Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:45 AM - Re: pitot tubes (Richard Reynolds)
2. 04:34 AM - Re: screw paint scriber (linn walters)
3. 05:42 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Bob 1)
4. 05:47 AM - Re: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting (Bill and Tami Britton)
5. 06:29 AM - Re: screw paint scriber (Tim Olson)
6. 06:37 AM - Damaged spar flange (Tom Casey)
7. 06:40 AM - Re: pitot tubes (Christopher Stone)
8. 06:40 AM - Re: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting (LeastDrag93066@aol.com)
9. 06:40 AM - IFR for Dummies (Rick Galati)
10. 06:41 AM - Re: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting (James H Nelson)
11. 06:41 AM - Re: IFR is not the same as IMC (Marty)
12. 07:07 AM - Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (Mike Robertson)
13. 07:10 AM - Re: New Rule N 8700.42 (Mike Robertson)
14. 07:26 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Mike Robertson)
15. 07:46 AM - Re: Fairings-Etc? (Brett Hahn)
16. 07:55 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Mickey Coggins)
17. 07:56 AM - heavy prop extensions ()
18. 07:59 AM - Re: IFR for Dummies (Paul Besing)
19. 08:05 AM - Re: IFR is not the same as IMC (Paul Besing)
20. 08:12 AM - Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Mike Robertson)
21. 08:23 AM - Re: Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Mike Robertson)
22. 08:28 AM - Re: Damaged spar flange (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
23. 08:28 AM - Re: Damaged spar flange (John Spicer)
24. 08:31 AM - Re: Microballon Survivability (Mike Robertson)
25. 08:41 AM - Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (sportav8r@aol.com)
26. 08:51 AM - Re: Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Alex & Gerry Peterson)
27. 08:57 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Dan Checkoway)
28. 09:08 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Paul Folbrecht)
29. 09:15 AM - Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (Mike Robertson)
30. 09:18 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Mike Robertson)
31. 09:23 AM - Re: Damaged spar flange (Rob Prior (rv7))
32. 09:25 AM - Re: Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Marty)
33. 09:33 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Bob 1)
34. 09:43 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (JOHN STARN)
35. 09:47 AM - Re: New Rule N 8700.42 (cgalley)
36. 10:06 AM - Re: cowl fit (Jeff Dowling)
37. 10:06 AM - Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (sportav8r@aol.com)
38. 10:08 AM - Re: IFR is not the same as IMC (Paul Folbrecht)
39. 10:10 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Larry Pardue)
40. 10:13 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Terry Watson)
41. 10:31 AM - bahama bound (Jason Sneed)
42. 10:38 AM - Re: Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Skylor Piper)
43. 10:53 AM - Off the list for awhile (HCRV6@aol.com)
44. 11:14 AM - Bendix servo adjustemnts (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
45. 11:16 AM - Re: bahama bound (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
46. 11:17 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Mike Robertson)
47. 11:20 AM - Re: bahama bound (Cory Emberson)
48. 11:26 AM - Re: Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Mike Robertson)
49. 11:29 AM - Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' (Paul Folbrecht)
50. 11:36 AM - RV-9 Flight Report (Paul Folbrecht)
51. 11:38 AM - Re: bahama bound (Sam Buchanan)
52. 11:55 AM - RV-8 progress (Stephanie Marshall)
53. 12:03 PM - Re: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system ()
54. 12:30 PM - Re: pitot tubes (Bob)
55. 01:11 PM - Re: RV-9 Flight Report (Brett Hahn)
56. 02:08 PM - Re: RV-9 Flight Report (Paul Folbrecht)
57. 03:44 PM - Right on........ (JOHN STARN)
58. 04:04 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (James Ochs)
59. 04:15 PM - Re: pitot tubes (Jim Jewell)
60. 04:50 PM - Dynon Panel Question? (Steve&Anita Nyman)
61. 05:05 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (JOHN STARN)
62. 05:34 PM - Fw: Cussing at work ()
63. 07:02 PM - (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
64. 07:15 PM - Lexel and Windscreen Fairing (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
65. 08:10 PM - Re: Prop balancing (from the FlyRotary list) (LarryRobertHelming)
66. 08:39 PM - Fuel Tank leak testing (Douglas A. Fischer)
67. 08:49 PM - Re: Dynon Panel Question? (Hal Kempthorne)
68. 09:06 PM - Re: Fuel Tank leak testing (Vanremog@aol.com)
69. 10:03 PM - Re: Fuel Tank leak testing (Dave Saylor)
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: RV-List:pitot tubes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds@macs.net>
Yes,
Richard Reynolds, RV-6A
On May 17, 2005, at 1:07 AM, Paul Rice wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
>
> Hi all
>
> Can anyone tell me if you can run two different airspeed indicators
> from the
> same pitot tube.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul RV-8 QB
> Working on wings
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Vents
>
>
>> --> 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=20threat
>> s=20prior=20to=20delivery=20using=20e-
>> mail=20security=20services=20powered=20by=20MessageLabs=20Inc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: screw paint scriber |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Robin, that sounds like a neat tool ..... but I've never seen one .....
and I like tools! there are two things you can do for this 'problem'.
The first is to back the screw out 4 turns or so and paint. You'll get
plenty of paint underneath a flathead or countersunk screw. The other
thing you can do .... in the case of flathead screws ..... is to put
nylon washers under them, and use truss head instead of pan head
screws. The truss head screws are lower profile. Hope this helps
...... in the absence of a neat tool!
Linn
Robin Wessel wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Wessel" <robin.wessel@comcast.net>
>
>Lister-
>
>
>I remember seeing a tool that scribes a line around the heads of a screw so
>that it will not chip the paint off when you remove the screw.
>
>
>Can anyone tell me were I can buy a tool like this? From what I remember it
>looks something like a very small hole saw.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Robin Wessel
>
>Tigard, OR
>
>RV-10
>
>
>
>
--
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
If airplanes were as quiet
as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport closures around the
world.
--
Mickey Coggins
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As an owner of a noiseless SAILplane, Utopia remains elusive. For
instance..... the majority of power pilots at our local airport cared little
about sharing the airport with us. Hostility ranged from mild to wild. Were
were treated, generally, as a royal PITA. Eventually, our sailplane club
left for, literally, a greener pasture. <sigh>
Bob - RV3 and HP-14 driver
Do not archive
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: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill and Tami Britton" <william@gbta.net>
I'm building a -10 and yes, I have a VOR, LOC, GS antenna on the VS.
Reception should be great and interference should be at a minimum.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: <MLWynn@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting
> --> RV-List message posted by: MLWynn@aol.com
>
> Hi all,
>
> Someone mentioned that I should wire the VS before assembly as a time
saver.
> Never struck me that there was wiring there at all.
>
> Are most people using strobes or rotators or what? As I understand it, it
> you have wingtip protruding strobes, all you need is left and right plus a
tail
> marker. If you use lights lensed into the wing tips (is there a more
elequent
> term?) then you need a rear strobe as well. I suppose a rotating light
could
> be mounted on top of the VS. Is anyone mounting antennae on the VS?
>
> I frequently wonder if I am planning far enough ahead.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage (wing kit ordered!)
> San Ramon, California
>
>
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: screw paint scriber |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Seen them all over the place. Search under "paint cutter" at
many places. Avery, Yard Store, ATS, I'm sure Cleaveland too,
although I can't search it on their page.
Try this link:
http://yardstore.com/index.cfm?Action=ViewCategory&Category=50
Never used one yet, but intend to buy one before I need to
remove painted in screws.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
linn walters wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>
> Robin, that sounds like a neat tool ..... but I've never seen one .....
> and I like tools! there are two things you can do for this 'problem'.
> The first is to back the screw out 4 turns or so and paint. You'll get
> plenty of paint underneath a flathead or countersunk screw. The other
> thing you can do .... in the case of flathead screws ..... is to put
> nylon washers under them, and use truss head instead of pan head
> screws. The truss head screws are lower profile. Hope this helps
> ...... in the absence of a neat tool!
> Linn
>
>
> Robin Wessel wrote:
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Wessel" <robin.wessel@comcast.net>
>>
>>Lister-
>>
>>
>>I remember seeing a tool that scribes a line around the heads of a screw so
>>that it will not chip the paint off when you remove the screw.
>>
>>
>>Can anyone tell me were I can buy a tool like this? From what I remember it
>>looks something like a very small hole saw.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>
>>Robin Wessel
>>
>>Tigard, OR
>>
>>RV-10
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Damaged spar flange |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tom Casey <tomatwork@netscape.com>
Several months ago as I was unpacking my wing kitI found that the top flange on the right wing spar had a slight dent or crease in it. The dent is approximately 37 inches from the outboard tip of the spar. A couple of photos are at http://www.bristolinstruments.com/spar1.jpg and http://www.bristolinstruments.com/spar2.jpg
The damage isn't quite as bad as the photos make it appear. To see the dent at
all you must sight down the edge of the flange. After several conversations with
Van's they told me to ignore it complely--the spar flange isn't subjected to
much stress that far out anyway and that it mostly is just a place to rivet
the skins to. So I pressed on and tried to put it out of my mind. Now I'm about
ready to rivet the leadingedge and skins to the skeleton and my paranoia has
resurfaced. It just doesn't fel right to me. Originally I suggested to Van's
riveting a small doubler under the flange when I rivet on the skins The problem
with that of course is if the doubler is too small it won't have the desired
effect and if it is too big it will simply transfer the failure point elsewhere.
Van's seemed very unconcerned about it. I welcome the expertise and experience
of the members. Ignore, repair or new spar?
Tom Casey
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/emreg
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:pitot tubes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Christopher Stone <rv8iator@earthlink.net>
Paul...
The dynamic pressure created by moving through an air mass is captured at the pitot
and is equal at all points in the pitot and the tube that carries it to the
ASI. Since the ASI is really nothing more then a pressure gage, one or more
can be placed anywhere in the tube and they will see the same dynamic pressure.
To get them to indicate the same they all must be connected to the same static
source as well.
Hope this helps...
Chris Stone
RV-8 x two; wings and wiring
Newberg, OR
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Rice <rice737@msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List:pitot tubes
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
Hi all
Can anyone tell me if you can run two different airspeed indicators from the
same pitot tube.
