely
danny dezauche
president/cgs aviation
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
________________________________
From: Thom Riddle <riddletr@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 8:49:22 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: club planes?
Dana,
The FAA regs allow instruction in any experimental aircraft which is owned by
the person receiving the instruction. My FSDO said that partial ownership or
indirect ownership (share holder in a corporation that owns the aircraft)
qualifies as long as there is an equity position in the aircraft.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
Don't accept your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are
wonderful.
Ann Landers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=329948#329948
===
--
kugelair.com
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 |
|
From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1@cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: club planes? |
I have an old article maybe a year old. In it it cites EAA exemption #7162 where
a person is allowed to rent and instruct in experimental. If that exemption
has not been revoked which I don't see where that happened although it may?
All FAA approved!!!!!
Ron @ KFHU
============================
---- Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal@yahoo.com> wrote:
============
Another point of view, same basic subject - flight training in ELSA, a different
concept of dealing with it.
Roger Mills has posted this following a conversation with EAA.
Per EAA---(as of 1 hour ago)
An E is an E is an E! Regardless of whether it is kit or plans built, EAB or
ELSA.
An experimental category aircraft of any type cannot be formally rented out or
used by anyone "for hire" in any way!!!!!
Cost sharing for 'friendly' use by other than the owner is OK to a point--be
ready to prove it.
A group of people can form a "club" as an LLC, corp or partnership for the
purpose of building, owning and flying any experimental aircraft.
The orgainization that functions as a fund raiser must be a separate entity from
the one that owns the experimental aircraft.
The members or partners can be the same people, BUT, separate organizational
chart etc.
(Even EAA chapters, as the rules stand now, can build but not own an aircraft.
This is being worked on to correct.)
Plans or scratch built automatically qualify for the "51%", only approved kits
qualify, ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA.
A repairmans certificate for an EAB can be issued to only one person for any
specific aircraft by N number only.
A repairmans certificate for an ELSA requires the course and MAY include the
model???
Without a repairmans certificate only an AP or better can sign the annual.
Any flight instructor can be paid to teach in any experimental aircraft as long
as they have the qualifications necessary.
The flight instructor may or may not be an owner/partner in the aircraft.
Flight instruction may be given to the level allowed by the equipment installed
in the aircraft.
(I think this last one means that you can get full IFR if the aircraft has the
stuff)
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N
number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly
that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been "taught".
(I am not sure how to really works--on the surface it seems to mean that if you
built it, flew off the restrictions and got an N number-you are a qualified
flight instructor for that aircraft only?????, and can be paid to teach in that
aircraft???)
(I was specifically told that since flight instruction is desired--the FAA has
not restricted the ability of a flight instructor to teach in an experimental-
--EAB or ELSA. You just CANNOT charge a fee for the aircraft itself.)
(I was also told that insurance is problematic in an experimental of any
kind--Falcon insurance does it---rates are much different for a Christen Eagle
vs a Pete etc. I have not spoken with them.)
Again, Per the EAA. (my comments)
One small item to add--my comment---based on the sum of the conversation and
not specifically stated:
The way the rule is written it gets real grey if one partner pays more than his
or her share of the hourly cost. Say 6 people form a partnership to build an
experimental aircraft---If one partner pays the entire cost of a one hour flight
then the others partners benefit. Confused me for a while but I can see where
the FAA may see that as 5 owners renting the aircraft to the sixth partner. I
suspect that this kind of thing is why the FAA frouns on "club" ownership of an
experimental.
Posted by : Roger Mills on UL forum
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
________________________________
From: Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 10:45:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: club planes?
There has been some significant discussion on the topic of training in ELSA
aircraft on some other forums which I am involved in. CGS Hawk, FLY UL, and
LINKDIN are a few. The responses in those forums spurred me to write this in
response. Please check out those forums if you are interested!
sent to LINKDIN
I want to keep the focus. What we will be doing is essentially taking hamburger
and putting it all back together to make a steak.
