---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 02/11/11: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:08:27 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Insurance From: "Thom Riddle" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:05:37 AM PST US From: Malcolm Brubaker Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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: =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 =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 =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 =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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:26:53 AM PST US From: "Ron @ KFHU" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:38:46 AM PST US From: "Ron @ KFHU" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 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 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:59:42 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:07:04 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Heavy Passengers From: "Jason Omelchuck" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:56:37 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: club planes? From: Richard Girard *"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 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: > > > 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 > *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 > *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 > *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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:05:22 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Heavy Passengers From: Richard Girard Jason, Please define "test the aft limit". Rick Girard 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 > > -- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:01:26 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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: > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:37:08 PM PST US From: "b young" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:51:43 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Heavy Passengers From: "Jason Omelchuck" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:24:17 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Heavy Passengers From: Richard Girard 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:04:26 PM PST US From: "Dennis Souder" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kolb-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kolb-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.