Thanks,
Paul RV-8 QB
Working on wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
Subject: RV-List: Vents
> --> 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 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: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting |
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
"Reception should be great and interference should be at a minimum."
But it's still not as good as a wingtip Sportcraft NAV antenna.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/17/2005 5:49:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
william@gbta.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill and Tami Britton" <william@gbta.net>
I'm building a -10 and yes, I have a VOR, LOC, GS antenna on the VS.
Reception should be great and interference should be at a minimum.
Bill
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: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
The recent thread discussing the cans and can't of things related to IFR flight
has peaked my often vacillating interest in pursuing the rating. Can anyone
recommend an above average or even outstanding interactive IFR course I can use
with my computer? In the past, I've had a course offered by a certain husband
and wife team but am inclined to seek a different experience this time. I'm
thinking rich graphics, compelling video, frequent quizzes, entertaining instructor(s)
etc. Any comments or recommendations?
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
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: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting |
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Michael,
Forget about a rotating light on the VS use only strobes. Your
right, use only the three strobe version or the protruding two strobe
version. The three strobe version has almost no drag. The two strobe
version is a bit more in the drag category. If you want a reasonable
cruise speed, dont use anything but the three strobe system with the tail
strobe in the lower rudder that Van's provides. Rotating light s went out
a long time ago with their high power consumption and bulb failure rates.
Then again if you have lots of $ and like to fix things, I guess the old
way works. I'm using the LED nav lights in the wings and three strobes
for max recognition. Probably use wig-wag on my landing and taxi lights
for the busy metro areas. Low power and max viz.
Jim Nelson
N599RV (reserved)
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: | IFR is not the same as IMC |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty" <martorious@earthlink.net>
<snip>
|
|One should not be flying VMC in IFR conditions (usually not for
|long).
|
|Marty Heller
|
<snip>
Shouldn't that be "VFR in IMC"?
Marty
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: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
If you have a Private ASEL already then you are good to go with your RV.
Where this rule mostly comes into play is for those pilots that may be
flying multi-engine experimentals, gyrocopters, or experimental seaplanes.
Under the prior rule these pilots did not require a categroy and class
rating appropriate to these type of aircraft. Now, if they wish to carry
passengers then they will need to get the proper ratings.
Mike Robertson
>From: sportav8r@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:03:44 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Mike- I went to the link and read the regs; my legalese-challenged eyes
>glazed over rather quickly... I had always thought "category and class"
>meant that "ASEL" would cover it for a fixed-wing experimental that was not
>"high-performance" without any further endorsements. Have I been operating
>my RV illegally (with pax) all these years?
>
>What really caught my eye was the verbiage defending the reason for the
>regs: an increasing trend in experimental accidents with pax aboard. The
>FAA's response to this data appears not to involve investigating the EFFECT
>OF PASSENGERS on the aircraft involved in these accidents, but on granting
>almost "shall-issue" rubber-stamp license endorsements to the pilots of
>those aircraft. If the trend is rising for pax-carrying experimental
>fatalities, let's dig into why the CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS causes increased
>numbers of crashes: are the aircraft overloaded? Are pax grabbing the
>controls and pulling wings off? Are pilots acting stupid with a captive
>audience aboard? If it's an uptrend for experimental crashes in general,
>and fatality absolute numbers are climbing only because a crash with pax
>aboard _by definition_ kills more people than an aircraft crashed solo,
>then let's be logical and scrutinize experimental accidents in general,
>admitting that pax are not a contributing
> variable to the crashes themselves.
>
>At any rate, I am without a clue how the proposed issuance of new license
>endorsements based on prior expereince might do anything to reduce the
>fatality statistics; it's all symbolism trumping substance. How many pax
>fatalities occur in the first five hours that a pilot flies a new make and
>model? If it's significant, then forbid that behavior for the first 5
>hours. Why the license endorsement? Prediction: I foresee the FAA
>certifying night proficiency using the same "logic" - issuing every airman
>a license with a night flight endorsement - valid only for 90 days, of
>course, in keeping with the night flight currency regs we already have on
>the books. Or maybe issuing every airline pilot an endorsed license after
>he passes a blood alcohol test, such license only good for flight on the
>day of issue, to cut down on the number of flight crews flying under the
>influence... I fail to see why every reg needs to appear reincarnated as a
>license endorsement; it's already illega
> l to bust these regs! (Reminds me of gun control - lets' reduce murder by
>making it illegal; oh, wait, it already is - ya think making it
>double-illegal will help?)
>
>I would sincerely appreciate your assistance with understand this. The
>rule announcement comes on the heels of a vey bad day for GA in the
>Washington ADIZ, a day that made one pilot look foolish, and the federal
>security apparatus look like a cross between Chicken Little and a two-ton,
>rabid gorilla.
>
>-Stormy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
>It is a new requirement that came out just recently with the light sport
>changes. It is in FAR 61.31(k)(2). This is the FAR that previously made
>it
>possible for multi-engine Experimental aircraft to be flown without having
>a
>multi-engine pilot's certificate. The wording in 61.31(k)(1) has not
>changed and still excludes non-type certificate aircraft from needing a
>categroy and class rating. But 61.31(k)(2) changed clarifying that a
>categroy and class rating is needed if a passenger is being carried. For
>the vast majority of people this will mean nothing new as the FAA has been
>including wording in the aircraft Operating Limitations requiring a
>categroy
>and class rating since the mid 90's. Only if you have an aircraft that was
>completed prior to that time and do not have a paragraph about categroy and
>class rating in your operating limitations do you need to worry about this.
>A new order, 8700.42 gives all the details and is available at:
>
>http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/n8700-42.doc
>
>If you do happen to be in the categroy needing new operating limitations
>and/or ratings added to your pilot's certificate the procedures are also in
>this order. The good news is that you will be able to use the flight time
>you already have in your aircraft to get these newly required ratings.
>
>Mike Robertson
>Das Fed
>
> >From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
> >Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:28:11 -0400
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
> >
> >The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly
> >passengers in homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to
> >flying passengers only in planes in which they are qualified and
> >experienced. Currency and proficiency rules apply to those who take
>people
> >for rides in their experimental aircraft and EAA says current pilots have
> >until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have the necessary category and class
> >ratings for the aircraft they fly.
> >
> >This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark about
> >it? charlie heathco (this is from Avweb)
> >
> >
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New Rule N 8700.42 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Not necessarily. If you have a private Single-Engine Land rating then
operation of any RV at this point is ok. Where the limitation will come in
is if you have a Private ASEL certificate and have been flying your Mini
500, you will now have to get a rotorcraft rating if you wish to carry
pasengers in your mini 500. You have a choice, to get the appropriate
rating, or to get a license, based on your prior flight time, for just that
aircraft.
Mike Robertson
>From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: New Rule N 8700.42
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:10:28 EDT
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
>What looks disturbing to me is that in sect. 5. GUIDANCE it specifically
>states: "The pilot certificate will be issued with the limitiation
>"Authorized
>Experimental Aircraft: [Category] and [Class] rating [Make] and [Model]"
>for the
>aircraft authorized to be operated. This reference to Make and Model
>appears
>several more times, and is shown on Figure 5 "Baxter built- Mini 500" and
>Figure 6 "Weaver built Mini 500". Is this to be interpreted to mean my
>re-issued
>certificate limits me to pax transport in "Phillips built RV-6A" only and
>would preclude me from carrying pax in a "Rosales built RV-6A", a
>"Hotchkiss built
>RV-7A" or even a "Buchannan built RV-6"? (supposing one of these guys
>would
>even let me NEAR their airplanes!)
>
>Mark Phillips
>
>
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: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Very true. There is nothing in the regs that says that you must have an
Instrument rating to file IFR. If you are a VFR pilot, you can still file
IFR provided that you remain VFR for the entire flight. Some people like to
do this to get what they feel is a more priority handling when flying into
heavy traffic areas/airports.
Mike Robertson
>From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:27 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
>
>--> 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 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brett Hahn" <abakerson@zianet.com>
Howdy all,
I just talked to Bob at Fairings Etc. He is fine.
He and Sonya took a few days off and hiked the Painted Desert and Canyon De
Shelley in Arizona.
He is back at the salt mine, er...shop.
Contact him at 623-203-9795 or 623-536-0951
Brett Hahn
Managing Editor
Enchanted Publications, LLC
505-635-7444
www.extechmag.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <rgray67968@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fairings-Etc?
> --> RV-List message posted by: rgray67968@aol.com
>
> Hi Bobby,
> My 2 cents, Bob is a SUPER guy and has supplied me with his products on 2
separate projects in a timely fashion. He has always sent the goods 1st,
then had me send a check once the package arrived and I was satisfied with
the contents.
>
> He's always there when I needed something and always returned my calls.
>
> Maybe he's out of town??
> Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
>
> do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
> To: RV-List <rv-list@matronics.com>; RV7and7A <RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Fairings-Etc?
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
>
> Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
> I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
> the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> As an owner of a noiseless SAILplane, Utopia remains elusive. For
> instance..... the majority of power pilots at our local airport cared little
> about sharing the airport with us. Hostility ranged from mild to wild. Were
> were treated, generally, as a royal PITA. Eventually, our sailplane club
> left for, literally, a greener pasture. <sigh>
That's a shame. The busiest GA airport in Switzerland - Birrfeld - has
a pretty good solution for this problem. Once side of the airport is
for gliders, and the other for powered aircraft. There are two
parallel runways, one is paved, the other grass. It's not uncommon
to have 20 sailplanes lined up waiting for a tow, and dozens out there
in the sky. There are two frequencies - one for the sailplanes and
the other for the powered aircraft. It does require that if the wind
is from the west you fly a right hand pattern with a powered airplane,
but overall it seems to work very well.
http://www.birrfeld.ch/images/pilots/vac_gross.jpg
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: | heavy prop extensions |
--> RV-List message posted by: <tomvelvick@cox.net>
I use a Landoll 12 lb weight on my ringgear to move the CG forward on my RV-4 with
an O-320 and a wood prop. It also makes the engine run smoother and at a
lower rpm at idle. But I still need more weight forward when my wife flies and
I set in the back seat; especially if we have baggage. Just found out that
Sam Tilleman, Sabre Manufacturing, makes a heavy 22 lb 2 1/4 inch prop extension
or if you use the 4" extension like I do, he makes a 23 lb 8" by 1.75" crush
plate you can use. This puts double the weight forward that the Landoll ring
does. With it and a wood prop, it comes out close to the weight of a Sensenich
metal prop. We are going to order one and see how it works.
http://www.sabermfg.com email:saber@itexas.net
Regards,
Tom Velvick
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <paul@kitlog.com>
In the flight school I used to work at, we used the Cessna Pilot Center
course. You have to be taking a course at a Cessna Pilot Center to use one.
