Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:12 AM - Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (bill shook)
2. 01:09 AM - Re: Re: Sources for electrical system design (Doug Gray)
3. 03:42 AM - Re: Firewall Insulation (LarryRobertHelming)
4. 03:48 AM - Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
5. 04:02 AM - Re: Comments from Today's Tour & Demo (LarryRobertHelming)
6. 04:19 AM - Vents (Alexander, Don)
7. 04:41 AM - Re: cowl fit (LarryRobertHelming)
8. 04:48 AM - Re: oil door Hinges (LarryRobertHelming)
9. 05:27 AM - Re: cowl fit (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
10. 05:47 AM - Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern (John Huft)
11. 06:26 AM - Re: Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the (Scott Bilinski)
12. 07:23 AM - Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
13. 07:23 AM - camloc washers (sarg314)
14. 07:56 AM - Re: RV-List Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller (LeastDrag93066@aol.com)
15. 09:36 AM - 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Ron Lee)
16. 10:01 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Bruce Gray)
17. 10:14 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Scott Bilinski)
18. 10:20 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Larry Pardue)
19. 10:25 AM - Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (Dave Durakovich)
20. 10:25 AM - DC: I Fly A Cessna - Fear Me (Kendel McCarley)
21. 10:49 AM - FAR`s Re: lighting and engine running (Greg Milner)
22. 11:19 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Tim Bryan)
23. 11:34 AM - Re: DC: I Fly A Cessna - Fear Me (Cory Emberson)
24. 11:41 AM - Re: FAR`s Re: lighting and engine running (James Ochs)
25. 11:45 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Bruce Gray)
26. 11:45 AM - Re: FAR`s Re: lighting and engine running (BPA)
27. 11:50 AM - Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern From ()
28. 11:55 AM - Re: FAR`s Re: lighting and engine running (Doug Rozendaal)
29. 11:55 AM - Re: FAR`s Re: lighting and engine running (David E. Nelson)
30. 12:09 PM - Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Jeff Point)
31. 12:11 PM - Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (James H Nelson)
32. 12:14 PM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Tim Bryan)
33. 01:05 PM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Larry Pardue)
34. 01:08 PM - Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Bruce Gray)
35. 01:24 PM - Re: FAR`s Re: lighting and engine running (Robert Cutter)
36. 01:46 PM - Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) ()
37. 01:52 PM - "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? ()
38. 02:14 PM - Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Larry Pardue)
39. 02:25 PM - Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (James Ochs)
40. 02:45 PM - Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (James Ochs)
41. 03:11 PM - Re: cowl fit (rv6fly)
42. 04:03 PM - Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (RV6 Flyer)
43. 04:31 PM - Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Ed Holyoke)
44. 06:34 PM - Re: FAR`s Re: lighting and engine running (GMC)
45. 06:55 PM - Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Phil Wiethe)
46. 07:23 PM - mounting wings in a 6A (Jeff Orear)
47. 07:27 PM - Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Tom Gummo)
48. 07:37 PM - Re: Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Bruce Gray)
49. 07:40 PM - Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Pat Hatch)
50. 08:03 PM - Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Bruce Gray)
51. 08:27 PM - Re: Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (David Leonard)
52. 08:56 PM - Re: Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Bruce Gray)
53. 08:58 PM - Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Doug Rozendaal)
54. 09:04 PM - Re: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle (HCRV6@aol.com)
55. 09:13 PM - Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Pat Hatch)
56. 10:44 PM - Re: Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Jeff Point)
57. 10:44 PM - Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Dan Checkoway)
58. 10:57 PM - Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (REHughes)
59. 11:40 PM - 3 point landings (JOHN STARN)
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: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: bill shook <billshook2000@yahoo.com>
>
> The sad fact is that this happens way too frequently. And when I say
> almost daily, I mean it. After hearing all the trouble GA causes, it's a
> wonder anybody is allowed to fly.
Just my opinion here, but I think all of the hype over GA trouble is just that...hype.
What could a cessna do as far as damage goes? Ok, pack it to the rim with explosives
and it might make a dent in a capital building....if the explosives are light enough
for
it to carry them. A fertilizer and diesel bomb ala oklahoma city certainly wouldn't
work and we are not talking about an airliner here, filled to capacity with fuel.
Even
the airliner didn't take down the building..the fuel melting the steel in it is
what
dropped it. They evacuated the capital because of a cessna? How weak, gun shy
and
scared has this country's leadership become? Meanwhile my family and fellow marines
are
riding around Iraq in hummers with canvas as their armor. Give me a break. Yeah,
the
pilot that busted the airspace made a monumental mistake..but the hype caused by
it is a
joke.
I hope I've made the wrong assumption here and it was actually a citation or something.
Bill
-4 wings
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
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: Sources for electrical system design |
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
No need to rate the alternator for peak current draw - overkill.
Rather, prepare a load analysis and confirm that you will have say 45 minutes of
power without the
alternator (ie this determines the Battery AmpHour rating required) and that the
alternator will
support the average load. You may need to shed some load under emergency conditions,
just make sure
you know what this should be and document it in the flight manual.
To determine the average load add up the contiouous loads, then add the average
peak load by
multiplying each peak load centre by their respective duty cycles. Peak loads
include items like
Landing lights and Radio transmissions. Strobes will have a peak current load
but present an
average load somewhat less than this, the manufacturer should be able to assist
with this.
Doug Gray
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
> Seems that 40A may not cover max current draw. More research needs to be done.
> If it turns out 40A will cover the draw then I'll go with 40.
>
> --- Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>>60 amps! Wow! So you can run your compressor and drill press?
>>
>>hal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Insulation |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Bobby, I bought FW insulation material from Abby at Flightline Interiors.
It is very tough stuff, and installs with spray-on stickum. Did I say it is
tough stuff? I can't imagine any insulating material being better nor
easier to work with although it is hard to cut. I used metal shears on it.
It is removable (thank goodness cause I had to do that already in one
place), but does not come off easily. With the cutouts, angles, protrusions
and all on the cockpit side of the FW, the insulation from Flightline could
possibly stay in place without the glue. The spray-on is 3M super 77
adhesive. Sorry, I can't vouch for what will happen over time when the FW
sees sustained temps in the perhaps 350 degrees range due to engine cooling
and radiant heat from the exhaust. If the glue melts and runs, it could be
a mess at the bottom where the FW and floor meet. I did not overuse the
glue however.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
>
> Looking for the best firewall insulation that has been test over time
> and stays stuck. I've heard some peoples have not stayed stuck.
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Oh BS. All the trouble GA causes? Yeah, that's like the innocent victim of the
terrorist stabbing in the emergency room causing all that trouble for the hospital
staff who voluntarily ran for election and/or paid to work for us.
Time for the ADIZ to go and DC to get some cajonas when it comes to GA. Those
twits made their ADIZ bed, I'm glad they have to sleep in it daily....
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher"
>
>
> I agree.
> I live in DC and also am good friends with an FAA investigator (He
> investigates the controllers if a screw-up takes place - not the PIC).
> Anyway... what the press doesn't report is that incursions happen almost
> daily. This one made the news 'cuz the Crap-itol was evacuated because the
> line of flight would have taken him over the really sensitive areas.
>
> The sad fact is that this happens way too frequently. And when I say
> almost daily, I mean it. After hearing all the trouble GA causes, it's a
> wonder anybody is allowed to fly.
>
> Dave
>
> Do Not Archive
> >
> >
> > Where "I" live, 100 mile vis would be a miracle. BUT- regardless of vis,
> if
> > a pilot doesn't have a darn good idea where he is, particularly when he
> also
> > KNOWS restricted airspace is anywhere near route of flight and doesn't
> turn
> > around NOW and figure out where he is, he needs to be banned from flying,
> period.
> > Too many ways to avoid this- attention to a sectional, cheap GPS, VORS,
> a
> > simple 180 or picking up the mic and asking for a squawk code til
> location known
> > sure would have saved us all a lot of future grief and current tax $$$!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Oh BS. All the trouble GA causes? Yeah, that's like the innocent victim of the
terrorist stabbing in the emergency room causing all that trouble for the hospital
staff whovoluntarily ran for election and/or paid to work for us.
Time for the ADIZ to go and DC to get some cajonas when it comes to GA. Those twits
made their ADIZ bed, I'm glad they have tosleep in it daily....
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher"
<DFENSTERMACHER@EARTHLINK.NET>
I agree.
I live in DC and also am good friends with an FAA investigator (He
investigates the controllers if a screw-up takes place - not the PIC).
Anyway... what the press doesn't report is that incursions happen almost
daily. This one made the news 'cuz the Crap-itol was evacuated because the
line of flight would have taken him over the really sensitive areas.
The sad fact is that this happens way too frequently. And when I say
almost daily, I mean it. After hearing all the trouble GA causes, it's a
wonder anybody is allowed to fly.
Dave
Do Not Archive
Where "I"
live, 100 mile vis would be a miracle. BUT- regardless of vis,
if
a pilot doesn't have a darn good idea where he is, particularly when he
also
KNOWS restricted airspace is anywhere near route of flight and doesn't
turn
around NOW and figure out where he is, he needs to be banned from flying,
period.
Too many ways to avoid this- attention to a sectional, cheap GPS, VORS,
a
simple 180 or picking up the mic and asking for a squawk code til
location known
sure would have saved us all a lot of future grief and current tax $$$!
mp; Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
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: Comments from Today's Tour & Demo |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Brad Oliver" <brad@rv7factory.com>
>
>
> - I was a tad bit disappointed to learn the RV-7 had left for a show in
> Texas, so I got to fly the RV-9A instead. That was fine by me as I was
> really interested in seeing how comfortable I was in the cockpit, and
> since
> the 7 and 9 share the same fuse, it served the purpose.
(((((Disappointed!! The 9 is one fine plane. If I were starting over
today, I would probably build it rather than the 7. ))))))
>
> - I was very impressed with the flying qualities of the 9. That being
> said,
> a few things surprised me;
> a) The lack of adverse-yaw and thus the very minimal rudder input needed
> to
> fly the plane. The lack of rudder authority also surprised me. I've been
> flying a Citabria for 4 years and some aerobatics in a Pitts S2-C; I guess
> I
> am just accustomed to flying with my feet. I am not sure if I really
> liked
> not needing much rudder as somehow I felt as though flying wasn't as much
> of
> a challenge without it. Challenge may be the wrong choice of words, but
> let's go with it for now. Anywhoooo... not trying to start a debate, just
> MY observations... mileage may vary.