Ultra light flying is getting more difficult because of the non-availability of
training. No one is going to give hours of training time and the use of an
aircraft for free. Ultra lights therefore, literally, fly under the radar.
Sport pilots can't do that quite so readily, but unfortunately, many are trying.
While an ELSA built to SLSA standards is an appropriate aircraft, many
experimentals simply do not fit the bill for appropriate training aircraft. I
make this statement to have it understood that I do not advocate training in ALL
experimental aircraft.
Back to the focus of this discussion.
I do not have the background I believe is required for developing the type of
format needed here. I came up through the ranks of ultra lights as a self taught
pilot. I received my BFI, trained several people in ultra lights, then received
the training I needed when Sport Pilot came to be to transition to a sport pilot
license.
I have passed the first step - the FOI test - toward getting my CFI. But I do
not have the legal background or the depth of knowledge regarding the FARs I
feel is needed to produce this format in a viable and usable program for the
Sport Pilot training arena.
Mark, if you or someone else who is following this thread, or even a group of
others, have the knowledge to pull this together, I would be willing to
contribute what I can.
This subject has spurred a lot of discussion as you know here and in other
forums.
Let's see if we can take it to a desired completion.
There are some people who would be comfortable training with only a verbal
contract.
Others will require a written contract with the basics of cost and damage
deposit and a disclaimer of liability in the event of an accident included.
Still others will want a written contract in triplicate spelling out every
possible nuance, required insurances, and a liability waiver signed by the
trainee's family before they feel comfortable taking on the responsibility. And,
yet others, will require a corporation development, corporate insurance, an
aircraft meeting specified standards.....
We now need to develop a format that can easily be adapted to allow each
instructor to use their own level of comfort as a guide to what type of contract
they want to use.
>From hamburger .... to steak.Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
________________________________
From: Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal@yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 5:19:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: club planes?
We have established the need. We have proven viability. We even have an
apparent precedent. So, what next?
An easy to follow format with all the "legal" jargon included for the average
"layman" CFI or old BFI properly providing for that "equity position". Could
such a "position" be covered by something so simple as a "damage deposit" on the
aircraft??
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 9:27:30 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: club planes?
> The FAA regs allow instruction in any experimental aircraft which is owned by
>the person receiving the instruction. > --------
> Thom Riddle
Thom, & knowledgeable 'regs'guys,
Your statement above is excellent information, but what about the situation
where a plane is just given it's airworthiness certificate?
I get the impression what you said is fine for a fully built, previous flown
airplane, but what about a brand new one?
Once a plane is finally finished, aren't you supposed to fly off a certain
number of hours before someone can be in the plane also?
How does that work? I never have clearly understood how this part works.
After rereading your statement, I think I'm getting more confused. If a
person
had a CFI teach him to fly, OF COURSE he could be taught in ANY (legal)
airplane.
My question is; How can a guy learn to fly his brand new, never flown, just
licenced, experimental airplane? Can he have an instructor go with him on his
maiden flight? Does anyone know how this works??
We've had a few recent incidents where lowtime Kolb pilots bent their planes
(and themselves). What does the FAA regssay to address this problem?
Thanks.
Mike Welch
MkIII
============
--
kugelair.com
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: club planes? |
I have an old article maybe a year old. In it it cites EAA exemption #7162
where a person is allowed to rent and instruct in experimental. If that
exemption has not been revoked which I don't see where that happened
although it may?
All FAA approved!!!!!
Ron @ KFHU
Ron/Kolbers:
Try this one:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2007/2007-11-01_exemption.asp
Folks, see if you can clean up your posts prior to hitting the send button.
Leave enough of the previous post as a reference to know where you are
coming from. Helps a whole bunch when we are searching for info in the Kolb
List Archives.