They are very well produced, but do have John King doing the flying in them.
The classroom video, however, is other people.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold
Kitlog Builder's Software
www.kitlog.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Subject: RV-List: IFR for Dummies
--> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
The recent thread discussing the cans and can't of things related to IFR
flight has peaked my often vacillating interest in pursuing the rating. Can
anyone recommend an above average or even outstanding interactive IFR course
I can use with my computer? In the past, I've had a course offered by a
certain husband and wife team but am inclined to seek a different experience
this time. I'm thinking rich graphics, compelling video, frequent quizzes,
entertaining instructor(s) etc. Any comments or recommendations?
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
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: | IFR is not the same as IMC |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <paul@kitlog.com>
Or should it be VMC in IFR conditions?
How about IMC in VMC?
Personally, I think IMC in IFR is better than VMC in IMC, as long as you are
VFR flying (on top) on an IFR flight plan, while in VFR (VMC) conditions.
Of course being on Victor airways using your /g suffix on your IFR flight
plan while cleared to "cruise 10,000" and getting vectored for the rnav 30R
with a missed to the 30C ILS/DME.
do not archive this nonsense!
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold
Kitlog Builder's Software
www.kitlog.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marty
Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR is not the same as IMC
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty" <martorious@earthlink.net>
<snip>
|
|One should not be flying VMC in IFR conditions (usually not for
|long).
|
|Marty Heller
|
<snip>
Shouldn't that be "VFR in IMC"?
Marty
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Not totally true. Anyone may file an IFR flight plan. You must be IFR
rated in order to fly IFR. If you are filing an IFR plan and are a VFR
pilot you simply state in the remarks section that you must remain VMC for
the entire route.
Mike Robertson
>From: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:05:15 -0500
>
>--> 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 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: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
But guys , it does not say you may not file an IFR flight plan. YOU
may........you just cannot accept the IFR clearance or fly IFR. You may,
however, file an IFR flight plan, place the comment "Must remain VMC for
entire route" in the remarks box, receive a "VMC" clearance that sounds like
an IFR clearance, and fly the entire route as though you were flying it IFR.
If needed during the flight you MUST remind the ATC controller that you
must remain VMC.
There is nothing in the regs that prohibits this. KAPISH!!
Mike Robertson
>From: Phil Wiethe <rv8a_builder@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
>
>--> 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 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Damaged spar flange |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/05 8:40:53 AM Central Daylight Time,
tomatwork@netscape.com writes:
> Ignore, repair or new spar?
If there's no obvious sharp bend anywhere that could be bent enough to cause
the material to crack, and it won't affect the skin shape I vote ignore & move
on...
Mark Phillips -6A slo-bild, flying
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: | Re: Damaged spar flange |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Spicer" <spike@rivetbangers.com>
If Van's (who designed the airplane and all of the subsequent engineering work)
answer is not good enough for you, what more expertise do you think you will
find here? Seems to me that its your plane. Either you accept Van's answer as
the authoritative one and use the spar, or you reject it and don't.
-- Spike
>... Van's seemed very unconcerned about it. I welcome the expertise and
experience of the >members. Ignore, repair or new spar?
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: | Microballon Survivability |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
I did that on my RV-8A years ago and it worked great right up to the time it
become an undersea ornament. I used the same techniques for adding filler
as I used when installing the fiberglass around the canopy. Use some three
rock sandpaper to scratch the area well and apply the filler. Then sand
smooth. I was very pleased with the results.
Mike Robertson
>From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: "rvlist" <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Microballon Survivability
>Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:37:46 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
>I'm thinking of applying a thin coat of dry epoxy/microballon filler to the
>surface of my forward baggage compartment door to remove some large but
>shallow depressions left over from shaping the outer door panel to the
>curvature of the fuselage. Either that or do the whole thing over right &
>use the ribs and inner panel to pull the surface to the correct curve.
>Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone reading this may have such shallow patches
>on their airplane and would care to comment on how well the patch held up.
>I'd hate to have the appearance ruined by cracks or edge separation lines
>after going to all that work in the name of better appearance.
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Thanks, Mike. Re-reading my original post, I guess I was having a bad day ;-)
AvWeb's original reporting on this was a bit confusing, to say the least. Subsequent
discussion in the media and on the list have clarified the FAA's intent,
and it's appreciated.
I agree with the rule as I now understand it, and it's in faact almost generous
to grandfather the prior experience in lieu of a rating. I never realized experimental
pilots enjoyed such a type rating loophole before.
The discordance between the rule and its stated purpose still bothers me somehow.
An increase in fatalities on passenger-carrying flights warrants investigation
as to how the passengers themselves are contributing to the accident rate,
and I don't see that reflected in the rule we have here. I've always been a
stickler for logic and linear thinking, even in governmental regulations, which
does not ingratiate me to bureaucracies...
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
If you have a Private ASEL already then you are good to go with your RV.
Where this rule mostly comes into play is for those pilots that may be
flying multi-engine experimentals, gyrocopters, or experimental seaplanes.
Under the prior rule these pilots did not require a categroy and class
rating appropriate to these type of aircraft. Now, if they wish to carry
passengers then they will need to get the proper ratings.
Mike Robertson
>From: sportav8r@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:03:44 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Mike- I went to the link and read the regs; my legalese-challenged eyes
>glazed over rather quickly... I had always thought "category and class"
>meant that "ASEL" would cover it for a fixed-wing experimental that was not
>"high-performance" without any further endorsements. Have I been operating
>my RV illegally (with pax) all these years?
>
>What really caught my eye was the verbiage defending the reason for the
>regs: an increasing trend in experimental accidents with pax aboard. The
>FAA's response to this data appears not to involve investigating the EFFECT
>OF PASSENGERS on the aircraft involved in these accidents, but on granting
>almost "shall-issue" rubber-stamp license endorsements to the pilots of
>those aircraft. If the trend is rising for pax-carrying experimental
>fatalities, let's dig into why the CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS causes increased
>numbers of crashes: are the aircraft overloaded? Are pax grabbing the
>controls and pulling wings off? Are pilots acting stupid with a captive
>audience aboard? If it's an uptrend for experimental crashes in general,
>and fatality absolute numbers are climbing only because a crash with pax
>aboard _by definition_ kills more people than an aircraft crashed solo,
>then let's be logical and scrutinize experimental accidents in general,
>admitting that pax are not a contributing
> variable to the crashes themselves.
>
>At any rate, I am without a clue how the proposed issuance of new license
>endorsements based on prior expereince might do anything to reduce the
>fatality statistics; it's all symbolism trumping substance. How many pax
>fatalities occur in the first five hours that a pilot flies a new make and
>model? If it's significant, then forbid that behavior for the first 5
>hours. Why the license endorsement? Prediction: I foresee the FAA
>certifying night proficiency using the same "logic" - issuing every airman
>a license with a night flight endorsement - valid only for 90 days, of
>course, in keeping with the night flight currency regs we already have on
>the books. Or maybe issuing every airline pilot an endorsed license after
>he passes a blood alcohol test, such license only good for flight on the
>day of issue, to cut down on the number of flight crews flying under the
>influence... I fail to see why every reg needs to appear reincarnated as a
>license endorsement; it's already illega
> l to bust these regs! (Reminds me of gun control - lets' reduce murder by
>making it illegal; oh, wait, it already is - ya think making it
>double-illegal will help?)
>
>I would sincerely appreciate your assistance with understand this. The
>rule announcement comes on the heels of a vey bad day for GA in the
>Washington ADIZ, a day that made one pilot look foolish, and the federal
>security apparatus look like a cross between Chicken Little and a two-ton,
>rabid gorilla.
>
>-Stormy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
>It is a new requirement that came out just recently with the light sport
>changes. It is in FAR 61.31(k)(2). This is the FAR that previously made
>it
>possible for multi-engine Experimental aircraft to be flown without having
>a
>multi-engine pilot's certificate. The wording in 61.31(k)(1) has not
>changed and still excludes non-type certificate aircraft from needing a
>categroy and class rating. But 61.31(k)(2) changed clarifying that a
>categroy and class rating is needed if a passenger is being carried. For
>the vast majority of people this will mean nothing new as the FAA has been
>including wording in the aircraft Operating Limitations requiring a
>categroy
>and class rating since the mid 90's. Only if you have an aircraft that was
>completed prior to that time and do not have a paragraph about categroy and
>class rating in your operating limitations do you need to worry about this.
>A new order, 8700.42 gives all the details and is available at:
>
>http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/n8700-42.doc
>
>If you do happen to be in the categroy needing new operating limitations
>and/or ratings added to your pilot's certificate the procedures are also in
>this order. The good news is that you will be able to use the flight time
>you already have in your aircraft to get these newly required ratings.
>
>Mike Robertson
>Das Fed
>
> >From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
> >Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:28:11 -0400
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
> >
> >The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly
> >passengers in homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to
> >flying passengers only in planes in which they are qualified and
> >experienced. Currency and proficiency rules apply to those who take
>people
> >for rides in their experimental aircraft and EAA says current pilots have
> >until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have the necessary category and class
> >ratings for the aircraft they fly.
> >
> >This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark about
> >it? charlie heathco (this is from Avweb)
> >
> >
>
>
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: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
It sounds like it is easier to get an IFR rating than to figure this reg
out. The central question seems to be what "no person may act as pilot in
command under IFR" means, since that clearly requires the pilot to have an
IFR rating.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 617 hours
Maple Grove, MN
do not archive
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
> <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> But guys , it does not say you may not file an IFR flight plan. YOU
> may........you just cannot accept the IFR clearance or fly
> IFR. You may,
> however, file an IFR flight plan, place the comment "Must
> remain VMC for
> entire route" in the remarks box, receive a "VMC" clearance
> that sounds like
> an IFR clearance, and fly the entire route as though you were
> flying it IFR.