((((((This is the same experience I have had with flying the RV6 which I am
transition training in. Compared to the Cessna 140, the RV has little real
rudder control while airbourne. They are two different planes entirely. I
too am surprised at the amount of pressure required to use the rudder when
it is needed for take offs and landings. While flying, the rudder is used
only during acceleration to keep the ball centered. The C-140 is what I
call a rudder plane. The RV6 I call a aileron plane. Each has its good
points. I try to change direction some in the RV using the rudder and it
does not obey that input easily like the 140. A lot of it has to do with
the speed difference I think.))))))))))))))
> - I was surprised to learn they encourage customers to buy the A models (I
> was told specifically that they push the A's). Maybe my demo pilot was
> urging my in that direction, but when he learned I have been flying
> taildraggers for several years, the conversation changed topics.
>
(((((((The A model will be easier on the insurance pocket book going down
the airways. Also it will be easier to find a buyer if you ever decide to
sell the plane. It is harder to build however. AND did I mention it does
not look as good on the runway? Some opinions will vary on this.)))))))))
>
> - I was told that the pilots do not like the airplanes with 200HP motors
> as
> they are too nose heavy (see "Build it light"). I was encouraged to go
> with
> the 180 over the 200 for the weight savings, as opposed to a few MPH, and
> was told it will handle better with the 180.
(((((((((With the slipperiness of the 9 and the desire to stay light, I
would use the 320 engine from Lyc. or a Lyc. type such as Superior,
Mattituck or whomever. 160 HP is plenty if you want to fly 180
PH. )))))))))
>
>> RV-7 / Waiting on Tail / Spending $ on Tools!
((((((((You really should get your wing order in now.)))))))))))))
>
Indiana Larry, RV7, slowbuilder for 4 years, TMX-O360, SunSeeker (N3XG), It
Flies!!!!!!!!!!
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
Do=20any=20of=20you=20know=20where=20I=20can=20find=20a=20panel-mounted=20air=20vent=20that=20would=20fit=20in=20a=20standard=202=20=BC"=20instrument=20hole?
Regards,
Don
Messages=20originating=20from=20AstenJohnson,=20Inc.=20e-mail=20servers=20are=20scanned=20for=20viruses=20and=20other=20threats=20prior=20to=20delivery=20using=20e-mail=20security=20services=20powered=20by=20MessageLabs=20Inc.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Look at AirCraft Spruce for a fastener called a Camlock. That could work.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
>
> I think I'm going to have to mount something to the firewall flange to
> pull it in. A 2 inch section of piano hinge or perhaps a camloc would
> do it. The hinge is undesirable because it's invisible from the outside
> and some one who doesn't expect it to be there might damage the cowl
> trying to get it off after having pulled the 2 standard hinge pins.
>
> Does anybody have any suggestions before I do something irreversible?
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowl.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: oil door Hinges |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
What you reference will work. I just wanted to point out that the bent
portion of the hinge can be fabricated/bent from .016 aluminum by the
builder. Bill Majors of the EAA21 group made one for me and it is about 6"
long and I think works better and is stronger although lighter due to it
being full length of the hinge area. Finished results of using this type
or (hidden) hinge are just outstanding.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314@comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: oil door Hinges
> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
> FWIW, I found a concealed hinge that I believe will work well for an oil
> door. It is like the hinges from McMaster-Carr that I have seen
> referenced on the list before, except that it is made of aluminum
> instead of steel.
>
> http://www.guden.com/display-chh.asp
>
> The Guden part number is NHAL9290. I think if it is positioned
> properly, it should allow the door to swing open about 120 deg., so it
> should stay propped open.
> --
> Tom Sargent
> RV-6A, Cowling
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 5/12/05 10:50:44 PM Central Daylight Time,
sarg314@comcast.net writes:
> My cowl is drilled &clecoed to the hinges all around the firewall and
> fits pretty well except for the upper cowl at the right side about 2
> 1/2" above the lower edge.
Hi Tom-
Had exactly the same problem with mine- After futile attempts to fix it with
a heat gun, I wound up adding epoxy/flox to the inside of the cowl in this
area to thicken it up and sanded the outside down to get it more flush- my
mis-alignment was more like 1/8", so you might want to add a few layers of glass
on
the inside to maintain strength in the area if you have to sand all the way
through the original glass layers. Since the rear edge of the cowl is now
thicker, it closes up the gap when seen from behind. Not perfect, but an
acceptable alternative to cutting a slot, pulling the bulge out and re-glassing.
Mark Phillips - Columbia, TN
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: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Huft <rv8@lazy8.net>
Gary, thank you for this. This is the way it should be done.
When I read of someone approaching an airport with a flight and asking
the downwind traffic to get out of the way, I cringed. I don't care how
nice he asks, or if he says "pretty please", that sounds pretty
arrogant. Unless you have an emergency, you should adjust to the
existing traffic, formation or not.
John Huft
RV8 "Nuisance"
RV6 Flyer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
>
>On an overhead approach at an NON-Towered airport, I always arrive at
>INITIAL 500 foot above TPA. If other aircraft are in the pattern, I stay
>500' above TPA. Will adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the
>traffic established in the pattern. My flight pitchout will be at TPA IF and
>ONLY IF there are NO other aircraft in the pattern.
>
>It works. The most aircraf that I have ever had in formation to arrive at a
>NON Towered airport is 12. We have had NO traffic problems when using the
>above method at NON Towered airports.
>
>Take a look at the way airports are arranged in my area:
>https://aviationtoolbox.org/members/kyler/tools/map_explorer?image=-1699463%2C-262139%2C25&scale=50&selected.x=371&selected.y=172
>
>Maybe I am the only one that remembers what it was like flying a rental.
>Anytime that I am in formation and there are other aircraft established in
>the pattern, I YIELD the runway to them.
>
>Gary A. Sobek
>"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
>1,666 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
>http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: bill shook <billshook2000@yahoo.com>
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Joy Riding in the Pattern
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: bill shook <billshook2000@yahoo.com>
>
> > Folks, I don't mean to sound arrogant
> > but my experience has been the airways are full of pilots that don't
> > have a clue, and frequently use their ears instead of their eyes, or
> > don't think while they're flying, or in the case of the latest DC ADIZ
> > incursion, don't do any preflight planning.
>
>
>I would respectfully suggest that some of those that aren't 'listening'
>might very well
>be listening and also looking at the hobbs which determines how much that
>day costs
>them...then having a flight of 6 say 'oh, excuse me but we're going to need
>you to
>extend your downwind so that we don't have to wait in line..thanks'
>
>I know you don't mean it rudely, but the guy who has been waiting in line
>for 10 minutes
>never does like to have someone walk straight to the front..even if he is
>doing everyone
>the honor of pulling a formation break. The people with no clue that you
>are referring
>to are likely just not choosing to hit the transmit button when they tell
>you to take a
>flying leap. :-) Personally, I wouldn't mind extending a flying day by a
>few minutes
>to accomodate some RV's but then again I suppose that depends on how many
>times they've
>done that to me that particular month.
>
>Just another viewpoint.
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
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: RE: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the |
question
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com> question
I believe his latest test bed is a turbo normalized RV-8. I talked to Jon
himself at OSH last year and he told me about his new plane. I also found
an old article in the RVator about ram air on RV's, basically from every
thing I have read you might get .5 inches more by bypassing the air filter.
Dan Checkoway also posted some numbers about his ram air system I think he
saw less than .5 inches boost.
At 11:06 PM 5/12/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> >"Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon
> Johanason?" http://www.flymore.com.au/
>
>Not trying to tear down any claims, but I find 2" manifold RAM rise hard
>to believe? The total RAM pressure at 240 MPH is 2 in-hg. How he is
>getting 2 in-hg? It does not sound right, or am I missing something.
>Unless he is going 240 mph and getting 100% efficiency RAM pressure
>recovery, which is physically impossible, I can't see those numbers.
>
>His scoop inlet area is a very large and looks draggy. There is only so
>much air you can stuff thru the area of the venturi or throttle body.
>Making the scoop hole (area) bigger does not get more pressure, but it
>does get you more drag as air will spill off the scoop. The magic number
>for scoop inlet area (mouth) 10% larger than the venturi throat area.
>Going a lot larger gets more drag, not more pressure.
>
>
>The claim of using prop thrust to gain induction RAM air is not new and
>has been used before, with some limited sucses. Kent Paser (Speed with E
>conomy) and found you need to be 5/8 inch from the prop and angled 10
>degrees to aircraft right, into the realtive slip stream, a combination of
>prop wash and free air stream. There is some additional gain but it is
>nominal. Also the prop thrust is poor near the hub and does not get to
>it's peak until you are at least out 1/2 span of the prop blade. From the
>pictures the scoop is well back from the prop and close to the hub of the
>prop. The hub area is full of turbulent air and not great for airflow.
>Again I could be wrong, but part of the scoop design is art, or making it
>look right. I don't think there is any magic scoop shape, however round
>tends to be the least drag for a given area.
>
>Any intake scoop is going to have "spillage" and other losses. Even the
>best efforts of others have only netted a total gain of 0.5 in -hg of
>manifold boost. I find it hard to believe this scoop, using vans air-box
>as they state, is going to gain that much, much less going 240 mph in a
>RV. I have been wrong before (but only once : -) Since you need to go 240
>MPH to get 2 in-hg in the first place something sounds off. Can anyone
>comment on this. My experience is 0.50 to 0.75 in-hg max of MAP rise using
>Van's scoop and airbox is really the best you can expect.
>
>
>Thanks George
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams"
> <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
>
> Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon
> Johanason? http://www.flymore.com.au/
>
> "Extensive flight-testing has shown increases in excess of 2 of
> Manifold
> Pressure Recovery at 1,500 and 1" of Manifold Pressure Recovery at
> 10,000.
> These increases are improvements compared to Vans snorkel type
> induction
> (not the rhino horn induction)."