Thanks,
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
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: Heavy Passengers |
Hello All,
When I was flying off my 40 hours I loaded up the cockpit with a couple of 80#
bags of cement and tested the forward limit, I then strapped some diving weights
around the tail to test the aft limit. The plane flew much better (lighter
on the controls) near the aft limit than the forward limit. So much better that
I would suggest anyone building a MKIII to set the airplane up so that with
you in the pilots seat, you are at the aft limit. This would allow the you
to put more weight in before you reach the forward limit and will make the airplane
feel lighter on the controls when just tooling around solo.
My $.02
Jason
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330613#330613
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: club planes? |
*"ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA."* This statement is true at
the time the DAR or FAA inspector is examining the aircraft for issuance of
the airworthiness certificate. At that time the aircraft must be exactly
like the qualifying S-LSA *OR* there must be Letters of Authorization from
the manufacturer listing the change and the specific N number of the
aircraft with the change. Once the airworthiness certificate is issued, an
E-LSA is no different than an E-AB. Any modification the owner wishes to do
may be done. As Edsel Ford of the FAA's Light Sport Branch told me,
"experimental is experimental".
Rick Girard
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal@yahoo.com>wrote:
> Another point of view, same basic subject - flight training in ELSA, a
> different concept of dealing with it.
> Roger Mills has posted this following a conversation with EAA.
>
> Date: Thu, February 10, 2011 11:58 am
> To: <fly-ul@yahoogroups. com <fly-ul%40yahoogroups.com>>
>
> Per EAA---(as of 1 hour ago)
>
> An E is an E is an E! Regardless of whether it is kit or plans built, EAB
> or ELSA.
>
> An experimental category aircraft of any type cannot be formally rented out
> or used by anyone "for hire" in any way!!!!!
>
> Cost sharing for 'friendly' use by other than the owner is OK to a
> point--be ready to prove it.
>
> A group of people can form a "club" as an LLC, corp or partnership for the
> purpose of building, owning and flying any experimental aircraft.
>
> The orgainization that functions as a fund raiser must be a separate entity
> from the one that owns the experimental aircraft.
>
> The members or partners can be the same people, BUT, separate
> organizational chart etc.
>
> (Even EAA chapters, as the rules stand now, can build but not own an
> aircraft. This is being worked on to correct.)
>
> Plans or scratch built automatically qualify for the "51%", only approved
> kits qualify, ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA.
>
> A repairmans certificate for an EAB can be issued to only one person for
> any specific aircraft by N number only.
>
> A repairmans certificate for an ELSA requires the course and MAY include
> the model???
>
> Without a repairmans certificate only an AP or better can sign the annual.
>
> Any flight instructor can be paid to teach in any experimental aircraft as
> long as they have the qualifications necessary.
>
> The flight instructor may or may not be an owner/partner in the aircraft.
>
> Flight instruction may be given to the level allowed by the equipment
> installed in the aircraft.
>
> (I think this last one means that you can get full IFR if the aircraft has
> the stuff)
>
> The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N
> number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly
> that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been
> "taught".
>
> (I am not sure how to really works--on the surface it seems to mean that if
> you built it, flew off the restrictions and got an N number-you are a
> qualified flight instructor for that aircraft only?????, and can be paid to
> teach in that aircraft???)
>
>
> (I was specifically told that since flight instruction is desired--the FAA
> has not restricted the ability of a flight instructor to teach in an
> experimental- --EAB or ELSA. You just CANNOT charge a fee for the aircraft
> itself.)
>
> (I was also told that insurance is problematic in an experimental of any
> kind--Falcon insurance does it---rates are much different for a Christen
> Eagle vs a Pete etc. I have not spoken with them.)
>
> Again, Per the EAA. (my comments)
>
> One small item to add--my comment---based on the sum of the conversation
> and not specifically stated:
>
> The way the rule is written it gets real grey if one partner pays more than
> his or her share of the hourly cost. Say 6 people form a partnership to
> build an experimental aircraft---If one partner pays the entire cost of a
> one hour flight then the others partners benefit. Confused me for a while
> but I can see where the FAA may see that as 5 owners renting the aircraft to
> the sixth partner. I suspect that this kind of thing is why the FAA frouns
> on "club" ownership of an experimental.