> If needed during the flight you MUST remind the ATC
> controller that you
> must remain VMC.
>
> There is nothing in the regs that prohibits this. KAPISH!!
>
> Mike Robertson
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: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I doubt your insurance company would agree with that!!!
do not archive
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> Very true. There is nothing in the regs that says that you must have an
> Instrument rating to file IFR. If you are a VFR pilot, you can still file
> IFR provided that you remain VFR for the entire flight. Some people like
to
> do this to get what they feel is a more priority handling when flying into
> heavy traffic areas/airports.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
> >From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
> >Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:27 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
> >
> >--> 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 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: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Oh good god read the whole thread and knock this crap off. This is total
nonsense!!
do not archive
--- Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> Very true. There is nothing in the regs that says that you must have an
> Instrument rating to file IFR. If you are a VFR pilot, you can still file
> IFR provided that you remain VFR for the entire flight. Some people like to
> do this to get what they feel is a more priority handling when flying into
> heavy traffic areas/airports.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
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: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
I don't think its because passengers are causing accidents but rather there
are many more experimental aircraft that are carrying more passengers. Many
years ago experimental aircraft were predominately single seaters. Not so
today. With that in mind, obviously, more experimental accidents are going
to include passengers. If we then keep in mind that most regs are for the
safety of the public and passengers rather than for the pilots safety, the
change in the regs is logical.
Mike R.
>From: sportav8r@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:40:35 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Thanks, Mike. Re-reading my original post, I guess I was having a bad day
>;-)
>
>AvWeb's original reporting on this was a bit confusing, to say the least.
>Subsequent discussion in the media and on the list have clarified the FAA's
>intent, and it's appreciated.
>
>I agree with the rule as I now understand it, and it's in faact almost
>generous to grandfather the prior experience in lieu of a rating. I never
>realized experimental pilots enjoyed such a type rating loophole before.
>
>The discordance between the rule and its stated purpose still bothers me
>somehow. An increase in fatalities on passenger-carrying flights warrants
>investigation as to how the passengers themselves are contributing to the
>accident rate, and I don't see that reflected in the rule we have here.
>I've always been a stickler for logic and linear thinking, even in
>governmental regulations, which does not ingratiate me to bureaucracies...
>
>-Stormy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
>If you have a Private ASEL already then you are good to go with your RV.
>Where this rule mostly comes into play is for those pilots that may be
>flying multi-engine experimentals, gyrocopters, or experimental seaplanes.
>Under the prior rule these pilots did not require a categroy and class
>rating appropriate to these type of aircraft. Now, if they wish to carry
>passengers then they will need to get the proper ratings.
>
>Mike Robertson
>
> >From: sportav8r@aol.com
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
> >Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:03:44 -0400
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
> >
> >Mike- I went to the link and read the regs; my legalese-challenged eyes
> >glazed over rather quickly... I had always thought "category and class"
> >meant that "ASEL" would cover it for a fixed-wing experimental that was
>not
> >"high-performance" without any further endorsements. Have I been
>operating
> >my RV illegally (with pax) all these years?
> >
> >What really caught my eye was the verbiage defending the reason for the
> >regs: an increasing trend in experimental accidents with pax aboard. The
> >FAA's response to this data appears not to involve investigating the
>EFFECT
> >OF PASSENGERS on the aircraft involved in these accidents, but on
>granting
> >almost "shall-issue" rubber-stamp license endorsements to the pilots of
> >those aircraft. If the trend is rising for pax-carrying experimental
> >fatalities, let's dig into why the CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS causes
>increased
> >numbers of crashes: are the aircraft overloaded? Are pax grabbing the
> >controls and pulling wings off? Are pilots acting stupid with a captive
> >audience aboard? If it's an uptrend for experimental crashes in general,
> >and fatality absolute numbers are climbing only because a crash with pax
> >aboard _by definition_ kills more people than an aircraft crashed solo,
> >then let's be logical and scrutinize experimental accidents in general,
> >admitting that pax are not a contributing
> > variable to the crashes themselves.
> >
> >At any rate, I am without a clue how the proposed issuance of new license
> >endorsements based on prior expereince might do anything to reduce the
> >fatality statistics; it's all symbolism trumping substance. How many pax
> >fatalities occur in the first five hours that a pilot flies a new make
>and
> >model? If it's significant, then forbid that behavior for the first 5
> >hours. Why the license endorsement? Prediction: I foresee the FAA
> >certifying night proficiency using the same "logic" - issuing every
>airman
> >a license with a night flight endorsement - valid only for 90 days, of
> >course, in keeping with the night flight currency regs we already have on
> >the books. Or maybe issuing every airline pilot an endorsed license
>after
> >he passes a blood alcohol test, such license only good for flight on the
> >day of issue, to cut down on the number of flight crews flying under the
> >influence... I fail to see why every reg needs to appear reincarnated as
>a
> >license endorsement; it's already illega
> > l to bust these regs! (Reminds me of gun control - lets' reduce murder
>by
> >making it illegal; oh, wait, it already is - ya think making it
> >double-illegal will help?)
> >
> >I would sincerely appreciate your assistance with understand this. The
> >rule announcement comes on the heels of a vey bad day for GA in the
> >Washington ADIZ, a day that made one pilot look foolish, and the federal
> >security apparatus look like a cross between Chicken Little and a
>two-ton,
> >rabid gorilla.
> >
> >-Stormy
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RE: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
> >
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >
> >It is a new requirement that came out just recently with the light sport
> >changes. It is in FAR 61.31(k)(2). This is the FAR that previously made
> >it
> >possible for multi-engine Experimental aircraft to be flown without
>having
> >a
> >multi-engine pilot's certificate. The wording in 61.31(k)(1) has not
> >changed and still excludes non-type certificate aircraft from needing a
> >categroy and class rating. But 61.31(k)(2) changed clarifying that a
> >categroy and class rating is needed if a passenger is being carried. For
> >the vast majority of people this will mean nothing new as the FAA has
>been
> >including wording in the aircraft Operating Limitations requiring a
> >categroy
> >and class rating since the mid 90's. Only if you have an aircraft that
>was
> >completed prior to that time and do not have a paragraph about categroy
>and
> >class rating in your operating limitations do you need to worry about
>this.
> >A new order, 8700.42 gives all the details and is available at:
> >
> >http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/n8700-42.doc
> >
> >If you do happen to be in the categroy needing new operating limitations
> >and/or ratings added to your pilot's certificate the procedures are also
>in
> >this order. The good news is that you will be able to use the flight
>time
> >you already have in your aircraft to get these newly required ratings.
> >
> >Mike Robertson
> >Das Fed
> >
> > >From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
> > >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > >Subject: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
> > >Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:28:11 -0400
> > >
> > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
> > >
> > >The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly
> > >passengers in homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to
> > >flying passengers only in planes in which they are qualified and
> > >experienced. Currency and proficiency rules apply to those who take
> >people
> > >for rides in their experimental aircraft and EAA says current pilots
>have
> > >until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have the necessary category and
>class
> > >ratings for the aircraft they fly.
> > >
> > >This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark
>about
> > >it? charlie heathco (this is from Avweb)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Why not??? The aircraft is safe to operate (airworthy), and I have not
busted any regulations doing it.
Mike Robertson
PS And I have checked with the people more knowledgable then myself on this
and they agree.
>From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 08:56:15 -0700
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>I doubt your insurance company would agree with that!!!
>
>do not archive
>)_( Dan
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Very true. There is nothing in the regs that says that you must have an
> > Instrument rating to file IFR. If you are a VFR pilot, you can still
>file
> > IFR provided that you remain VFR for the entire flight. Some people
>like
>to
> > do this to get what they feel is a more priority handling when flying
>into
> > heavy traffic areas/airports.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> >
> > >From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
> > >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > >Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
> > >Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:27 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
> > >
> > >--> 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 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: Damaged spar flange |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 6:37:21 2005-05-17 Tom Casey <tomatwork@netscape.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tom Casey <tomatwork@netscape.com>
> Ignore, repair or new spar?
The engineer in me says "stress concentration". 39" from the tip sounds
like it's near the inboard end of the aileron... If so, remember that an
aileron when deflected also adds a stress concentration to the spar, at the
inboard end. Will these two stress concentrations add up? Are you
planning on doing any aerobatics in your RV? If you're not, and you decide
to sell your plane a few years down the road, would really want to tell
potential buyers that there's a wrinkle in the spar? Would you be happy
from a liability standpoint if you *didn't* tell them?
Of course, the cynic in me says that Vans is unconcerned about it at least
in some small part due to the cost of replacing it...
-Rob
Do Not Archive
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: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty" <martorious@earthlink.net>
My literal interpretation of the rule indicates that no person may act
as PIC under "Instrument Flight Rules" regardless of Meteorological
Conditions. However it seems that popular aviation vernacular has
made the abbreviations for flight rules and meteorological conditions
interchangeable, with the meaning of both being lost in translation.
I think if this were to go to legal proceedings that a pilot may find
out that what he was reading and what the regs meant were not the
same, at least as far as the FAA is concerned.
Marty,
Learning something new everyday, while trying to keep an open mind.
|-----Original Message-----
|From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
|server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex & Gerry Peterson
|Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:46 AM
|To: rv-list@matronics.com
|Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
|
|--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex & Gerry Peterson"
|<alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
|
|It sounds like it is easier to get an IFR rating than to figure this
|reg
|out. The central question seems to be what "no person may act as
|pilot in
|command under IFR" means, since that clearly requires the pilot to
|have an
|IFR rating.
|
|Alex Peterson
|RV6-A 617 hours
|Maple Grove, MN
| do not archive
|http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
|
|
|>
|> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
|> <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
|>
|> But guys , it does not say you may not file an IFR flight plan.
|YOU
|> may........you just cannot accept the IFR clearance or fly
|> IFR. You may,
|> however, file an IFR flight plan, place the comment "Must
|> remain VMC for
|> entire route" in the remarks box, receive a "VMC" clearance
|> that sounds like
|> an IFR clearance, and fly the entire route as though you were
|> flying it IFR.
|> If needed during the flight you MUST remind the ATC
|> controller that you
|> must remain VMC.
|>
|> There is nothing in the regs that prohibits this. KAPISH!!
|>
|> Mike Robertson
|
|
|
|
|
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
They are kinda, but they're called gliders. But ya still make some noise
getting them into the air.