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
bill shook wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: bill shook <billshook2000@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>>The sad fact is that this happens way too frequently. And when I say
>>almost daily, I mean it. After hearing all the trouble GA causes, it's a
>>wonder anybody is allowed to fly.
>>
>>
>
>
>Just my opinion here, but I think all of the hype over GA trouble is just that...hype.
>What could a cessna do as far as damage goes? Ok, pack it to the rim with explosives
>and it might make a dent in a capital building....if the explosives are light
enough for
>it to carry them. A fertilizer and diesel bomb ala oklahoma city certainly wouldn't
>work and we are not talking about an airliner here, filled to capacity with fuel.
Even
>the airliner didn't take down the building..the fuel melting the steel in it is
what
>dropped it. They evacuated the capital because of a cessna? How weak, gun shy
and
>scared has this country's leadership become? Meanwhile my family and fellow marines
are
>riding around Iraq in hummers with canvas as their armor. Give me a break. Yeah,
the
>pilot that busted the airspace made a monumental mistake..but the hype caused
by it is a
>joke.
>
>I hope I've made the wrong assumption here and it was actually a citation or something.
>
>Bill
>-4 wings
>
>
>
I aggree 100 % Bill. And at 65 yrs old, I am sure that I will make at
least one more flying mistake, error, or simply a dumb assed bad
judgement before I cant fly any more..
Maybe if those Bozo's would stop lie-ing, cheating, and be more honest
with people, they would not have the guilty feelings and paranoia
everytime anything moves.....
Phil in Illinois
do not archive
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
I just ordered a few countersunk camlocs which I plan to use on the oil
door. I have never used camlocs before. Is the countersunk stud (2700
series) OK to use by itself on fiberglass? That is, does it distribute
the load enough so that it doesn't wear out the fiberglass after a
while, or should I use some sort of countersunk washer under it?
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller |
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
Ted,
The aluminum 2 blade CS MT Propeller and spinner assembly weighs 56 pounds.
A Hartzell 2 blade propeller and aluminum spinner assembly weighed the same
on the same scales.
By comparison, the standard 3 blade CS MT propeller and spinner assembly
weighs 44 pounds.
The standard 3 blade MTV-12-B/183-59b propeller assembly for the RV series
aircraft does not have any RPM restrictions on any Lycoming ( )O-360-series
engine.
The -59b blade was specifically designed, analyzed and tested to demonstrate
no midrange RPM restriction normally present with any undampened crankshaft
Lycoming ( )O-360 engine.
Jim Ayers
Custom Aircraft Propeller - A division of Less Drag Products, Inc.
In a message dated 05/13/2005 12:00:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Time: 02:35:54 PM PST US
From: Ted Lumpkin <tlump51@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement
--> RV-List message posted by: Ted Lumpkin <tlump51@sbcglobal.net>
Jim,
How much does it weigh?
Ted
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
I had planned a trip from Meadow lake (00V) to Cortez CO (CEZ)
to visit Mesa Verde. The trip was a last minute (late decision).
Stop at COS for fuel (more delay).
Heading east at 16,500' was slow (headwind). After a while I elected
to return home but not before taking pictures:
http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/Mtn6.jpg
I also decided to check my climb rate once I leveled at 17,500'
I believe I was just west of (or over) the mountains in the pic above.
At 115 mph indicated I was doing 1000' FPM. It might have been
higher but I was getting close to 18,000' and I am not allowed up
there. Doesn't seem fair to me. So nose down and over to Pueblo
for breakfast.
O-360 carbureted engine. Fixed pitch prop.
Ron Lee
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
"At 115 mph indicated I was doing 1000' FPM. It might have been
higher but I was getting close to 18,000' and I am not allowed up
there."
Not so, just file IFR or ask for a special clearance. You don't have to
be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you just have to be IFR
rated to fly in IMC conditions.
Nice pic.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
1000 FPM sustained climb? No CS prop? #'s sound to good to be true. I
suspect a large rising air mass. For example, flying over mountains I have
seen 800~1000 FPM sustained climb (20~30 seconds) at 160 kts, it was pretty
cool thing to see, also glass smooth also.
At 10:34 AM 5/13/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>I had planned a trip from Meadow lake (00V) to Cortez CO (CEZ)
>to visit Mesa Verde. The trip was a last minute (late decision).
>Stop at COS for fuel (more delay).
>
>Heading east at 16,500' was slow (headwind). After a while I elected
>to return home but not before taking pictures:
>
>http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/Mtn6.jpg
>
>I also decided to check my climb rate once I leveled at 17,500'
>I believe I was just west of (or over) the mountains in the pic above.
>
>At 115 mph indicated I was doing 1000' FPM. It might have been
>higher but I was getting close to 18,000' and I am not allowed up
>there. Doesn't seem fair to me. So nose down and over to Pueblo
>for breakfast.
>
>O-360 carbureted engine. Fixed pitch prop.
>
>Ron Lee
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
Hmmm. Strong winds; Rocky Mountains; very little available horsepower;
1,000 FPM climb. Sure sounds like mountain wave, to me.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Subject: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
> At 115 mph indicated I was doing 1000' FPM. It might have been
> higher but I was getting close to 18,000' and I am not allowed up
> there. Doesn't seem fair to me. So nose down and over to Pueblo
> for breakfast.
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Durakovich <ddurakovich@yahoo.com>
If my memory is faulty (advancing years I'm sure!), I apologize in advance.
It's been many years since I first found the interesting "nuance " in the regs
that didn't seem to make sense, but was there anyway.
Basically, a licensed pilot in ANY category or class (powered fixed wing, glider,
rotocraft, airship, balloon) could legally operate ANY experimental aircraft
in ANY OTHER category or class without additional requirements.
A suitably licensed lighter than air ( balloon ) pilot who may have never even
sat in the cockpit of a real airplane could legally climb into an RV-8, and go
do whatever damage he could do.
Prudent? Not at all.
Rediculous? Absolutely.
Legal? Yup!
Likely to have happened? You know it has!
I think the new reg, which still allows you to legally go out and kill yourself,
attempts to prevent you from doing so to the unsuspecting public.
Again, if my memory is faulty, I do apologize!
Dave
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | DC: I Fly A Cessna - Fear Me |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kendel McCarley <kmmccarley@earthlink.net>
It didn't take long for a new bumper sticker to come out. Taking a sip from any
beverage might not be a good idea when clicking the link below:
http://www.cafepress.com/pacificnwflying.22331165
do not archive
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Milner" <tldrgred@execpc.com>
Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting while running.
I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the airplane is running
and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority do?
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you just
have to be IFR rated to fly in IMC conditions.
What?
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | DC: I Fly A Cessna - Fear Me |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cory Emberson" <bootless@earthlink.net>
That's great - it got a big laugh around here!
(Wish I'd thought of it!)
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kendel McCarley
Subject: RV-List: DC: I Fly A Cessna - Fear Me
--> RV-List message posted by: Kendel McCarley <kmmccarley@earthlink.net>
It didn't take long for a new bumper sticker to come out. Taking a sip from
any beverage might not be a good idea when clicking the link below:
http://www.cafepress.com/pacificnwflying.22331165
do not archive
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
--> RV-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
I always hit the lights before starting and leave them on on the
ground... at least the beacon. Remember that non-aviation savvy people
often forget that there is a big sharp fan spinning very fast that they
can't see.
Of course, someone who doesn't notice the noise, etc, may not notice the
light either. but every little bit that i can do to avoid having to
clean the nose of the plane at least makes me feel better about it.
James
Greg Milner wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Milner" <tldrgred@execpc.com>
>
>Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting while running.
I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the airplane is running
and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority do?
>
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
I can find no place in the regs that specify you must hold an instrument
rating to file or fly an IFR flight plan. All the regs say is that you
must be IFR rated to fly in less than VFR mininums. When in controled
airspace, and that airspace is less than VFR mininums, you must also be
on an IFR flight plan.
So, as long as you maintain VFR, anyone can file and fly an IFR
flightplan.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
just
have to be IFR rated to fly in IMC conditions.
What?
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
--> RV-List message posted by: "BPA" <BPA@BPAENGINES.COM>
Whatever it takes to not get run over! :)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Milner
Subject: RV-List: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Milner" <tldrgred@execpc.com>
Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting
while running. I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the
airplane is running and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority
do?
Message 27
| 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: Joy Riding in the Pattern From |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>CFR 91.307 does not address or "define" aerobatics. It addresses
>parachutes and parachuting. It explains that occupants *other* *than*
>*crew* *members* must wear a parachute if the aircraft exceeds 60 degrees
>bank or 30 degrees pitch. It does not *limit* the angles of bank or
>pitch. Alan
Thanks for the correction, I meant 91.303 Aerobatic Flight. You are correct aerobatic
flight is not defined by FARs except by:
Far 91.303: "For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional
maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal
attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."
The intent of my comment was simply high speed patterns and/or abrupt high bank
angles can startle other pilots and people on the ground. We can justify flying
**military style 360 overheads are abeam 180 patterns all day long and argue
the details of what is legal or not. The bottom line use good judgment, have
fun, don't piss people off. I am all for formation flight including in the pattern,
and many of the comments on this thread are excellent and think this topic
is beat to death.
**Military patterns use steep banks to "load the wing" and slow down.
Using steep banks and high G turns slow down aircraft quickly. RVs
can use this technique to enter the down wind faster and bleed speed
off in steep turns, but again this is "sporty" and requires discretion.
=====================
FAR 91.303 Aerobatic Flight
No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight -
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class
D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver
involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude,
or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
===============
Time: 03:33:45 AM PST US Subject: RE: Joy Riding in the Pattern From: alan@reichertech.com
--> RV-List message posted by: alan@reichertech.com
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> <mstewart@iss.net>
>
> Points addressed below:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com [mailto:gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com]
> Subject: Joy Riding in the Pattern
<...>
> <snip>
>
> Also, to avoid doing aerobatics in the pattern by definition (far
> 91.307), bank angles must be limited to 60 degree bank. Many RV 180
> breaks are done at high initial speeds and large (up to 90 degree)
> initial bank angles. There is nothing making this cool to the FAA.