> Posted by : Roger Mills on UL forum
>
>
> Malcolm Brubaker
> Michigan Sport
> Pilot Repair
> LSRM-A, PPC, WS
> (989)513-3022
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal@yahoo.com>
> *To:* kolb-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tue, February 8, 2011 10:45:26 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Re: club planes?
>
> There has been some significant discussion on the topic of training in
> ELSA aircraft on some other forums which I am involved in. CGS Hawk, FLY
> UL, and LINKDIN are a few. The responses in those forums spurred me to
> write this in response. Please check out those forums if you are
> interested!
>
> sent to LINKDIN
>
> I want to keep the focus. What we will be doing is essentially taking
> hamburger and putting it all back together to make a steak.
> Ultra light flying is getting more difficult because of the
> non-availability of training. No one is going to give hours of training time
> and the use of an aircraft for free. Ultra lights therefore, literally, fly
> under the radar.
> Sport pilots can't do that quite so readily, but unfortunately, many are
> trying. While an ELSA built to SLSA standards is an appropriate aircraft,
> many experimentals simply do not fit the bill for appropriate training
> aircraft. I make this statement to have it understood that I do not advocate
> training in ALL experimental aircraft.
> Back to the focus of this discussion.
> I do not have the background I believe is required for developing the type
> of format needed here. I came up through the ranks of ultra lights as a self
> taught pilot. I received my BFI, trained several people in ultra lights,
> then received the training I needed when Sport Pilot came to be to
> transition to a sport pilot license.
> I have passed the first step - the FOI test - toward getting my CFI. But I
> do not have the legal background or the depth of knowledge regarding the
> FARs I feel is needed to produce this format in a viable and usable program
> for the Sport Pilot training arena.
> Mark, if you or someone else who is following this thread, or even a group
> of others, have the knowledge to pull this together, I would be willing to
> contribute what I can.
> This subject has spurred a lot of discussion as you know here and in other
> forums.
> Let's see if we can take it to a desired completion.
> There are some people who would be comfortable training with only a verbal
> contract.
> Others will require a written contract with the basics of cost and damage
> deposit and a disclaimer of liability in the event of an accident included.
> Still others will want a written contract in triplicate spelling out every
> possible nuance, required insurances, and a liability waiver signed by the
> trainee's family before they feel comfortable taking on the responsibility.
> And, yet others, will require a corporation development, corporate
> insurance, an aircraft meeting specified standards.....
> We now need to develop a format that can easily be adapted to allow each
> instructor to use their own level of comfort as a guide to what type of
> contract they want to use.
> From hamburger .... to steak.
>
> Malcolm Brubaker
> Michigan Sport
> Pilot Repair
> LSRM-A, PPC, WS
> (989)513-3022
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal@yahoo.com>
> *To:* kolb-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Mon, February 7, 2011 5:19:27 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Re: club planes?
>
> We have established the need. We have proven viability. We even have
> an apparent precedent. So, what next?
> An easy to follow format with all the "legal" jargon included for the
> average "layman" CFI or old BFI properly providing for that "equity
> position". Could such a "position" be covered by something so simple as a
> "damage deposit" on the aircraft??
>
>
> Malcolm Brubaker
> Michigan Sport
> Pilot Repair
> LSRM-A, PPC, WS
> (989)513-3022
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com>
> *To:* kolb-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Mon, February 7, 2011 9:27:30 AM
> *Subject:* RE: Kolb-List: Re: club planes?
>
> > The FAA regs allow instruction in any experimental aircraft which is
> owned by the person receiving the instruction. > --------
> > Thom Riddle
>
> Thom, & knowledgeable 'regs' guys,
>
> Your statement above is excellent information, but what about the
> situation
> where a plane is just given it's airworthiness certificate?
> I get the impression what you said is fine for a fully built, previous
> flown
> airplane, but what about a brand new one?
> Once a plane is finally finished, aren't you supposed to fly off a
> certain
> number of hours before someone can be in the plane also?