> Mickey Coggins
Gliders glide.
Sailplanes soar.....
and can be launched by WINCH.
Bob
do not archive
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: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
I can see where a SAILplane sitting in the middle of the runway with no way
to taxi could be considered a RPITA . Only recall one time where the Boy
Scouts were giving rides at APV. They would land, change passengers, "taxi"
back up the runway (lots of extra hands) re-hook & takeoff again. Most of
the traffic was using Rwy 18. They were using Rwy 26. Net effect was to
close that runway (26) for up to 20 minutes per flight and 18 for 3 to 5min.
(Middle of 26 is right at the end of 18) The only "real" problem was that
they would turn right off of rwy 26 and go toward an active Acro box.
Turning left would have put them climbing parallel to departing & flyby 18
traffic. We were having an airfair that day BUT the AirBoss was able to keep
everything flowing.
I can see that at an airport with a single runway, SAILplanes with a very
slow approach speed, not able to taxi clear and getting ready for the next
tow could cause problem with power pilots. Finally able to get good radio
communications going with the Scouts. KABONG Do Not Archive 8*)
We share a hanger with a motoglider XImango I think ???
The AirBoss ?? Gummibear, of course.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
>
> If airplanes were as quiet
> as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport closures around the
> world.
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> As an owner of a noiseless SAILplane, Utopia remains elusive. For
> instance..... the majority of power pilots at our local airport cared
> little
> about sharing the airport with us. Hostility ranged from mild to wild.
> Were
> were treated, generally, as a royal PITA. Eventually, our sailplane club
> left for, literally, a greener pasture. <sigh>
>
> Bob - RV3 and HP-14 driver
>
> 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: New Rule N 8700.42 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Choice ends I believe at the end of August this year. Then you have to take
the full-blown course, exam and check ride.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: New Rule N 8700.42
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> Not necessarily. If you have a private Single-Engine Land rating then
> operation of any RV at this point is ok. Where the limitation will come
> in
> is if you have a Private ASEL certificate and have been flying your Mini
> 500, you will now have to get a rotorcraft rating if you wish to carry
> pasengers in your mini 500. You have a choice, to get the appropriate
> rating, or to get a license, based on your prior flight time, for just
> that
> aircraft.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
>>From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RV-List: New Rule N 8700.42
>>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:10:28 EDT
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>>
>>What looks disturbing to me is that in sect. 5. GUIDANCE it specifically
>>states: "The pilot certificate will be issued with the limitiation
>>"Authorized
>>Experimental Aircraft: [Category] and [Class] rating [Make] and [Model]"
>>for the
>>aircraft authorized to be operated. This reference to Make and Model
>>appears
>>several more times, and is shown on Figure 5 "Baxter built- Mini 500" and
>>Figure 6 "Weaver built Mini 500". Is this to be interpreted to mean my
>>re-issued
>>certificate limits me to pax transport in "Phillips built RV-6A" only and
>>would preclude me from carrying pax in a "Rosales built RV-6A", a
>>"Hotchkiss built
>>RV-7A" or even a "Buchannan built RV-6"? (supposing one of these guys
>>would
>>even let me NEAR their airplanes!)
>>
>>Mark Phillips
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2@earthlink.net>
Wow, funny you should mention this now. I've had the same problem for over
a year and a half. I finally finished fixing it the day you sent this post.
I have one of the old rv6 gel coat cowls and the fit got worse the more I
flew it. I think the heat of the engine allowed it to soften up and flex
even more. I had a bubble sticking out about 1/8 inch in the middle of the
gap of the hinges. The fix.... I spent 4 days installing cam locs all the
way around the top. They work great. Very good design. I can now
sand/fill the areas that dont quite fit. That will wait for another day.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
190 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314@comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: cowl fit
> --> 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.
>
> Tom G. at Vans suggested that when the 2 halves of the cowl are joined,
> I can use the lower cowl to pull down on the upper cowl to pull it
> further into place, but I just don't think that's going to work. It
> takes about a 10 pound force normal to the surface to push it into
> alignment with the fuselage. I don't think the lower cowl can pull down
> hard enough. And, I don't like the idea of building a big strain into
> the cowl.
>
> 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 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: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Mike: I'm not an epidemiologist, but I read their stuff as part of my job...
seems to me if accident numbers are rising but the rate isn't, than there's not
a problem that justifies intervention. Simply discouraging people from flying
would reduce the raw # of fatalities. If the rate is rising, there's likely
a system problem that needs an engineering safety look-see.
Borrowing from my line of work, if pertussis cases double in a population that
has swelled to twice its former size, it doesn't mean the vaccine I'm giving is
losing efficacy, just that the population grew and the whooping cough attack
rate remained unchanged. I could change the wording in the vaccine handout
I give to the parents by adding a statement that the vaccine we're using is "really,
really neat stuff and works great" (ie, has flown in this exact make and
model of gyrocopter for 5 hours in the last 12 calendar months) but I'd be nuts
to think that would change the disease rate among my patients.
Maybe this wasn't their intent, but it looks to me like some regulators at the
FAA actually believe that grandfathering, say, the pilots who now fly rotorcraft
without a type rating is going to increase the public's safety _by magic_ (or
by federal decree, which is the same thing). That's my issue, and why I believe
the licensing gesture is largely symbolic. I would be dismissive of any
upcoming change in the accident stats after these endorsements are issued as purest
coincidence.
In any case, thanks again for the clear explanation of these regs. I always look
forward to hearing the "Das Fed version" of the thread-du-jour, because you
can generally settle for good whatever it is we're thrashing out. You help make
the List the great community that it is :-)
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
I don't think its because passengers are causing accidents but rather there
are many more experimental aircraft that are carrying more passengers. Many
years ago experimental aircraft were predominately single seaters. Not so
today. With that in mind, obviously, more experimental accidents are going
to include passengers. If we then keep in mind that most regs are for the
safety of the public and passengers rather than for the pilots safety, the
change in the regs is logical.
Mike R.
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: | IFR is not the same as IMC |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Paul,
> RV-6A Sold
You should quit bragging about that. ;->
do not archive
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: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
Why not? Well start with the little box on the flight plan. It says IFR,
which stands for Instrument Flight Rules. How can that not mean you are
operating under Instrument Flight Rules? The regulations are clear about
the requirements for operating under Instrument Flight Rules. Among other
things they require an instrument rating.
As a practical matter, as others have pointed out, what do you do when your
flight path takes you through a cloud?
This whole discussion just points out to me how many people can argue for a
competely untenable position. I can just see me defending myself to the
local FSDO. "An FAA guy said it is perfectly OK to operate IFR, even though
I don't meet any of the requirements." Sure, that's going to go a long way!
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> Why not??? The aircraft is safe to operate (airworthy), and I have not
> busted any regulations doing it.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
> PS And I have checked with the people more knowledgable then myself on
> this
> and they agree.
>
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
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: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Hey! This is an interesting discussion. If you don't like it, don't read
it. Be nice.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Oh good god read the whole thread and knock this crap off. This is total
nonsense!!
do not archive
--- Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> Very true. There is nothing in the regs that says that you must have an
> Instrument rating to file IFR. If you are a VFR pilot, you can still file
> IFR provided that you remain VFR for the entire flight. Some people like
to
> do this to get what they feel is a more priority handling when flying into
> heavy traffic areas/airports.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
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: Jason Sneed <n242ds@cox.net>
I am going to fly my -6 to the Bahamas next month. Can someone give
me a place to start as far as some paperwork I need to fill out. It
sounds like the best place to leave from and come back into the
country is Fort Pierce. I there are some hoops I have to jump through
before I fly.
Thanks,
Jason Sneed
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: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: Skylor Piper <skylor4@yahoo.com>
Mike,
So, you can file an IFR flight plan without being IFR
rated if you remain VFR.
What about flying in the flight levels? AIM 3-2-2 B
states:
"Operating Rules and Pilot/Equipment Requirements.
Unless otherwise authorized, all persons must operate
their aircraft under IFR. (See 14 CFR
Section 71.33 and 14 CFR Section 91.167 through 14 CFR
Section 91.193.)"
So, if you file an IFR flight plan, but remain VFR,
then it seems to me that you are not really meeting
the requirements (at least as advised by the AIM) of
Class A air space!
Skylor
RV-8QB
Under Construction
--- Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
> <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> But guys , it does not say you may not file an IFR
> flight plan. YOU
> may........you just cannot accept the IFR clearance
> or fly IFR. You may,
> however, file an IFR flight plan, place the comment
> "Must remain VMC for
> entire route" in the remarks box, receive a "VMC"
> clearance that sounds like
> an IFR clearance, and fly the entire route as though
> you were flying it IFR.
> If needed during the flight you MUST remind the
> ATC controller that you
> must remain VMC.
>
> There is nothing in the regs that prohibits this.
> KAPISH!!
>
> Mike Robertson
>
> >From: Phil Wiethe <rv8a_builder@yahoo.com>
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM
> climb at 17,500'
> >Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >--> 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
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
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: | Off the list for awhile |
--> RV-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
In case anyone tries to reach me via the list I have unsubscribed while away
on travel for the next 9 days or so.
Do not archive
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 80+ hours
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: | Bendix servo adjustemnts |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Can someone point me to a "how to adjust a bendix servo" article or
diagram?
Im helping a buddy adjust his on a 540. Needs mixture adjustments.
Thanks
Mike
Do not archive.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Took a flight of 15 there last year. Yes there are some hoops.
All the docs, regs, paperwork and requirements are here:
http://www.mstewart.net/teamrv/turkscaicos
Enjoy
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jason Sneed
Subject: RV-List: bahama bound
--> RV-List message posted by: Jason Sneed <n242ds@cox.net>
I am going to fly my -6 to the Bahamas next month. Can someone give
me a place to start as far as some paperwork I need to fill out. It
sounds like the best place to leave from and come back into the
country is Fort Pierce. I there are some hoops I have to jump through
before I fly.
Thanks,
Jason Sneed
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: | Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
I did not say anything about "operating" IFR. You may not accept an IFR
clearance either. I believe that I clearly said that you must operate VFR
and remain VFR. But that does not mean that you may not file an IFR flight
plan and recieve a "VFR" clearance based on an IFR flight plan.