> Again some think it looks great but it tends to get people excited
> in a bad way when they see a 90 degree bank in the pattern.
>
> <snip> I did not recommend any aerobatic maneuvers or even suggest how
> to execute the maneuver.
<...>
CFR 91.307 does not address or "define" aerobatics. It addresses
parachutes and parachuting. It explains that occupants *other* *than*
*crew* *members* must wear a parachute if the aircraft exceeds 60 degrees
bank or 30 degrees pitch. It does not *limit* the angles of bank or
pitch.
CFR 91.307 is included below. Look through it all, but in particular,
read through 91.307(c). Note that many high-performance aerobatic
aircraft can reach high nose-up angles easily, but that may also be the
angle needed for their Vx/Vy.
If you want to argue the aerobatic flight angle, at least reference the
correct CFR: 91.303. Note, though, that that CFR does not limit angles
either. It simply states this:
"For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an
intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's
attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not
necessary for normal flight."
That, of course, opens up interpretation as to "normal flight". I have
not reproduced the entire CFR 91.303 here. I'll leave that as an exercise
for those who want to argue it to do the research first.
#####
91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved
type and
(1) If a chair type (canopy in back), it has been packed by a certificated
and appropriately rated parachute rigger within the preceding 120 days; or
(2) If any other type, it has been packed by a certificated and
appropriately rated parachute rigger
(i) Within the preceding 120 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are
composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or
materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or
other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or
(ii) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is
composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or materials not
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person
may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United
States except in accordance with part 105 of this chapter.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute,
no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember)
may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any
certificate or rating when given by
(i) A certificated flight instructor; or
(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with 61.67 of
this chapter.
(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means
(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical
standard order (C23 series); or
(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or
AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation
or specification number.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91255,
62 FR 68137, Dec. 30, 1997; Amdt. 91268, 66 FR 23553, May 9, 2001]
#####
---------------------------------
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
Message 28
| 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: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
I strongly support and teach this practice.
I started leaving the beacon or strobe on at all times several years ago.
(except for operational considerations like clouds or night in close prox to
other airplanes.) Since I have done that, I have not bought a single new
battery. NOT ONE! They last forever if you never run them flat.
I call it the Master switch idiot light. It is pretty tough to walk away
from an airplane with the strobes flashing. Even if you do, when you walk
into the FBO some old grumpy corporate pilot or cocky young flight
instructor will ask you if you meant to leave the master on. Really
embarrassing, but cheaper than a new battery.
I always shut off the master with "3-M" Mixture Master and the Mags. My
experience has been, what ever was rushing me and caused me to forget the
master, probably caused me to forget the mags too.
Further, in the Warbirds at an airshow, if we see the beacon flashing it
tells us someone might be fooling around in the cockpit.
I think it is an EXCELLENT idea that saves money on ruined batteries and
adds to overall safety.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
Message 29
| 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: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
15, 2004) at 05/13/2005 01:51:09 PM,
Serialize by Router on MailServ58-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.3FP1|December
15, 2004) at
05/13/2005 01:51:13 PM,
Serialize complete at 05/13/2005 01:51:13 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson@pobox.com>
Hi Greg,
I was taught the same thing here - but ironically except at night during ground
ops. I guess there aren't any people at night. ;)
do not archive
/\/elson
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Greg Milner wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Milner" <tldrgred@execpc.com>
>
> Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting while
> running. I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the airplane is
> running and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority do?
>
>
--
~~ ** ~~ If you didn't learn anything when you broke it the 1st ~~ ** ~~
time, then break it again.
Message 30
| 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: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you just have
to be IFR
rated to fly in IMC conditions.
As a former active CFII, I'm going to respectfully disagree on this
one. FAR 61.57 (the recent flight experience reg) states in part:
(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
category for the instrument privileges sought--
(i) At least six instrument approaches;
(ii) Holding procedures; and
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems.
Several paragraphs later it mentions the Instrument Competency Check
when the six month time has lagged. All of which is appropriate to
instrument rated pilots.
Acting as PIC under IFR is the important part- one can be flying in
severe clear, but if you are on on IFR clearance you are under IFR. The
reg specifically covers this when it also says "weather conditions less
than the minimums prescribed for VFR." The practical upshot of this is
that you could, legally, fly in the soup in uncontrolled airspace
without being on an IFR flight plan and be legal, but you would still
need to be IFR rated and have the recent flight experience.
Jeff Point
do not archive
>
>
>
Message 31
| 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: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Right on Phil!!!!!
Jim Nelson
St. Petersburg, Fl
Message 32
| 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: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
Not saying you are wrong at this point but I think it is not consistent with
current belief. I did a quick google search and found this on landings.com
by Joe Benkert. He apparently believes this also. Don't know about his
knowledge. Would like to flush this out for interest sake.
If you file an actual IFR flight plan, but not controlling the aircraft only
be reference to instruments, then you do not log IFR time. When you file an
actual IFR flight plan, you are in effect testifying that you are IFR rated
and current. So, if you are not so rated, the only way you should be filing
an actual IFR plan is for the CFII (or some other IFR rated pilot) does the
filing and is responsible for the results, hence that pilot is the pilot in
command. Time spent intercepting radials, tracking, etc, is *not* logged as
IFR time , either simulated or actual unless the above conditions are met
Hope this helps.
http://www.landings.com/_landings/Forums/jb/jb-fars.html
Does anybody else have any reference to either confirm or deny this idea?
Tim
DNA
-------Original Message-------
From: Bruce Gray
Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
I can find no place in the regs that specify you must hold an instrument
rating to file or fly an IFR flight plan. All the regs say is that you
must be IFR rated to fly in less than VFR mininums. When in controled
airspace, and that airspace is less than VFR mininums, you must also be
on an IFR flight plan.
So, as long as you maintain VFR, anyone can file and fly an IFR
flightplan.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
just
have to be IFR rated to fly in IMC conditions.
What?
Message 33
| 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: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
From Part 61.3
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
aircraft under ifr or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and
instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane,
helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;
(2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate aircraft
category, class, and type rating (if required) for the aircraft being flown;
(3) For a glider, a pilot certificate with a glider category rating and an
airplane instrument rating; or
(4) For an airship, a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air
category rating and airship class rating.
(f) Category II pilot authorization. Except for a pilot conducting Category
II operations under part 121 or part 135, a person may not:
(1) Act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft during Category II
operations unless that person-
(i) Holds a current Category II pilot authorization for that category or
class of aircraft, and the type of aircraft, if applicable; or
(ii) In the case of a civil aircraft of foreign registry, is authorized by
the country of registry to act as pilot in command of that aircraft in
Category II operations.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> I can find no place in the regs that specify you must hold an instrument
> rating to file or fly an IFR flight plan. All the regs say is that you
> must be IFR rated to fly in less than VFR mininums. When in controled
> airspace, and that airspace is less than VFR mininums, you must also be
> on an IFR flight plan.
>
> So, as long as you maintain VFR, anyone can file and fly an IFR
> flightplan.
>
Do not archive
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
Message 34
| 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: | IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Sorry, the FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFR
minimums.
I've talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg that
requires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.
I'm sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't see
it written in concrete anywhere.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Point
Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
just have to be IFR
rated to fly in IMC conditions.
As a former active CFII, I'm going to respectfully disagree on this
one. FAR 61.57 (the recent flight experience reg) states in part:
(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
category for the instrument privileges sought--
(i) At least six instrument approaches;
(ii) Holding procedures; and
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems.
Several paragraphs later it mentions the Instrument Competency Check
when the six month time has lagged. All of which is appropriate to
instrument rated pilots.
Acting as PIC under IFR is the important part- one can be flying in
severe clear, but if you are on on IFR clearance you are under IFR. The
reg specifically covers this when it also says "weather conditions less
than the minimums prescribed for VFR." The practical upshot of this is
that you could, legally, fly in the soup in uncontrolled airspace
without being on an IFR flight plan and be legal, but you would still
need to be IFR rated and have the recent flight experience.
Jeff Point
do not archive
>
>
>
Message 35
| 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: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robert Cutter" <rcutter@cupower.com>
On larger aircraft I have seen and the ones I fly, strobe lights on, is on the
checklist just as you actually take the active. To do so befofe, one might "flash"
someone in another aircraft in close proximity.
Just my opinion and what we do on our corporate plane.
Robert
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
>--> RV-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
>
>I always hit the lights before starting and leave them on on the
>ground... at least the beacon. Remember that non-aviation savvy people
>often forget that there is a big sharp fan spinning very fast that they
>can't see.
>
>Of course, someone who doesn't notice the noise, etc, may not notice the
>light either. but every little bit that i can do to avoid having to
>clean the nose of the plane at least makes me feel better about it.
>
>James
>
>Greg Milner wrote:
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Milner" <tldrgred@execpc.com>
>>
>>Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting while running.
I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the airplane is running
and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority do?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Sent via the WebMail system at cupower.com
Message 36
| 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: | Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>On an overhead approach at an NON-Towered airport, I always arrive at
>INITIAL 500 foot above TPA. If other aircraft are in the pattern, I stay
>500' above TPA. Will adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the
>traffic established in the pattern. My flight pitchout will be at TPA IF
and
>ONLY IF there are NO other aircraft in the pattern.
Gary: I know you no doubt are a polite, courteous pilot and fly safely, but respectfully
disagree with the premise that descending into the pattern from above
is a good method or even safe. You say you give way to others, but than say
you "adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the traffic established in the
pattern," which sounds good, but what if you don't see all the traffic.
Not only are you flying a "non-standard" pattern you are flying at "your own altitude"
and descending down into and thru the pattern? That sounds like a mid-air
waiting to happen. Descending down into the pattern is a terrible idea. Is
there a reason I am missing for doing this. I know it is fun, faster and all,
but if there is traffic you should get in line (where the line forms), not cut
in from above. I know you say you give way and never had a problem, but what
if you miss seeing a plane. How will you see them banked, in a descending overtake
situation? While your in a descending turn what about a plane on a straight-in
you missed (another pilot doing their own thing).
