Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:47 AM - Re: incidents and accidents (long) (Steven Dortch)
2. 04:47 AM - Re: A-65 Breather Tube Exhaust (womenfly2)
3. 06:28 AM - Sky Scout (Gary Boothe)
4. 08:49 AM - Re: Sky Scout (Bill Church)
5. 11:08 AM - Re: Sky Scout (Ray Krause)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: incidents and accidents (long) |
23 years ago a guy bounced his new homebuilt kit plane on the runway. FAA
guy came out looked the damage over and asked the guy if he was going to
fix the plane and be willing to go to the manufacturer and get checked out
(the manufacturer offered a free checkout in the factory bird.) The owner
agreed. Then the FAA guy declared it to be an incident.
In later conversations the FAA guy said his real interest was that the
owner become a safer pilot and get the plane flying. IF the guy had decided
not to fly again, he would have called it an accident.
Incidentally, his "incident" happened on his first test flight. Instead of
doing high speed taxis and then flying up and figuring out the stall, he
took off, went straight around the pattern, came in very slow and stalled
it about 10 feet up. bounced pretty hard.
Strange plane, Biplane, taildragger with top wing mounted pusher prop.
Cockpit looked like a modified cobra attack helocopter.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>wrote:
> Douwe wrote-
>
> >RE-PIET was started by an older gent in the late eighties
> >I finished it in 2009 when it had its "incident" and then
> >spent the next 2.5 years rebuilding it.
>
> A tune whose lyrics I know all too well ;o) But to get to the subject,
> there are "incidents" and there are "accidents", and the difference can be
> very important when it comes to deciding whether you need to report "it" to
> anybody. Here's what 830.5 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
> (the FARs) says, although I have snipped irrelevant sections out of it:
>
> The operator of any civil aircraft... shall immediately, and by the most
> expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation
> Safety Board (Board) field office when:(a) An aircraft accident or any of
> the following listed incidents occur:(1) Flight control system
> malfunction or failure;(2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to
> perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness;(3)
> [turbine engine failure];(4) In-flight fire; or(5) Aircraft collide in
> flight.(6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to
> exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market
> value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.(7) [large
> multiengine aircraft].
> =============
>
> An "accident", as defined in the regulations, is an aircraft operation in
> which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft
> receives substantial damage. An "incident" is an occurrence other than an
> accident that affects or could affect the safety of operations. Neither
> term is really clear when it comes to the aircraft. What is "substantial"
> damage? What types of things can affect the safety of operations?
>
> When Scout went over on its back, the authorities were notified but a
> field investigator came out, looked it over in the hangar, and said it
> wasn't worth the trouble to report it and he left. I had no desire to
> stretch my interpretation of the definitions in the regulations, but I'm
> glad we could move on. I will leave it to others to decide whether the
> damage to Scout was "substantial" (and, thus, the event was an "accident"),
> or whether it affected the safety of operations and was merely an
> "incident"... which the NTSB -by inference- called it. Photos here:
>
> http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/incident/incident.html
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, OR
> Air Camper NX41CC, "Scout"
> A75 power
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: A-65 Breather Tube Exhaust |
Making a breather tube without kinking it and adding cold weather hole .....
WF2
--------
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=411570#411570
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 |
|
These pics from N. California builder, Ray Krause, who writes the following:
"Had a good weekend. All instruments have been mounted. Just trying to
figure out the guy wires for the cabanes. Just a little different than the
Air Camper. No way to secure the front strut the way you fellows secure it
to the base of the motor mount. May place a diagonal from the base of the
back cabane to the top of front cabane. Other Sky Scouts have not done
that. Where is the structural strength."
Ray's previous project is a most beautiful Waiex!
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
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 |
|
Ray,
Nice work!
The reason for the diagonal brace tubes from the cabanes to the motor mounts on
the Air Camper is to allow the deletion of the criss-crossed cable bracing on
the side of the front cockpit. Maneuvering one's body into the front cockpit
is extra difficult when there are the diagonal cables installed. With the Sky
Scout, there isn't a front cockpit. (Well, more accurately, there isn't a passenger
seat.) So, there shouldn't be anyone trying to thread their body through
those diagonal cables. In the photos, you already have fitted the diagonal
cables. Those cables will provide the necessary bracing to support the cabanes,
and prevent your wing from shifting fore and aft.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=411598#411598
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 |
|
Gary,
Thanks for putting the photos on the Piet forum, now I don't have to figure o
ut how to do that with multiple photos. I now have more time for building!
Sorry you did not make it into the air yesterday with your Piet. I was think
ing about you as the wind picked up here.
Chris and Bill,
Thanks for the comments and compliments, I can use the former and appreciate
the later. As I lay awake last night pondering the cross wires dilemma, I c
oncluded that it would all work out once the center section is in place. Bu
t before I do that, I will have to raise the ceiling of my shop! No wonder P
iets take so long to build. Of course, the final cables will be installed pr
operly, this is just cable from the aviation section of Ace Hardware. But y
ou know, it looks EXACTLY like that which I received from ACS!
Bill, I have decided to cover this front section with aluminum and maybe mak
e a hatch for storage; but I don't think I will ever get far enough from hom
e to need anything that won't fit in the turtle deck! The tank holds 10 gall
ons, about 2 hrs with reserve, that should get me to Willows for breakfast! A
fter flying the Waiex for four years, I took the Aeronca to Willows and had a
north headwind of at least 20 MPH at 2000' (took 15 minutes to get that hig
h, mistake #1) I thought I would never get there (25 air miles)! Even the s
treet sweeper on the freeway passed me up! And to think I'm building a slow
er plane!
Thanks, everyone,
Hope to see a few of you November 9, AM. Everyone is welcome!
Ray
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 28, 2013, at 6:25 AM, "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> These pics from N. California builder, Ray Krause, who writes the followin
g:
>
> =9CHad a good weekend. All instruments have been mounted. Just tryin
g to figure out the guy wires for the cabanes. Just a little different than
the Air Camper. No way to secure the front strut the way you fellows secure
it to the base of the motor mount. May place a diagonal from the base of th
e back cabane to the top of front cabane. Other Sky Scouts have not done th
at. Where is the structural strength=9D
>
> Ray=99s previous project is a most beautiful Waiex!
>
> Gary Boothe
> NX308MB
>
> <photo 1.JPG>
> <photo 2.JPG>
> <photo 3.JPG>
> <photo 4.JPG>
> <Ray Krause.jpg>
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! --
|