> How does that work? I never have clearly understood how this part works.
>
> After rereading your statement, I think I'm getting more confused. If a
> person
> had a CFI teach him to fly, OF COURSE he could be taught in ANY (legal)
> airplane.
>
> My question is; How can a guy learn to fly his brand new, never flown,
> just
> licenced, experimental airplane? Can he have an instructor go with him on
> his
> maiden flight? Does anyone know how this works??
>
> We've had a few recent incidents where lowtime Kolb pilots bent their
> planes
> (and themselves). What does the FAA regs say to address this problem?
>
> Thanks.
> Mike Welch
> MkIII
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> **
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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: Heavy Passengers |
Jason, Please define "test the aft limit".
Rick Girard
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Jason Omelchuck <jason@trek-tech.com>wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> When I was flying off my 40 hours I loaded up the cockpit with a couple of
> 80# bags of cement and tested the forward limit, I then strapped some diving
> weights around the tail to test the aft limit. The plane flew much better
> (lighter on the controls) near the aft limit than the forward limit. So
> much better that I would suggest anyone building a MKIII to set the airplane
> up so that with you in the pilots seat, you are at the aft limit. This
> would allow the you to put more weight in before you reach the forward limit
> and will make the airplane feel lighter on the controls when just tooling
> around solo.
>
> My $.02
> Jason
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330613#330613
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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: club planes? |
On 2/11/2011 11:01 AM, Malcolm Brubaker wrote:
> Another point of view, same basic subject - flight training in ELSA, a
> different concept of dealing with it.
> Roger Mills has posted this following a conversation with EAA.
>
> Date: Thu, February 10, 2011 11:58 am
> To: <fly-ul@yahoogroups. com <mailto:fly-ul%40yahoogroups.com>>
>
> Per EAA---(as of 1 hour ago)
> An E is an E is an E! Regardless of whether it is kit or plans built,
> EAB or ELSA.
> An experimental category aircraft of any type cannot be formally
> rented out or used by anyone "for hire" in any way!!!!!
> Cost sharing for 'friendly' use by other than the owner is OK to a
> point--be ready to prove it.
> A group of people can form a "club" as an LLC, corp or partnership for
> the purpose of building, owning and flying any experimental aircraft.
> The orgainization that functions as a fund raiser must be a separate
> entity from the one that owns the experimental aircraft.
> The members or partners can be the same people, BUT, separate
> organizational chart etc.
> (Even EAA chapters, as the rules stand now, can build but not own an
> aircraft. This is being worked on to correct.)
> Plans or scratch built automatically qualify for the "51%", only
> approved kits qualify, ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA.
> A repairmans certificate for an EAB can be issued to only one person
> for any specific aircraft by N number only.
> A repairmans certificate for an ELSA requires the course and MAY
> include the model???
> Without a repairmans certificate only an AP or better can sign the annual.
> Any flight instructor can be paid to teach in any experimental
> aircraft as long as they have the qualifications necessary.
> The flight instructor may or may not be an owner/partner in the aircraft.
> Flight instruction may be given to the level allowed by the equipment
> installed in the aircraft.
> (I think this last one means that you can get full IFR if the aircraft
> has the stuff)
> The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received
> an N number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone
> else to fly that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight
> instructor has been "taught".
> (I am not sure how to really works--on the surface it seems to mean
> that if you built it, flew off the restrictions and got an N
> number-you are a qualified flight instructor for that aircraft
> only?????, and can be paid to teach in that aircraft???)
> (I was specifically told that since flight instruction is desired--the
> FAA has not restricted the ability of a flight instructor to teach in
> an experimental- --EAB or ELSA. You just CANNOT charge a fee for the
> aircraft itself.)
> (I was also told that insurance is problematic in an experimental of
> any kind--Falcon insurance does it---rates are much different for a
> Christen Eagle vs a Pete etc. I have not spoken with them.)