I don't understand why the idea of funneling in on the 45 degree entry at TPA and
adjusting speed to "merge" into the pattern, first come, is so hard to do,
except it takes longer. The trade off in speed and safety sounds like a bad trade.
Even in the LA area you have room to enter the pattern using the 45 or established
routes. LA area is not a reason for a drop in 500ft above pattern using
a circling descending approach. We had a guy who with a Russian trainer who
felt he would fly the whole pattern 500 feet higher all the time. After almost
landing an a few planes the "airport" straightened him out. He passed planes
overhead on the down-wind and would descend down in front of planes. When he
was asked about what he was doing, his reason was it takes too long to follow
other planes and his plane is faster! Oh yes he said it.
Flying a RV does give you the feeling of superiority. The ease in which RVs fly
and performance can give pilots an over inflated confidence in one's pilot skills.
Not saying this applies to you Gary, and admit I have fell victim of the
anti-Cessna pattern attitude many times. As you point out there are times to
do it and other times we need to knock it off. There is no real good reason we
can't slow down and follow other traffic. From what you are saying it sounds
like you do this, but I don't think a cork-screw approach down into the pattern
is ever needed. If there are planes in the pattern, my opinion is unless you
get an OK over the radio and can assure no other traffic is around, than "special"
approaches should be knocked off all together.
I am not trying to ruin anyones fun, but unless we police our selves the FAA might
make some regulations that will restrict out freedoms more (see DC pilot incursion
and new FAA rules on experimental aircraft). In your scenario you are
in a bank that blocks your view of the down wind, 45 and final approach, all
the time you are descending. If there is room to fit in your 360 overhead than
you should be able to enter at TPA to see the down wind and not descend thru
the downwind.
TPA - traffic pattern altitude is named that for a reason. What if everyone started
flying any altitude they wanted? It sounds like driving up the wrong side
of the freeway because there is less traffic. The traffic pattern is so everyone
knows what to expect and where to expect other aircraft will come from. Being
at the same altitude is so we can see each other. The thought of an aircraft
descending down onto or into the pattern is scary.
The whole purpose of the pattern altitude is to "see and be seen" and know what
to expect from other planes. Gary If you think it is safe, fine, I respect your
opinion, but if I saw a plane drop down into the patten in-front of me or overtake
me from above in the pattern I would be very unhappy. Also 500 ft above
TPA (usually 1500 agl) is for TURBINE aircraft or aircraft transitioning over
the airport from the non-pattern side to the pattern side to enter the 45 to
down-wind. We can enter the pattern at any altitude and fly any shape pattern
we want, but than why do we have traffic patterns or pattern altitudes at all.
Regards George
================
Time: 06:03:31 PM PST US From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern
On an overhead approach at an NON-Towered airport, I always arrive at
INITIAL 500 foot above TPA. If other aircraft are in the pattern, I stay
500' above TPA. Will adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the
traffic established in the pattern. My flight pitchout will be at TPA IF
and
ONLY IF there are NO other aircraft in the pattern.
It works. The most aircraft that I have ever had in formation to arrive
at a
NON Towered airport is 12. We have had NO traffic problems when using the
above method at NON Towered airports.
Take a look at the way airports are arranged in my area:
https://aviationtoolbox.org/members/kyler/tools/map_explorer?image=-1699463%2C-262139%2C25&scale=50&selected.x=371&selected.y=172
Maybe I am the only one that remembers what it was like flying a rental.
Anytime that I am in formation and there are other aircraft established in
the pattern, I YIELD the runway to them.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,666 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
---------------------------------
Message 37
| 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: | "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
5/13/2005
Hello Fellow Builders and Pilot's, Some questions were raised on this
subject. Perhaps this will help explain why the FAA felt it necessary to add
FAR paragraph 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B):
The answer is found in this paragraph from FAA Order 8130.2F regarding
issuing Operating Limitations for amateur built experimental aircraft which
the FAA apparently considers to override FAR Section 61.31 (d):
"153. b. (18) The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold a pilot
certificate or an authorized instructor's logbook endorsement. The pilot in
command also must meet the requirements of 61.31(e), (f), (g), (h), (i),
and (j), as appropriate."
This paragraph from FAA Order 8130.2F, when placed in the Operating
Limitations, would allow a person with any kind of pilot certificate to fly
any category or class of amateur built experimental
aircraft (except any turbojet/turbofan-powered aircraft, any aircraft with
a maximum takeoff weight exceeding 12,500 pounds, and any other aircraft
when deemed necessary (per the note to paragraph 153. b. (17)) as PIC with
passengers.
The new FAR paragraph 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B) is intended to retroactively
remove that allowance.
If you have a pilot certificate for airplane (category) single engine - land
(class) you are good to go with pax in an RV -- no additional certification
action required.
In passing I note that this is another instance, there are others, of
confusion generated by the FAA when the FAR's and the FAA's Orders are not
entirely in synch with
each other and interpretation is required to sort out the confusion.
OC
Message 38
| 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: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
Now c'mon!
ifr means instrument flight rules.
From FAR Part 1 Title 14 1.2 - Definitions and abreviations
See my previous post that cites the reg that requires an instrument rating
to fly IFR.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> Sorry, the FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFR
> minimums.
>
> I've talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg that
> requires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.
>
> I'm sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't see
> it written in concrete anywhere.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
Do not archive
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
Message 39
| 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: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
My interpretation, which is probably not worth the electrons that make
up this message is that if you read:
61.3
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
aircraft under ifr or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
The fact that they use the phrase "under IFR or in weather..." (the
keyword being OR) means that there is a condition that you can be under
ifr without weather conditions being below minimums for vfr flight. I
would think this is a pretty clear way for the FAA to indicate that ANY
flight conducted under IFR regardles of weather requires an instrument
rating. This would include flight over FL180 in CAVU conditions.
Pretty straightforward from my reading of it.
James
Bruce Gray wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>Sorry, the FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFR
>minimums.
>
>I've talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg that
>requires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.
>
>I'm sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't see
>it written in concrete anywhere.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Point
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
>You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
>just have to be IFR
>rated to fly in IMC conditions.
>
>As a former active CFII, I'm going to respectfully disagree on this
>one. FAR 61.57 (the recent flight experience reg) states in part:
>
>(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
>section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
>conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
>preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
>(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
>(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
>instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
>aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
>or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
>category for the instrument privileges sought--
>(i) At least six instrument approaches;
>(ii) Holding procedures; and
>(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
>systems.
>
>Several paragraphs later it mentions the Instrument Competency Check
>when the six month time has lagged. All of which is appropriate to
>instrument rated pilots.
>
>Acting as PIC under IFR is the important part- one can be flying in
>severe clear, but if you are on on IFR clearance you are under IFR. The
>
>reg specifically covers this when it also says "weather conditions less
>than the minimums prescribed for VFR." The practical upshot of this is
>that you could, legally, fly in the soup in uncontrolled airspace
>without being on an IFR flight plan and be legal, but you would still
>need to be IFR rated and have the recent flight experience.
>
>Jeff Point
>do not archive
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 40
| 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: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
Just for fun I took a look at AOPA's site on this issue:
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/faq/avsvcs_faq.cfm?faq=88
*Q: If I'm a private or commercial pilot without an instrument rating,
can I operate an IFR flight plan if I plan on conducting the flight
entirely in VFR conditions?* *A:* /The answer is no. According to 14 CFR
61.3(e), "no person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft
under IFR ...unless that person holds: (1) the appropriate aircraft
category, class, type (if required) and instrument rating on that
person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift
being flown." In addition, even if you are instrument rated, you must be
current under 14 CFR 61.57(c) in order to file an IFR flight plan and
receive an IFR clearance. For the full text of Part 61, see AOPA online
at: http://www.aopa.org/members/files/fars/far-61.html
/
James Ochs wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
>
>My interpretation, which is probably not worth the electrons that make
>up this message is that if you read:
>
>61.3
>
>(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
>aircraft under ifr or in weather conditions less than the minimums
>prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
>
>The fact that they use the phrase "under IFR or in weather..." (the
>keyword being OR) means that there is a condition that you can be under
>ifr without weather conditions being below minimums for vfr flight. I
>would think this is a pretty clear way for the FAA to indicate that ANY
>flight conducted under IFR regardles of weather requires an instrument
>rating. This would include flight over FL180 in CAVU conditions.
>Pretty straightforward from my reading of it.
>
>James
>
>Bruce Gray wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>>
>>Sorry, the FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFR
>>minimums.
>>
>>I've talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg that
>>requires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.
>>
>>I'm sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't see
>>it written in concrete anywhere.
>>
>>Bruce
>>www.glasair.org
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Point
>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>>
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>>
>>You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
>>just have to be IFR
>>rated to fly in IMC conditions.
>>
>>As a former active CFII, I'm going to respectfully disagree on this
>>one. FAR 61.57 (the recent flight experience reg) states in part:
>>
>>(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
>>section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
>>conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
>>preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
>>(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
>>(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
>>instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
>>aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
>>or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
>>category for the instrument privileges sought--
>>(i) At least six instrument approaches;
>>(ii) Holding procedures; and
>>(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
>>systems.
>>
>>Several paragraphs later it mentions the Instrument Competency Check
>>when the six month time has lagged. All of which is appropriate to
>>instrument rated pilots.
>>
>>Acting as PIC under IFR is the important part- one can be flying in
>>severe clear, but if you are on on IFR clearance you are under IFR. The
>>
>>reg specifically covers this when it also says "weather conditions less
>>than the minimums prescribed for VFR." The practical upshot of this is
>>that you could, legally, fly in the soup in uncontrolled airspace
>>without being on an IFR flight plan and be legal, but you would still
>>need to be IFR rated and have the recent flight experience.
>>
>>Jeff Point
>>do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
There is an art . . . to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself
at the ground and miss. Douglas Adams, 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy'
Message 41
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: rv6fly <rv6fly@bresnan.net>
sarg314 wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
>My cowl is drilled & clecoed to the hinges all around the firewall and
>fits pretty well except for the upper cowl at the right side about 2
>1/2" above the lower edge. That 3 or 4 inch section at the side that
>has no hinge to support it. It sticks out about 3/16". Even if I push
>the lower edge into alignment, as it will be when the 2 halves are
>joined, it still bows out about 3/16 a couple inches above that.