Basically I am doing that every time I contact Center and request flight
following.
Mike Robertson
DO NOT Archive this mess anymore
>From: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:09:40 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
>
>
>Why not? Well start with the little box on the flight plan. It says IFR,
>which stands for Instrument Flight Rules. How can that not mean you are
>operating under Instrument Flight Rules? The regulations are clear about
>the requirements for operating under Instrument Flight Rules. Among other
>things they require an instrument rating.
>
>As a practical matter, as others have pointed out, what do you do when your
>flight path takes you through a cloud?
>
>This whole discussion just points out to me how many people can argue for a
>competely untenable position. I can just see me defending myself to the
>local FSDO. "An FAA guy said it is perfectly OK to operate IFR, even
>though
>I don't meet any of the requirements." Sure, that's going to go a long
>way!
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Why not??? The aircraft is safe to operate (airworthy), and I have not
> > busted any regulations doing it.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> >
> > PS And I have checked with the people more knowledgable then myself on
> > this
> > and they agree.
> >
>
>Larry Pardue
>Carlsbad, NM
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cory Emberson" <bootless@earthlink.net>
It's a great trip! Try www.bahamas.com.
They're one of my favorite booths at OSH!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jason Sneed
Subject: RV-List: bahama bound
--> RV-List message posted by: Jason Sneed <n242ds@cox.net>
I am going to fly my -6 to the Bahamas next month. Can someone give
me a place to start as far as some paperwork I need to fill out. It
sounds like the best place to leave from and come back into the
country is Fort Pierce. I there are some hoops I have to jump through
before I fly.
Thanks,
Jason Sneed
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: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Above 18,000 is different because it says you MUST operate IFR, but you may
request a case by case deviation to operate over 18000 VFR. Been done many
times. Bruce Bohannen comes to mind on his altitude reocrd attempts.
Mike Robertson
>From: Skylor Piper <skylor4@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 10:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Skylor Piper <skylor4@yahoo.com>
>
>Mike,
>
>So, you can file an IFR flight plan without being IFR
>rated if you remain VFR.
>
>What about flying in the flight levels? AIM 3-2-2 B
>states:
>
>"Operating Rules and Pilot/Equipment Requirements.
>Unless otherwise authorized, all persons must operate
>their aircraft under IFR. (See 14 CFR
>Section 71.33 and 14 CFR Section 91.167 through 14 CFR
>Section 91.193.)"
>
>
>So, if you file an IFR flight plan, but remain VFR,
>then it seems to me that you are not really meeting
>the requirements (at least as advised by the AIM) of
>Class A air space!
>
>Skylor
>RV-8QB
>Under Construction
>
>--- Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
> > <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >
> > But guys , it does not say you may not file an IFR
> > flight plan. YOU
> > may........you just cannot accept the IFR clearance
> > or fly IFR. You may,
> > however, file an IFR flight plan, place the comment
> > "Must remain VMC for
> > entire route" in the remarks box, receive a "VMC"
> > clearance that sounds like
> > an IFR clearance, and fly the entire route as though
> > you were flying it IFR.
> > If needed during the flight you MUST remind the
> > ATC controller that you
> > must remain VMC.
> >
> > There is nothing in the regs that prohibits this.
> > KAPISH!!
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> >
> > >From: Phil Wiethe <rv8a_builder@yahoo.com>
> > >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > >Subject: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM
> > climb at 17,500'
> > >Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > >--> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>__________________________________
>
>
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: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Ok, I should have thought for a few seconds before sending that, as I try to be
nice. But the argument is silly and it has already run its course once.
--- Terry Watson <terry@tcwatson.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Hey! This is an interesting discussion. If you don't like it, don't read
> it. Be nice.
>
> Terry
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: | RV-9 Flight Report |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
I got to fly left-seat in an RV-9 last weekend for almost an hour. I will post
my experience here as requested by a couple guys.
Me: ~290 hour PP-SEL-IA. Flown nothing but Cessnas except for a brief RV-10
demo flight and an hour or so in an RV-7A on another occasion.
This isn't really intended to be a 7 vs 9 comparison, though I'll point out
things that I noticed along those lines. My experiences with the two aircraft
are both pretty limited and separated by nearly a month as well.
The gentleman I flew with is based at OSH and was cool enough to give me the
left seat (he's a CFI and comfortable on the right). Since the bird is a
taildragger and this was my first time so much as sitting in a tailwheel
aircraft, it was a given that he'd be doing the landings.
We took of on 27 at OSH with winds 270@11G23. His plane is powered by an O-320
with two mags and the 72" Sensenich. We had a good headwind, but boy did we
jump off the runway. Again, there are way too many variables here for a direct
comparison, but the 180hp 7A I flew in was no quicker off the runway with a
similar headwind. As for weight, myself & the owner together are about 400lb
and we had full fuel and no baggage.
Likewise, the climb was most impressive (to this C-152 owner). 1600+ fpm
sustained easily at 100-115 mph (the headwind shear was causing the ASI and VSI
to wag around some).
We leveled off at 2500' just below a really pretty roiling CU deck and headed
SW out of the OSH delta. The airplane accelerated very quickly and we pulled
back the throttle to 2400 RPM which gave us about 180mph indicated! I did not
really expect to see IAS that high at this low an alt. Pressure was 994 and
temp around 50 so I think we were pretty close to "standard day".
I tried some dutch rolls to ascertain roll rate and adverse yaw - the former
being slower than a 7, definitely, and the latter barely existent. The stick
force felt really, really nice to me - firm and very controllable. Very
similar on both axis too.
Before I new it we were 25nm from OSH. I tried some turns, turning 180 degrees
in one direction and then the other using about 30 degrees of bank. What can I
say? Honest, straight flying airplane, just as the 7 struck me. For some
reason I had a tendency to *gain* alt in the turns but I guess that is probably
attributable to nothing more than trim. (I did find the electric trim very
sensitive at cruise speed. I am glad I ordered manual trim.)
I wanted to test pitch stability by pitching up, releasing, and observing the
pitch oscillation period and the return to trimmed airspeed. I noticed that
when oscillating the plane picked up a lot of speed very quickly when nose
down. I was thinking at the time that pitch stability is weaker than a Cessna
but then realized that this higher speed increase is due to the much cleaner
airframe, nothing more. That can't be called weaker pitch stability.. it did
return to trimmed airspeed. However, it became obvious just how quickly the
airspeed can get away from you if you're not on it. A bit more work to fly in
IMC than what I'm used to, probably, but not by a wide margin.
Owen suggested we throttle back to see what the airplane is capable of at lower
throttle settings. I cannot remember the exact speed/RPM numbers (should have
written them down right away), but I believe we were seeing 130mph at about
2000 RPM. At that speed, the stick forces are somewhat lighter and the plane
feels a lot like a Cessna 152.
Next was power-off stalls. Owen demonstrated one without flaps which broke at
65mph. Next one with full flaps was about 45mph indicated. I then tried a
couple with flaps. The stalls are very honest with no wing drop and with a
*sharp* break - much sharper than a 152 or 172. I liked that. No mistaking
that stall, and it recovers with just the slightest release of back pressure.
We returned to OSH in light rain under this CU deck. I flew the pattern at
80mph, then 75mph on short final at which point Owen took it. About all I can
say about the landing was that it was very slow, the airplane floated a lot,
and the mains touched down several seconds before I was expecting it (good
thing I wasn't flying).
Well.. I did come away very stoked with the airplane. It's fast!! And it does
everything right. I cannot fault anything.. the pitch sensitivity is only a
direct consequence of the clean airframe and so it would be silly to expect
anything else. If I had to compare the 9 to the two other RVs I've flown, it's
definitely closer to the 10 in stick forces and roll rates. I think the 10 is
heavier on the stick (it is for sure in pitch) but that was 3 months ago for me
now. I'm sure that's no coincidence - these are the non-aerobatic, pure XC
RVs.
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: bahama bound |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Jason Sneed wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jason Sneed <n242ds@cox.net>
>
> I am going to fly my -6 to the Bahamas next month. Can someone give
> me a place to start as far as some paperwork I need to fill out. It
> sounds like the best place to leave from and come back into the
> country is Fort Pierce. I there are some hoops I have to jump through
> before I fly.
>
Jason, here is an article written by TVRVBG'er Jeff Crabb about his RV
Bahama trip planning:
http://www.tvrvbg.org/bahamas.htm
Enjoy your trip!!
Sam Buchanan
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall@enid.org>
Hi everyone,
Just to let y'all (Oklahoma must be rubbing off on me) know we have reached the
priming and then some on our RV-8 Empennage. Check it out and let me know what
you think so far :~)
Cheers,
Stephanie
www.rv-8a.4t.com
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: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Paul:
I could not agree more. Why are we having this conversation at all? If you want
to file IFR flight plans or fly in Class A airspace get an instrument rating.
Pilots flying without the proper training, rating'(s) or clearance is not new
either, unfortunately.
Jerry and Ron, I don't think any one is saying private pilots cant be professional
in attitude or skill. The fact is a RV has a hard time even getting to 18,000
(efficiently), regardless of pilot rating or equipment.
As far as O2 that it moot, since it would be hard to operate with hypoxia at 18,000
feet without it, and it is required above 14,000 feet anyway, as req by the
"technocrats" as you say it.
Please consider what effect you have on the system (ATC, fast commercial traffic)
when attempting to merge into the fast lane. It is your right, but please get
the training and rating before getting into this area, IFR flight rules and
procedures. An IFR rating will make you a better and safer pilot.
Why 18,000 class A airspace? In a normally aspirated plane, 18,000 feet is the
limit for any thought of efficient operation in a RV from my experience and calculations.
Unless you have a turbocharger, FL180 is sliding down the backside
of the efficiency curve. There is no magic up there for an RV, except speed and
range will start to decay. Not sure what the highest MEA or MOCA is for low-altitude
airways in the US, but none require flying above FL180. Above FL180
they are called Jet-ways for a reason.
As Paul said, if you file a IFR flight plan or wounder up Class A and can't comply
with ATC instructions because you are not IFR rated, you will get the your
%$@# whacked.
If you want to flight test to high altitude for experimentation you may be able
to get a waver from the FAA, in a specific location and time frame. These wavers
are given to gliders, model rockets all the time.