>
> Again, Per the EAA. (my comments)
>
> One small item to add--my comment---based on the sum of the
> conversation and not specifically stated:
>
> The way the rule is written it gets real grey if one partner pays more
> than his or her share of the hourly cost. Say 6 people form a
> partnership to build an experimental aircraft---If one partner pays
> the entire cost of a one hour flight then the others partners benefit.
> Confused me for a while but I can see where the FAA may see that as 5
> owners renting the aircraft to the sixth partner. I suspect that this
> kind of thing is why the FAA frouns on "club" ownership of an
> experimental.
> Posted by : Roger Mills on UL forum
>
> Malcolm Brubaker
> Michigan Sport
> Pilot Repair
> LSRM-A, PPC, WS
> (989)513-3022
A couple of thoughts:
quote
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received
an N number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone
else to fly that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor
has been "taught".
unquote
I've never seen that in the form that it's written. I wonder if it is
specific to the 'exemption' for transition training in a homebuilt
experimental. That exemption isn't for what most would consider flight
training; it's an exemption to provide *transition* instruction for a
qualified pilot to get comfortable in *that particular design*,
new-to-him/her experimental a/c. For example, a 5000 hr ex-military
pilot who's only flown C-130's & never a light plane, would need
instruction to handle a taildragger homebuilt like a Thorp T-18 (or Kolb).
On the overall question of 'club' a/c: people may be getting the wrong
(undesirable) answer because they are asking the wrong question. The
word 'club' probably does trigger a reaction from the FAA, because most
clubs operate as businesses, charging monthly dues, etc. If the question
was phrased as 'multiple owners', or 'partnership', there would
probably be a different answer. If you search FAA records, you'll find
many experimental homebuilts registered to partnerships, and even
corporations. As the EAA said, any experimental can be used for
instruction, as long as there is no payment to the owner for the use of
the a/c (commercial use). I have read about (but have no direct
experience) that an experimental can even be loaned to a non-owner for
training. Memory is less clear on whether a third-party instructor can
be paid in that scenario. The question of 5 owners 'renting' to the 6th
owner probably wouldn't come up as long as most of the owners fly at
least occasionally, & all share more or less equally in fixed costs like
insurance & annuals.
I'd bet that a more likely problem is going to be finding an instructor
whose liability insurance will cover him while instructing in a
homebuilt. Not saying it makes sense; it's just an unfortunate reality.
Charlie
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: Heavy Passengers |
When I was flying off my 40 hours I loaded up the cockpit with a couple
of 80# bags of cement and tested the forward limit, I then strapped some
diving weights around the tail to test the aft limit. The plane flew
much better (lighter on the controls) near the aft limit than the
forward limit. So much better that I would suggest anyone building a
MKIII to set the airplane up so that with you in the pilots seat, you
are at the aft limit. This would allow the you to put more weight in
before you reach the forward limit and will make the airplane feel
lighter on the controls when just tooling around solo.
My $.02
Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that is how i have mine set up... for that exact reason
boyd young
mkiii utah
do not archive
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: Heavy Passengers |
its the opposite of testing the forward limit :) I did not test how far aft the
CG could be, I tested it at the aft limit that was published in the builders
manual (or what I got from searching this list). I am not brave enough nor
do I have the skill to actually test it to the physical limit. I just felt that
if I was going to make the entry in the log that I had tested it through out
is operating range I should take it to the limits I published in my weight and
balance documents. I do not remember what those limits are off the top of
my head.
[quote="rickofudall"]Jason, Please define "test the aft limit".
Rick Garrard
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Jason Omelchuck wrote:
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> When I was flying off my 40 hours I loaded up the cockpit with a couple of 80#
bags of cement and tested the forward limit, I then strapped some diving weights
around the tail to test the aft limit. The plane flew much better (lighter
on the controls) near the aft limit than the forward limit. So much better
that I would suggest anyone building a MKIII to set the airplane up so that with
you in the pilots seat, you are at the aft limit. This would allow the you
to put more weight in before you reach the forward limit and will make the airplane
feel lighter on the controls when just tooling around solo.