>
>I think I'm going to have to mount something to the firewall flange to
>pull it in. A 2 inch section of piano hinge or perhaps a camloc would
>do it. The hinge is undesirable because it's invisible from the outside
>and some one who doesn't expect it to be there might damage the cowl
>trying to get it off after having pulled the 2 standard hinge pins.
>
>--
>Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowl.
>
>
>
Tom,
You can try heat from a heat gun & see if you gain anything. It
probably won't get you where you want to be, however. I would rough up
the inside radius and lay up multiple layers of fiberglass cloth and
then grind the outside contour to what you need. I think cloth would be
preferable to flox as there would be more structual integrity. It will
take quite a few layers but this method works pretty well. This method
can also be used on the front face of the top and bottom cowl to even
things out if the cowl to spinner fit doesn't turn out as well as one
had hoped.
You could add some .032" flanges in the unsupported area and use
machine countersunk screws & Timmerman's into nutplates to hold the cowl
in as another suggestion. You could put a flange on both sides so as to
be symetrical.
Bob Skinner
Message 42
| 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: | Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/aim/glossary.html#o
I am just Following the RECOMMENDED procedure published in the AIM.
------- insert -------
OVERHEAD MANEUVER- A series of predetermined maneuvers prescribed for
aircraft (often in formation) for entry into the visual flight rules (VFR)
traffic pattern and to proceed to a landing. An overhead maneuver is not an
instrument flight rules (IFR) approach procedure. An aircraft executing an
overhead maneuver is considered VFR and the IFR flight plan is cancelled
when the aircraft reaches the "initial point" on the initial approach
portion of the maneuver. The pattern usually specifies the following:
a. The radio contact required of the pilot.
b. The speed to be maintained.
c. An initial approach 3 to 5 miles in length.
d. An elliptical pattern consisting of two 180 degree turns.
e. A break point at which the first 180 degree turn is started.
f. The direction of turns.
g. Altitude (at least 500 feet above the conventional pattern).
h. A "Roll-out" on final approach not less than 1/4 mile from the
landing threshold and not less than 300 feet above the ground.
------ end insert ------
90% of the time, the tower assigns TPA +500.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,666 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern)
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>On an overhead approach at an NON-Towered airport, I always arrive
at
>INITIAL 500 foot above TPA. If other aircraft are in the pattern, I
stay
>500' above TPA. Will adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind
the
>traffic established in the pattern. My flight pitchout will be at
TPA IF and
>ONLY IF there are NO other aircraft in the pattern.
Gary: I know you no doubt are a polite, courteous pilot and fly safely, but
respectfully disagree with the premise that descending into the pattern from
above is a good method or even safe. You say you give way to others, but
than say you "adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the traffic
established in the pattern," which sounds good, but what if you don't see
all the traffic.
Not only are you flying a "non-standard" pattern you are flying at "your own
altitude" and descending down into and thru the pattern? That sounds like a
mid-air waiting to happen. Descending down into the pattern is a terrible
idea. Is there a reason I am missing for doing this. I know it is fun,
faster and all, but if there is traffic you should get in line (where the
line forms), not cut in from above. I know you say you give way and never
had a problem, but what if you miss seeing a plane. How will you see them
banked, in a descending overtake situation? While your in a descending turn
what about a plane on a straight-in you missed (another pilot doing their
own thing).
I don't understand why the idea of funneling in on the 45 degree entry at
TPA and adjusting speed to "merge" into the pattern, first come, is so hard
to do, except it takes longer. The trade off in speed and safety sounds like
a bad trade. Even in the LA area you have room to enter the pattern using
the 45 or established routes. LA area is not a reason for a drop in 500ft
above pattern using a circling descending approach. We had a guy who with a
Russian trainer who felt he would fly the whole pattern 500 feet higher all
the time. After almost landing an a few planes the "airport" straightened
him out. He passed planes overhead on the down-wind and would descend down
in front of planes. When he was asked about what he was doing, his reason
was it takes too long to follow other planes and his plane is faster! Oh yes
he said it.
Flying a RV does give you the feeling of superiority. The ease in which RVs
fly and performance can give pilots an over inflated confidence in one's
pilot skills. Not saying this applies to you Gary, and admit I have fell
victim of the anti-Cessna pattern attitude many times. As you point out
there are times to do it and other times we need to knock it off. There is
no real good reason we can't slow down and follow other traffic. From what
you are saying it sounds like you do this, but I don't think a cork-screw
approach down into the pattern is ever needed. If there are planes in the
pattern, my opinion is unless you get an OK over the radio and can assure no
other traffic is around, than "special" approaches should be knocked off all
together.
I am not trying to ruin anyones fun, but unless we police our selves the FAA
might make some regulations that will restrict out freedoms more (see DC
pilot incursion and new FAA rules on experimental aircraft). In your
scenario you are in a bank that blocks your view of the down wind, 45 and
final approach, all the time you are descending. If there is room to fit in
your 360 overhead than you should be able to enter at TPA to see the down
wind and not descend thru the downwind.
TPA - traffic pattern altitude is named that for a reason. What if everyone
started flying any altitude they wanted? It sounds like driving up the wrong
side of the freeway because there is less traffic. The traffic pattern is so
everyone knows what to expect and where to expect other aircraft will come
from. Being at the same altitude is so we can see each other. The thought of
an aircraft descending down onto or into the pattern is scary.
The whole purpose of the pattern altitude is to "see and be seen" and know
what to expect from other planes. Gary If you think it is safe, fine, I
respect your opinion, but if I saw a plane drop down into the patten
in-front of me or overtake me from above in the pattern I would be very
unhappy. Also 500 ft above TPA (usually 1500 agl) is for TURBINE aircraft or
aircraft transitioning over the airport from the non-pattern side to the
pattern side to enter the 45 to down-wind. We can enter the pattern at any
altitude and fly any shape pattern we want, but than why do we have traffic
patterns or pattern altitudes at all.
Regards George
Message 43
| 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: | Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
George,
You hit it in your last paragraph.
> (snip) Also 500 ft above TPA (usually 1500 agl) is for TURBINE
aircraft or aircraft transitioning over the airport from the non-pattern
side to the pattern side to enter the 45 to down-wind. <
Most crossover entries are done at midfield. I don't see much point in
leaving the pattern and making another 180 (which is what it would take)
to position oneself for the 45 entry unless there is too much downwind
traffic to merge with. While you're doing that, you've lost sight of any
traffic you spotted while crossing over.
An overhead approach is very much like transitioning to the pattern side
of the airport and as such shouldn't be done at pattern altitude. Like
any other maneuver near the airport, it must be done with caution and
with open eyes and ears and with good use of the radio. The traffic
you'd be most concerned with in this case would be opposite direction
and offset to the pattern side. That's an area of pretty good visibility
even when looking slightly lower. One should assure oneself that the
turn is clear before making it (as always). Once the spacing behind the
last downwind aircraft is assured and the turn initiated, it's easy to
keep the traffic you're following in sight, at least with a low short
wing airplane like the RV. The overhead or for that matter the upwind
approach gives you a good look at traffic in the pattern and them at
you. Shine your landing light. It helps. If there is traffic, you merge
behind it and it becomes a regular downwind to base to final approach.
If no traffic, break and land.
You mentioned traffic on straight in. Straight in traffic is bad news at
uncontrolled fields whether or not you fly a standard pattern. If
they're not on the radio, you'll just have to spot them, as always. If
you do your initial approach at pattern + 500, they would be below you
(if you are overtaking) and if they are behind you, you'll get a look at
them when you make your break.
You are correct that the pattern is about seeing and being seen.
Carefully done, the overhead approach provides for both. Horror stories
about descending into traffic don't have to be what a 360 approach are
about. I don't agree with the poster who asks the other traffic to give
way for a formation. I also don't advocate blowing into a busy pattern
and doing whatever you want at the expense of people already there,
although I've seen it done. I've seen plenty of people screw up standard
approaches to the point of near collision. The classic is the 45 degree
entry to downwind on the wrong side of the airport with radio turned
off. A guy in a C182 tried to kill me with that one at Big Bear a few
years back. He said (once I caught up with him at the FBO) that a) left
traffic is standard and b) you don't have to use a radio at
uncontrolled fields. Courteous, cautious and, above all, alert is the
way to go.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Message 44
| 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: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
--> RV-List message posted by: GMC <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
On the airline type aircraft I flew our company procedure was to turn on
the red belly/top strobe during the "Before Start" checklist to warn
ground personnel and vehicles of the impending push back and start. The
white wingtip strobes and landing lights were turned on when T/O
clearance was received.
George in Langley BC
>>Greg Milner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Milner" <tldrgred@execpc.com>
>>>
>>>Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting while running.
I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the airplane is running
and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority do?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 45
| 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: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: Phil Wiethe <rv8a_builder@yahoo.com>
-> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>Sorry, the FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFRminimums. I've talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg thatrequires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.I'm sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't seeit written in concrete anywhere.Brucewww.glasair.orgBruce - I do not think you are correct. IFR and IFR conditions are not
the same thing. IFR conditions is more commonly called IMC (Instrument Meteorlogical
Conditions).
Under FAR Part 1: Definitions and Abbreviations, 1.1 - IFR Conditions means
weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
Under 1.2 IFR is defined as Instrument Flight Rules. If what you are saying is
true and you
substituted the definition of IFR conditions for IFR, then FAR 61.3 would read:
No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft "under weather conditions
below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules" or in in weather conditions
less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight....
Which would be saying the same thing twice which doesn't make any sense.
IFR conditions = IMC. IFR alone does not imply IMC.
Phil
RV8A - Fuse
---------------------------------
Message 46
| 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: | mounting wings in a 6A |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
Howdy group:
Just moved my 6A to the airport and am in the head scratching stage regarding supporting
my 6A whilst mounting the wings.
Any sage advice regarding how you got your 6A off the main gear and stable enough
to crawl inside and install wing bolts would be most appreciated. I must add
that I do have my engine mounted, so I need to take that extra weight into
consideration.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
ready to plug the wings in
Peshtigo, WI
Message 47
| 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: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
I would like to throw another log on the fire - formation flying and the approach
to the airport debate.