Cheers George CFI(I)-MEI, ATP, RV-7 (pounding rivets)
====================================
Time: 04:54:55 PM PST US From: "Paul Besing" <paul@kitlog.com> Subject: Why
you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <paul@kitlog.com>
I can not believe this is a discussion at all. It is blatantly obvious that
you need to be instrument rated to fly on an IFR flight plan. As you
mentioned, you may or may not be in the clouds. The don't know, and don't
care who is IMC or who is not (unless it is safety related of course). You
could be vectored, diverted, etc right into the clouds. What are you going
to say, "uh, unable, I'm not instrument rated" You would immediately be
requested to copy down a phone number, remain VFR, and make contact when
on
the ground.
Bottom line is, YES, you have to be instrument rated, current, in the
category and class of aircraft to be flown to fly PIC IFR. IFR is NOT in
the clouds. It's the set of rules that we fly by, and you MUST be
appropriately rated to fly by those rules.
Paul Besing, CFII
RV-6A Sold
Kitlog Builder's Software
www.kitlog.com
Time: 06:13:58 PM PST US From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net> Subject:
Re: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
Marty Helller wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty Helller" <marty_away@hotmail.com>
>
>Having an IFR ticket means you have the knowledge base and flying skills
>necessary to operate in the IFR system. Controllers sitting in radar rooms
>don't know if you're in the clouds or not...they just know that you have
(or
>should have) the ability and proficiency to operate in the system. Class
A
>airspace is an area where it is expected that only the professional aviators
>fly. Most private pilots don't have the equipment to get up that high
>(oxygen or pressurized and either turbo charged, or a turboprop). So the
>issue isn't weather, it's rules.
>
>While this isn't the official FAA answer, it will be if FAA inquiry line
>manager sends it to my cubicle.
>
>Marty Heller
>Controller, CFI, RV-7 builder
>
>
>
I would hope that all of us flying are professional aviators. :-) As a
CFI I have to question your
statement that most private pilots don't have the equipment to get up
that high. You make it sound like a
Private Pilots don't quite have what it takes to be in that airspace. As
A CFI you should know that
you can be a Private Pilot and still be IFR rated. I know many Private
Pilots with IFR ratings and Twins that
fly that high. I know of three RVs on my airport that have oxygen and
probably more do that I don't know about.
Jerry
do not archive
========================
Time: 06:58:54 PM PST US From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net> system Subject: Re:
Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net> system
> I know of three RVs on my airport that have oxygen and
>probably more do that I don't know about.
I have O2 and because meanie technocrats have conspired to take
away some of MY airspace I will get my instrument rating so I can
fly up there...even if only for 10 minutes going from Meadowlake
to Greeley.
Ron
---------------------------------
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!
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: RV-List:pitot tubes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob <panamared3@brier.net>
I do. Just put in a T fitting and connect to both. I use the Dynon D-10
and the RMI Micromonitor.
Bob
RV6 NightFighter
At 12:07 AM 5/17/05, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
>
>Hi all
>
>Can anyone tell me if you can run two different airspeed indicators from the
>same pitot tube.
>
>Thanks,
>Paul RV-8 QB
>Working on wings
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Vents
>
>
> > --> 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 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: | Re: RV-9 Flight Report |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brett Hahn" <abakerson@zianet.com>
There is an in-depth article of the RV-9A done by the CAFE Foundation in the
May issue of Experimental Aircraft Technology Magazine.
www.extechmag.com
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: RV-9 Flight Report
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
> I got to fly left-seat in an RV-9 last weekend for almost an hour. I will
post
> my experience here as requested by a couple guys.
>
> Me: ~290 hour PP-SEL-IA. Flown nothing but Cessnas except for a brief
RV-10
> demo flight and an hour or so in an RV-7A on another occasion.
>
> This isn't really intended to be a 7 vs 9 comparison, though I'll point
out
> things that I noticed along those lines. My experiences with the two
aircraft
> are both pretty limited and separated by nearly a month as well.
>
> The gentleman I flew with is based at OSH and was cool enough to give me
the
> left seat (he's a CFI and comfortable on the right). Since the bird is a
> taildragger and this was my first time so much as sitting in a tailwheel
> aircraft, it was a given that he'd be doing the landings.
>
> We took of on 27 at OSH with winds 270@11G23. His plane is powered by an
O-320
> with two mags and the 72" Sensenich. We had a good headwind, but boy did
we
> jump off the runway. Again, there are way too many variables here for a
direct
> comparison, but the 180hp 7A I flew in was no quicker off the runway with
a
> similar headwind. As for weight, myself & the owner together are about
400lb
> and we had full fuel and no baggage.
>
> Likewise, the climb was most impressive (to this C-152 owner). 1600+ fpm
> sustained easily at 100-115 mph (the headwind shear was causing the ASI
and VSI
> to wag around some).
>
> We leveled off at 2500' just below a really pretty roiling CU deck and
headed
> SW out of the OSH delta. The airplane accelerated very quickly and we
pulled
> back the throttle to 2400 RPM which gave us about 180mph indicated! I did
not
> really expect to see IAS that high at this low an alt. Pressure was 994
and
> temp around 50 so I think we were pretty close to "standard day".
>
> I tried some dutch rolls to ascertain roll rate and adverse yaw - the
former
> being slower than a 7, definitely, and the latter barely existent. The
stick
> force felt really, really nice to me - firm and very controllable. Very
> similar on both axis too.
>
> Before I new it we were 25nm from OSH. I tried some turns, turning 180
degrees
> in one direction and then the other using about 30 degrees of bank. What
can I
> say? Honest, straight flying airplane, just as the 7 struck me. For some
> reason I had a tendency to *gain* alt in the turns but I guess that is
probably
> attributable to nothing more than trim. (I did find the electric trim
very
> sensitive at cruise speed. I am glad I ordered manual trim.)
>
> I wanted to test pitch stability by pitching up, releasing, and observing
the
> pitch oscillation period and the return to trimmed airspeed. I noticed
that
> when oscillating the plane picked up a lot of speed very quickly when nose
> down. I was thinking at the time that pitch stability is weaker than a
Cessna
> but then realized that this higher speed increase is due to the much
cleaner
> airframe, nothing more. That can't be called weaker pitch stability.. it
did
> return to trimmed airspeed. However, it became obvious just how quickly
the
> airspeed can get away from you if you're not on it. A bit more work to
fly in
> IMC than what I'm used to, probably, but not by a wide margin.
>
> Owen suggested we throttle back to see what the airplane is capable of at
lower
> throttle settings. I cannot remember the exact speed/RPM numbers (should
have
> written them down right away), but I believe we were seeing 130mph at
about
> 2000 RPM. At that speed, the stick forces are somewhat lighter and the
plane
> feels a lot like a Cessna 152.
>
> Next was power-off stalls. Owen demonstrated one without flaps which
broke at
> 65mph. Next one with full flaps was about 45mph indicated. I then tried
a
> couple with flaps. The stalls are very honest with no wing drop and with
a
> *sharp* break - much sharper than a 152 or 172. I liked that. No
mistaking
> that stall, and it recovers with just the slightest release of back
pressure.
>
> We returned to OSH in light rain under this CU deck. I flew the pattern
at
> 80mph, then 75mph on short final at which point Owen took it. About all I
can
> say about the landing was that it was very slow, the airplane floated a
lot,
> and the mains touched down several seconds before I was expecting it (good
> thing I wasn't flying).
>
> Well.. I did come away very stoked with the airplane. It's fast!! And it
does
> everything right. I cannot fault anything.. the pitch sensitivity is only
a
> direct consequence of the clean airframe and so it would be silly to
expect
> anything else. If I had to compare the 9 to the two other RVs I've flown,
it's
> definitely closer to the 10 in stick forces and roll rates. I think the
10 is
> heavier on the stick (it is for sure in pitch) but that was 3 months ago
for me
> now. I'm sure that's no coincidence - these are the non-aerobatic, pure
XC
> RVs.
>
>
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: RV-9 Flight Report |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
A much more thorough and professional report than mine, I'm sure. This looks
like a mag I'd want to subscribe to.
do not archive
--- Brett Hahn <abakerson@zianet.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Brett Hahn" <abakerson@zianet.com>
>
> There is an in-depth article of the RV-9A done by the CAFE Foundation in the
> May issue of Experimental Aircraft Technology Magazine.
>
> www.extechmag.com
>
> Brett
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: | Right on........ |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
8*)....:
)................ KABONG
Do Not Archive
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
>
Ballonius Airelious. The bird was monstrous in size with an teardrop
silhouette and girth of as much as 30'-50'.
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
It's funny but I think there is something about things in the sky that
float in general... If you ever want to see an animal flip out, bring a
helium balloon into a room that has parrots or parakeets or something
similar in it... my dog really doesn't like helium balloons either, but
she's never seen one of the big ones in the sky so I don't know what she
would do about that. Probably complain to the airport commision (she's a
bit of a whiner sometimes;)
James
Konrad L. Werner wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
>
>"...Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air balloon..."
>
>
>>That is unless the fire spewing propane burners are on.<
>>
>>
>
>My two dogs can pinpoint a hot air balloon from quite a distance just by sound,
before you can even see them.
>
>But you are right, some anti-aviators just need something to bitch about.
>
>Do Not Archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: JOHN STARN
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:21 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>
> Forgot to add on my last post.
> We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot air
> balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
> dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted ALL
> flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
> something to BITCH about.
> APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Bristol" <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> > Even if your airplane made zero noise, the airport neighbors would STILL
> > want to close the airport,
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
--
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 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: | Re: RV-List:pitot tubes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Paul,
In short the answer to your question is; yes {[;-)
In most cases all the devices that require the use of a pitot tube are
manifolded to the same pitot / static system. In many cases the number of
devices can include redundant information sources such as a Dynon EFIS,
Rocky mountain instruments u'Encoder, and a "steam gage" altimeter and or
airspeed among others.
In the above example the altitude and airspeed are displayed in three
different forms; graphic, digital and analog.
So then, that could then include having two airspeed or altitude instruments
(separate instrument panel for co-pilot) or what have you?