>
> My $.02
> Jason
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330613#330613 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330613#330613)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
> [b]
[Wink] [Wink]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330666#330666
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Heavy Passengers |
I understand setting weight and balance for the aft range of the cg
envelope. The question was meant as what did you test? Stalls with all flap
settings, both approach and departure? Stalls while banked to right and
left? Accelerated stalls?
Rick Girard
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jason Omelchuck <jason@trek-tech.com>wrote
:
>
> its the opposite of testing the forward limit :) I did not test how far
> aft the CG could be, I tested it at the aft limit that was published in t
he
> builders manual (or what I got from searching this list). I am not brave
> enough nor do I have the skill to actually test it to the physical limit.
I
> just felt that if I was going to make the entry in the log that I had tes
ted
> it through out is operating range I should take it to the limits I publis
hed
> in my weight and balance documents. I do not remember what those limits
are
> off the top of my head.
>
>
> [quote="rickofudall"]Jason, Please define "test the aft limit".
>
> Rick Garrard
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Jason Omelchuck wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > When I was flying off my 40 hours I loaded up the cockpit with a coupl
e
> of 80# bags of cement and tested the forward limit, I then strapped some
> diving weights around the tail to test the aft limit. =EF=BDThe plane
flew much
> better (lighter on the controls) near the aft limit than the forward limi
t.
> =EF=BDSo much better that I would suggest anyone building a MKIII to s
et the
> airplane up so that with you in the pilots seat, you are at the aft limit
.
> =EF=BDThis would allow the you to put more weight in before you reach
the forward
> limit and will make the airplane feel lighter on the controls when just
> tooling around solo.
> >
> > My $.02
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330613#330613 (
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330613#330613)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> > ==========
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > ==========
> > le, List Admin.
> > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Zulu Delta
> Mk IIIC
> Thanks, Homer GBYM
>
>
> It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhapp
y.
> =EF=BD - Groucho Marx
>
>
> > [b]
> [Wink] [Wink]
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330666#330666
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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: Heavy Passengers |
Several heavy pilot vignettes from of old:
#1
In the M2 days I took up a passenger who weighed 350 lb.; this with a 503.
Hardest part was keeping his overflowing blubber from interfering with the
control stick. Take off and climb were predictably anemic, but once cruise
was established it wasn't too bad. This was from Kolb Int. where we had
3,000 ft of runway. I forgot how long the TO roll was. Significant back
stick pressure was required.
#2
An impromptu flying session of hopping rides from a mowed hayfield with a
582 M3 went well until someone got in who was very heavy. He was huge!. I
figured I could get him off the ground, but the gear and very nice wheel
pants would take a beating on the rough field. What to do?? The answer was
on short final and about to arrive . the seat belts would not reach around
his considerable girth. But! Then he said, that's ok - I don't need a seat
belt. Well . the conservative side of a very wild flyer surfaced surprising
quickly and spurted, sorry - can't do that - not safe. Saved by the belt!
So, this is a very diplomatic solution to the overweight problem - just
provide enough belt length to encompass a passenger you don't mind hauling
and you won't have too worry about what to say to the wide bodies that plop
in you airplane.
#3
Take-off from SNF with heavy passenger and stiff cross wind in 582 M3 with
full swivel non-steering tailwheel. Not very smart! Crosswind soon had me
at full rudder and still drifting to the right toward planes and people.
Too much momentum toward the crowd to stop. All of a sudden I realized how
much directional control the tailwheel provided :-o But too late to do
anything except push the throttle harder and start praying for altitude. The
passenger looked over at me wondering if I was paying attention to our
heading. Just in time we were in the air with a bit more speed and control
reestablished. That was the end of our non-steering tailwheel project.
Dennis
_____
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Girard
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Heavy Passengers
I understand setting weight and balance for the aft range of the cg
envelope. The question was meant as what did you test? Stalls with all flap
settings, both approach and departure? Stalls while banked to right and
left? Accelerated stalls?
Rick Girard
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! --
|