First, lets agree that with training, there is nothing wrong with formation flying.
(So if you disagree with this, delete NOW, as we will nothing to say to
each other.)
In fact, most of the writers that have supported formation flying on this list
not only have had training but a FAA approved check-rides as 2-ship or 4-ship
flight leads, or as wingman. So they are aware of the problems of fitting a formation
of aircraft into the "normal" traffic pattern.
But, no one has talked about a problem to the formation fliers. It has been explained
that the Overhead pattern is the fastest and safest way to land aircraft
in formation. NOTE: the word "safest." So lets look at the one other way
to separate a flight of aircraft as they inter the pattern.
The flight inters the pattern at the 45, turns on downwind and then works to create
the required separation. Lead has number 4 - "Drag", reduce power to idle,
as soon as possible lower flaps, and slow to the minimum speed possible. Several
seconds later, Lead has number 3 - "Drag" and finally, Number 2 - "Drag."
Of course, the lead cannot slow down, as the only way the others can get spacing
is to have lead keep his/her speed up, which means at the last second,
lead has to slow down, configure to land, turn base, and any other procedures
required to land his plane. Note that the wingman are not slowing to pattern
speed but to a slow-flight speed, would any normal VFR pilot expect to find three
aircraft doing slow-flight in front of them on downwind. The other thing
about this approach is the number of miles it takes to make it happen. Most airports'
runways are not long enough to make this happen.
(I know it is not the same but in my F-4G days, we would start to drag number 4
at 17 miles on final, then every two miles later the next wingman is dragged.
The goal was to have everybody at approach speed with the proper spacing at
3 miles on final. This was used when we returned to the airfield with hung or
unexpended ordnance. It was bad form to fly over the base with things that could
fall off the plane and may even go boom. One more thing, it was in the emergency
procedures section of the Local Area In-Flight Guide, i.e., not normal.)
There are several other methods to try to gain separation of a formation and they
all have similar problems. We can hangar fly this all you want but the military
has had 70 years or more to work this out. The Overhead pattern is the
SAFEST way to land a formation of aircraft - period.
Tom "GummiBear" Gummo
Wild Weasel #1573
Major, USAF Retired
F-4G Instructor Pilot
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
Message 48
| 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: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Perhaps, but we're all assuming and inferring that the FAR's are
logical, they're not. They are a defined set of rules and definitions
that are separate unto themselves.
Witness the recent uproar about TYPE and CLASS requirements to fly
experimental airplanes. There always was an idiosyncrasy in the FAR's
about experimental airplanes and who or what was required to fly them.
The FAA is trying to remove the ambiguities in this area and sowing a
great deal of confusion in the process.
At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly an
IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
logic in the FAR's.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil Wiethe
Subject: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
--> RV-List message posted by: Phil Wiethe <rv8a_builder@yahoo.com>
-> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>Sorry, the
FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFRminimums. I've
talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg
thatrequires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.I'm
sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't seeit
written in concrete anywhere.Brucewww.glasair.orgBruce - I do not think
you are correct. IFR and IFR conditions are not
the same thing. IFR conditions is more commonly called IMC (Instrument
Meteorlogical Conditions).
Under FAR Part 1: Definitions and Abbreviations, 1.1 - IFR Conditions
means
weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight
rules.
Under 1.2 IFR is defined as Instrument Flight Rules. If what you are
saying is true and you
substituted the definition of IFR conditions for IFR, then FAR 61.3
would read:
No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft "under weather
conditions
below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules" or in in weather
conditions
less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight....
Which would be saying the same thing twice which doesn't make any sense.
IFR conditions = IMC. IFR alone does not imply IMC.
Phil
RV8A - Fuse
---------------------------------
Message 49
| 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: | IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Bruce,
Here is the regulation:
FAR 61.3 (e) Instrument Flying. No person may act as pilot in command of a
civil aircraft under instrument flight rules, or in weather conditions less
than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless (1) In the case of an
airplane, he holds an instrument rating...
Pat Hatch
Do not archive
Sorry, the FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFR
minimums.
I've talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg that
requires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.
I'm sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't see
it written in concrete anywhere.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
Message 50
| 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: | IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
OK, how do the FAR's define 'instrument flight rules'?
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat Hatch
Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
--> RV-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Bruce,
Here is the regulation:
FAR 61.3 (e) Instrument Flying. No person may act as pilot in command
of a
civil aircraft under instrument flight rules, or in weather conditions
less
than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless (1) In the case of an
airplane, he holds an instrument rating...
Pat Hatch
Do not archive
Sorry, the FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFR
minimums.
I've talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg that
requires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.
I'm sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't see
it written in concrete anywhere.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
Message 51
| 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: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com>
Bruce,
I am a king of using circular logic to my advantage, but the FAR's are
not ambiguous about this point at all. You must prove that you know
the Rules, before you can fly under Instrument Flight Rules. You must
have a rating if you are going to file or fly IFR (regardless of the
weather conditions) unless you are with an instructor (not acting as
PIC). Period. It says it right there. Accept it.
Dave Leonard
>
> Perhaps, but we're all assuming and inferring that the FAR's are
> logical, they're not. They are a defined set of rules and definitions
> that are separate unto themselves.
>
> Witness the recent uproar about TYPE and CLASS requirements to fly
> experimental airplanes. There always was an idiosyncrasy in the FAR's
> about experimental airplanes and who or what was required to fly them.
> The FAA is trying to remove the ambiguities in this area and sowing a
> great deal of confusion in the process.
>
> At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly an
> IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
> logic in the FAR's.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
Message 52
| 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: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
I'll hold my final judgement until I get an answer back from the FAA.
I'm covered anyway. I am instrument rated.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Leonard
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
--> RV-List message posted by: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com>
Bruce,
I am a king of using circular logic to my advantage, but the FAR's are
not ambiguous about this point at all. You must prove that you know
the Rules, before you can fly under Instrument Flight Rules. You must
have a rating if you are going to file or fly IFR (regardless of the
weather conditions) unless you are with an instructor (not acting as
PIC). Period. It says it right there. Accept it.
Dave Leonard
>
> Perhaps, but we're all assuming and inferring that the FAR's are
> logical, they're not. They are a defined set of rules and definitions
> that are separate unto themselves.
>
> Witness the recent uproar about TYPE and CLASS requirements to fly
> experimental airplanes. There always was an idiosyncrasy in the FAR's
> about experimental airplanes and who or what was required to fly them.
> The FAA is trying to remove the ambiguities in this area and sowing a
> great deal of confusion in the process.
>
> At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly
an
> IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
> logic in the FAR's.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
Message 53
| 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: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
Boy this is fun!!!!
Almost as much fun as 3pt vs Wheel landings!!!!
Yippee!!!!
And I have sat on my fingers as long as I can.
Let me explain to you guys why people hate it when you do overhead
approaches. Read Carefully, especially the punchline.
In the Mustang I am coming up initial at 230mph, 500 ft above the pattern.
On initial I push the prop up to 2700 turns and drag the power back to 25
inches slowing from my decent speed of 300 mph (250 kts +- ). At midfield I
break, 75 to 90 deg and pull hard. Power to 20" and bend it around,
decreasing the bank to roll wings level abeam the numbers at 170 mph.
"Geardown1/4flapslanding check" is one word. That done, I turn again and
stuff the nose down to an obscene angle of decent whichs gives me full view
of the base and final. My GUMPS check is complete at the 90 point, I set
flaps 30, and at 150 mph I'm falling like a brick. At the 45 point, flaps
50, aimming a few hundred feet short of the runway and slowing to 125. I
roll wings level on a 1000 ft final. The nose starts to rise and the runway
starts to disappear as the nose rises and the speed decays to 115 mph as I
close the throttle. The mains touch and the drag of the wheels raises the
tail slightly to kill the miniscule amount of lift that might remain and I
roll out. The tail settles with a slight thump and a couple jabs on the
rudder and it is all over.
Here is the punchline-
As much as it pisses you all off to read this, how unfair it is that that
bonehead freight-hound from Iowa gets to fly all those cool airplanes,
that's how the spam can drivers feel plowing around the pattern at 80 kts
watching you guys show-off in your homebuilt hot-rods. Now do you
understand why they complain?????
Sorry couldn't resist....
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
PS There is only one safe way to land a Mustang, from the overhead.
Plowing around in the pattern at pattern altitude at with the spam cans is
Russian Roulette. And slowing to their speed is suicide.
Message 54
| 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: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
--> RV-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
John: I'm assuming that you are referring to the back baffle or rear tank
cover plate. What I did, and no leaks so far knock on wood, was to make
certain that the mating surfaces were absolutely clean with lacquer thinner and
well scrubbed with a stainless steel brush as Van's recommends. I then applied
a good coat of pro-seal to both surfaces and enlisted my wife to assist in
spreading the tank skins while sliding the baffle into place so that I scraped
as
little pro-seal as possible off the mating surfaces while getting the baffle
into place. As soon as the baffle was in place and clecoed, I installed a
bunch of wood strips between the clecoes and clamped them to hold the tank skin
to the baffle flanges. When this was done I turned the whole mess baffle side
down so that any excess pro-seal on the inside would flow down into the joint
to form a fillet and let it set for several days. Like I said, no leaks so
far in almost 80 hours.
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 76+ hours
Message 55
| 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: | Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
I would add a couple of more points to Tom's excellent post. A formation is
a legal, FAA-sanctioned activity. As such, a formation has no more or no
less priority in a traffic pattern than any other traffic. In the case of a
controlled airport, the tower should sequence a formation in the same manner
as single-ship aircraft, and provide appropriate separation. The overhead
approach is also an FAA-sanctioned maneuver, and I don't see the point
someone made that it is inherently dangerous because it is done at 500'
above normal TPA, any more so than an IFR arrival commingling with VFR
traffic pattern aircraft is more dangerous. It might increase the tower
operator's workload and some controllers may not be familiar, but this
doesn't necessarily make it more dangerous. Just because it is rare,
doesn't mean that it is non-standard or not sanctioned. Pilots who don't
fly formation should be aware of the possibility of encountering a formation
at an airport and should be aware of the procedures that formations are
required to follow, just like non IFR pilots should be aware of the
possibility of encountering an IFR arrival when VFR conditions exist at an
airport. How many times have you been asked to extend your downwind for an
arriving IFR jet on a straight-in approach? Why should anyone complain more
about being asked to extend for a formation arrival?
Formations are required by the FAA to brief before flight...it follows
therefore that a formation is required to follow the briefing given by the
lead. If lead briefs an overhead pattern arrival at XYZ airport, you can't
expect the formation to easily do otherwise. Other pilots should be aware
of this and that formations are not as flexible to change as a single ship.
Where it gets dicey is in the case of uncontrolled airports with published
traffic patterns. Here is where I agree that formation arrivals have to be
handled extra carefully and courteously-but isn't this how everyone should
approach an uncontrolled airport? Theoretically, if an airport is going to
publish a traffic pattern, it should probably include a procedure for
formation arrivals. The reason they don't is probably because formation
arrivals are so rare.
As for arrogance, I think that works both ways...I bet most pilots who fly
formation are extra courteous to avoid unpleasant confrontations. Likewise
probably 90% of us get a kick out of seeing a well-executed formation
arrival each and every time we see it.
Pat Hatch
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Gummo
Subject: Re: RV-List: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the
Pattern)
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
I would like to throw another log on the fire - formation flying and the
approach to the airport debate.
First, lets agree that with training, there is nothing wrong with formation
flying. (So if you disagree with this, delete NOW, as we will nothing to
say to each other.)
In fact, most of the writers that have supported formation flying on this
list not only have had training but a FAA approved check-rides as 2-ship or
4-ship flight leads, or as wingman. So they are aware of the problems of
fitting a formation of aircraft into the "normal" traffic pattern.
But, no one has talked about a problem to the formation fliers. It has been
explained that the Overhead pattern is the fastest and safest way to land
aircraft in formation. NOTE: the word "safest." So lets look at the one
other way to separate a flight of aircraft as they inter the pattern.
The flight inters the pattern at the 45, turns on downwind and then works to
create the required separation. Lead has number 4 - "Drag", reduce power to
idle, as soon as possible lower flaps, and slow to the minimum speed
possible. Several seconds later, Lead has number 3 - "Drag" and finally,
Number 2 - "Drag." Of course, the lead cannot slow down, as the only way
the others can get spacing is to have lead keep his/her speed up, which
means at the last second, lead has to slow down, configure to land, turn
base, and any other procedures required to land his plane. Note that the
wingman are not slowing to pattern speed but to a slow-flight speed, would
any normal VFR pilot expect to find three aircraft doing slow-flight in
front of them on downwind. The other thing about this approach is the
number of miles it takes to make it happen. Most airports' runways are not
long enough to make this happen.
(I know it is not the same but in my F-4G days, we would start to drag
number 4 at 17 miles on final, then every two miles later the next wingman
is dragged. The goal was to have everybody at approach speed with the
proper spacing at 3 miles on final. This was used when we returned to the
airfield with hung or unexpended ordnance. It was bad form to fly over the
base with things that could fall off the plane and may even go boom. One
more thing, it was in the emergency procedures section of the Local Area
In-Flight Guide, i.e., not normal.)
There are several other methods to try to gain separation of a formation and
they all have similar problems. We can hangar fly this all you want but the
military has had 70 years or more to work this out. The Overhead pattern is
the SAFEST way to land a formation of aircraft - period.
Tom "GummiBear" Gummo
Wild Weasel #1573
Major, USAF Retired
F-4G Instructor Pilot
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
Message 56
| 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: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
I believe that the logic is not circular at all, in fact is spelled out
quite clearly. The FARs do not spell out a clear definition of IFR,
however it is clear that the intent of the regulation was to require an
instruement ticket to file IFR. Suppose you are on an IFR flight plan
in clear weather, and ATC diverts you into an area of IMC? What are you
going to do, advise center that you can't deviate because your're not
IFR rated?
Until the last president, I didn't think we had to argue about the
definition of "is" either.
Jeff Point
do not archive
>
>At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly an
>IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
>logic in the FAR's.
>
>
>
>
Message 57
| 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: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Almost as much fun as 3pt vs Wheel landings!!!!
What's a "3pt landing" and why-oh-why would you ever consider doing one in a
tailwheel RV?!
(mostly joking)
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 58
| 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: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "REHughes" <hawk@digisys.net>
In addition to Tom Gummo's comments (below) concerning formation safety and
functionality, there are other sound reasons why the military favors the
'Initial To An Overhead Break' entry pattern.
If one of your training requirements is that:
"All aircraft will begin their approach turn from downwind to final at
exactly the same point over the ground because it is important to learn how
to land in a safe and consistent manner...",
then extending your downwind leg for spacing is not an acceptable maneuver.
It follows that the only practical and effective way for aircraft to
establish their spacing is by varying the timing of their turn to downwind
from an upwind leg, both for aircraft initially entering the pattern, and
those waiting to turn downwind after climbing out on a touch-and-go.
The process flows along something like this. While progressing in from the
Initial (generally a point about 3 miles downwind from the field, on the
extended runway centerline) it is helpful to bias your lineup slightly to
the non-pattern side of the runway as you fly upwind, so that you can keep
the runway environment in sight, look for anyone on a straight-in or turning
final, check out any aircraft holding short or taking off, and make sure
that there is no big yellow 'X' on the approach end of the runway. Part of
the task at this point at an uncontrolled field is to confirm that you chose
correctly in terms of the wind and runway in use. Attention is given to
search for any traffic already established on the downwind, as well as
coming down the 45-to-downwind line, or turning crosswind from a climbout.
Additionally some searching over your "other" shoulder is required to make
sure nobody is entering on a long crosswind from the non-pattern side, or is
established on a downwind or straight-in to the "wrong" (opposing) runway.
When you are happy with your interval, turn crosswind. Each member of a
formation flight must ensure their own safe traffic interval when they
become temporary lead, and it is their turn to perform the crosswind turn in
sequence.
In general the entry to the break is flown slightly higher than the pattern
altitude, primarily to provide a safety clearance over the aircraft in the
touch-and-go pattern climbing upwind and turning crosswind. Most military
fields mandate a 500' difference, but 200' feels about right when operating
at civilian fields. Thus any 'descent in the pattern' is pretty minimal and
can be accomplished mainly in the cross-wind turn.
Once you make the turn crosswind to the downwind, the pattern is routine.
The beauty of the system is that if there are 40 airplanes already in the
pattern, you (and your formation) just keep motoring upwind until you can
either finally sequence onto the downwind, or run so far away from the
airport that you say screw-it and leave the area to come back and re-enter
at the Initial for another try. Unlike many busy civilian fields using
"normal" entry procedures, you will never be faced with hoards of airplanes
doing hairy 360's on some 45 entry line, or airplanes bunched up and flying
parallel courses all over the downwind, and your final approach turn will
not be delayed so long/far that you are looking at a seven-mile straight-in.
Regards,
Hawkeye Hughes, RV-3s
A-7 driver with the requisite amount of time scanning for other T-34's at
Magnolia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the
Pattern)
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
>
> I would like to throw another log on the fire - formation flying and the
> approach to the airport debate.
>
>
> First, lets agree that with training, there is nothing wrong with
> formation flying. (So if you disagree with this, delete NOW, as we will
> nothing to say to each other.)
>
>
> In fact, most of the writers that have supported formation flying on this
> list not only have had training but a FAA approved check-rides as 2-ship
> or 4-ship flight leads, or as wingman. So they are aware of the problems
> of fitting a formation of aircraft into the "normal" traffic pattern.
>
>
> But, no one has talked about a problem to the formation fliers. It has
> been explained that the Overhead pattern is the fastest and safest way to
> land aircraft in formation. NOTE: the word "safest." So lets look at
> the one other way to separate a flight of aircraft as they inter the
> pattern.
>
>
> The flight inters the pattern at the 45, turns on downwind and then works
> to create the required separation. Lead has number 4 - "Drag", reduce
> power to idle, as soon as possible lower flaps, and slow to the minimum
> speed possible. Several seconds later, Lead has number 3 - "Drag" and
> finally, Number 2 - "Drag." Of course, the lead cannot slow down, as the
> only way the others can get spacing is to have lead keep his/her speed up,
> which means at the last second, lead has to slow down, configure to land,
> turn base, and any other procedures required to land his plane. Note that
> the wingman are not slowing to pattern speed but to a slow-flight speed,
> would any normal VFR pilot expect to find three aircraft doing slow-flight
> in front of them on downwind. The other thing about this approach is the
> number of miles it takes to make it happen. Most airports' runways are
> not long enough to make this happen.
>
>
> (I know it is not the same but in my F-4G days, we would start to drag
> number 4 at 17 miles on final, then every two miles later the next wingman
> is dragged. The goal was to have everybody at approach speed with the
> proper spacing at 3 miles on final. This was used when we returned to the
> airfield with hung or unexpended ordnance. It was bad form to fly over
> the base with things that could fall off the plane and may even go boom.
> One more thing, it was in the emergency procedures section of the Local
> Area In-Flight Guide, i.e., not normal.)
>
>
> There are several other methods to try to gain separation of a formation
> and they all have similar problems. We can hangar fly this all you want
> but the military has had 70 years or more to work this out. The Overhead
> pattern is the SAFEST way to land a formation of aircraft - period.
>
> Tom "GummiBear" Gummo
> Wild Weasel #1573
> Major, USAF Retired
> F-4G Instructor Pilot
> http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
>
>
> Apple Valley, CA
> Harmon Rocket-II
>
> do not archive
>
Message 59
| 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: | 3 point landings |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Ya really need to do a three pointer....Go fly a Champ.
No, that's one then two & remember NO BRAKES.
KABONG
Do Not Archive 8*)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>> Almost as much fun as 3pt vs Wheel landings!!!!
>
> What's a "3pt landing" and why-oh-why would you ever consider doing one in
> a
> tailwheel RV?!
> (mostly joking)
>
> RV-7 N714D
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! --
|