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List:pitot tubes
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
>
> Hi all
>
> Can anyone tell me if you can run two different airspeed indicators from
> the
> same pitot tube.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul RV-8 QB
> Working on wings
Message 60
| 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: | Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve&Anita Nyman" <nyman@bellsouth.net>
Yes, you will need an additional magnetic compass. I not only have a Dynon with
the remote EDC, but also the Chelton Sierra Flight System SV EFIS. When the
DAR came for the inspection (Jan 20, 2005), I did not have the magnetic compass
installed. One the first things he asked was, where is your mag compass?
I pointed out the Dynon and the dual Chelton display, but he said he had just
come from a recent meeting with the FAA and a mag compass (i.e. wet compass,
not power required) is still required. I did have one handy and mounted on the
glare shield while he continued the inspection. I later removed it and carry
in my flight bag so it will be handy if I need to set it back on the glare shield.
Steve
N174AS, 88 hrs
Message 61
| 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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
She wouldn't be a "WhinnHymer" would she. 8*) KABONG
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Ochs" <jochs@froody.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
> --> RV-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
>
Probably complain to the airport commision (she's a
> bit of a whiner sometimes;)
>
> James
>
Message 62
| 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 |
|
"Hal White" <HWHITE3@neo.rr.com>,
"Dennis White" <jazzabelle1@hotmail.com>,
"Daryl Green" <dgreen@JoiMail.com>
| Subject: | Fw: Cussing at work |
--> RV-List message posted by: <dwhite17@columbus.rr.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamie Cunningham" <cunningham.259@osu.edu>
<BJWiegman@AOL.COM>; "Chanda Whalen" <WJOURDIAN@AOL.COM>; "Christie Hall"
<Christie.C.Hall@ssa.gov>; "Christopher Maupin" <Chris.Maupin@osumc.edu>;
"Chris White" <holdencaulfield2121@yahoo.com>; "Dave White"
<dwhite17@columbus.rr.com>; "Glen and Tom" <bolstro@woh.rr.com>; "Glen
Strobel" <gstrobel@woh.rr.com>; "Jamie Meisler" <jlmhs1326@AOL.COM>; "Katie
Frambes" <kef1999@hotmail.com>; "Kristi Kent" <kristiknt@hotmail.com>; "Mike
Johnson" <johnson1616@hotmail.com>; "Mindy Purcell" <Purcellmin@AOL.COM>;
"Sara Maroscher" <maroscher2@columbus.rr.com>
Subject: FW: Cussing at work
> Subject: Cussing at work
>
> Dear Employees:
>
>>It has been brought to management's attention that some individuals
>>throughout the company have been using foul language during the
>>course of normal conversation with their co-workers. Due to
>>complaints received from some employees who may be easily offended,
>>this type of language will no longer be tolerated. We do however,
>>realize the critical importance of being able to accurately express
>>your feelings when communicating with co-workers. Therefore, a list
>>of 18 New and Innovative "TRY SAYING" phrases have been provided so
>>that proper exchange of ideas and information can continue in an
>>effective manner.
>>
>>
>>1) TRY SAYING: I think you could use more training.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: You don't know what the f___ you're doing.
>>
>>2) TRY SAYING: She's an aggressive go-getter.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: She's a ball-busting b__ch.
>>
>>3) TRY SAYING: Perhaps I can work late.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: And when the f___ do you expect me to do this?
>>
>>4) TRY SAYING: I'm certain that isn't feasible.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: No f______ way.
>>
>>5) TRY SAYING: Really?
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: You've got to be sh__ing me!
>>
>>6) TRY SAYING: Perhaps you should check with...
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: Tell someone who gives a sh__.
>>
>>7) TRY SAYING: I wasn't involved in the project.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: It's not my f_cking problem.
>>
>>8) TRY SAYING: That's interesting.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: What the f_ck ?
>>
>>9) TRY SAYING: I'm not sure this can be implemented.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: This sh_t won't work.
>>
>>10) TRY SAYING: I'll try to schedule that.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: Why the h___ didn't you tell me sooner?
>>
>>11) TRY SAYING: He's not familiar with the issues.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: He's got his head up his a__.
>>
>>12) TRY SAYING: Excuse me, sir?
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: Eat sh__ and die.
>>
>>13) TRY SAYING: So you weren't happy with it?
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: Kiss my a__.
>>
>>14) TRY SAYING: I'm a bit overloaded at the moment.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: F___ it, I'm on salary.
>>
>>15) TRY SAYING: I don't think you understand.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: Shove it up your a__.
>>
>>16) TRY SAYING: I love a challenge.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: This job sucks.
>>
>>17) TRY SAYING: You want me to take care of that?
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: Who the h___ died and made you boss?
>>
>>18 ) TRY SAYING: He's somewhat insensitive.
>>
>>INSTEAD OF: He's a pr_ck.
>>
>>
>>Thank You,
>>
>>Management
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Find the LOWEST PRICES on books at http://www.campusi.com !
> Check your SchoolEmail at http://www.campusi.com/email
>
Message 63
| 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 |
|
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Will Lexel "run" or "flatten out" as it dries or can you fill large gaps and count
on it staying there?
I need to fill the gaps under my windscreen. I could mix a very thick slurry of
microballoons/epoxy but I don't think it adheres as well as the Lexel does when
it's all said and done.
Also, what's the preferred way to make the windscreen fairing? Put tape underneath
so you can take the whole fairing off and polish it off before final installation
or build it up and finish it off without ever taking it off and hope
you don't scratch up the canopy or fuselage top skin?
thx,
Will Lexel "run" or "flatten out" as it driesor can you fill large gaps and count
on it staying there?
I need to fill the gaps under my windscreen. I could mix a very thickslurry of
microballoons/epoxy but I don't think it adheres as well as the Lexel does when
it's all said and done.
Also, what's the preferred way to make the windscreen fairing? Put tape underneath
so you can take the wholefairing off and polish it off before final installation
or build it up and finish it off without ever taking it off and hope you
don't scratch up the canopy or fuselage top skin?
thx,
Message 64
| 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 |
|
vansairforce@yahoogroups.com (RV yahoo)
| Subject: | Lexel and Windscreen Fairing |
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Will Lexel "run" or "flatten out" as it dries or can you fill large gaps and count
on it staying there?
I need to fill the gaps under my windscreen. I could mix a very thick slurry of
microballoons/epoxy but I don't think it adheres as well as the Lexel does when
it's all said and done.
Also, what's the preferred way to make the windscreen fairing? Put tape underneath
so you can take the whole fairing off and polish it off before final installation
or build it up and finish it off without ever taking it off and hope
you don't scratch up the canopy or fuselage top skin?
thx,
Lucky
<TT>Will Lexel "run" or "flatten out" as it dries or can you fill large gaps and
count on it staying there?
I need to fill the gaps under my windscreen. I could mix a very thick slurry of
microballoons/epoxy but I don't think it adheres as well as the Lexel does when
it's all said and done.
Also, what's the preferred way to make the windscreen fairing? Put tape underneath
so you can take the whole fairing off and polish it off before final installation
or build it up and finish it off without ever taking it off and hope you
don't scratch up the canopy or fuselage top skin?
thx,
Lucky</TT>
Message 65
| 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: Prop balancing (from the FlyRotary list) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
So what did you see???
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dube" <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
Subject: RV-List: Prop balancing (from the FlyRotary list)
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
>
> I saw this on the FlyRotary discussion list and thought this
> would be of interest to everyone. It is a very clever and inexpensive way
> to balance your prop:
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Bill Dube'
Message 66
| 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: | Fuel Tank leak testing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Douglas A. Fischer" <dfischer@iserv.net>
A question from a first-timer to the experienced folks out there in RV Land. I'm
currently pressure testing my first tank with a manometer. I started on the
9th of May and the level on the open end of the tube has varied up and down
in about a 5-inch range (it's currently in about the middle of that range - about
a 23 inch difference between the column heights). My guess is this is primarily
caused by barometric pressure and temp but my question is: when do you
call it a day and say definitively the tank doesn't leak? I'm beginning to feel
it's safe after 8 days, but want to get educated opinions. Pretty soon I'll
have to take into account evaporation of the water in the tube!
Doug Fischer
RV-9A 90706 Wings
Jenison, MI
Message 67
| 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: Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net>
Even for VFR only I suppose you need to have a backup compass with your Dynon.
If the Dynon failed, an unlikely event if it has run for 128 hours, and you had
no backup compass then you would not meet the requirements for VFR flight.
However, if you had a maximum simple VFR machine and the mag compass leaked all
its juice you would be just as bad off. Morever, you might have a fire hazard.
One wonders if the FAA isn't really just an old analog computer.
hal
RV6a with Dynon D10A and a leaky compass.
Steve&Anita Nyman <nyman@bellsouth.net> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve&Anita Nyman"
Yes, you will need an additional magnetic compass. I not only have a Dynon with
the remote EDC, but also the Chelton Sierra Flight System SV EFIS. When the DAR
came for the inspection (Jan 20, 2005), I did not have the magnetic compass
installed. One the first things he asked was, where is your mag compass? I pointed
out the Dynon and the dual Chelton display, but he said he had just come
from a recent meeting with the FAA and a mag compass (i.e. wet compass, not power
required) is still required. I did have one handy and mounted on the glare
shield while he continued the inspection. I later removed it and carry in my
flight bag so it will be handy if I need to set it back on the glare shield.
Steve
N174AS, 88 hrs
Message 68
| 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: Fuel Tank leak testing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 8:40:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dfischer@iserv.net writes:
My guess is this is primarily caused by barometric pressure and temp but my
question is: when do you call it a day and say definitively the tank doesn't
leak? I'm beginning to feel it's safe after 8 days, but want to get
educated opinions. Pretty soon I'll have to take into account evaporation of
the
water in the tube!
=======================================
It's soup already. You are seeing the diurnal effects of temperature. A
simple few hour test is all that's required. You have gone well past that.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
Message 69
| 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: | Fuel Tank leak testing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Saylor" <Dave@aircraftersllc.com>
Doug,
You should be fine. We use the digital pressure sensor shown here:
http://www.aircraftersllc.com/projects/pressGauge/index.htm
If it reads OK overnight we call it good. It shows ups and downs in
pressure as the temperature changes, even just a few degrees.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
831-722-9141
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Douglas A. Fischer
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Tank leak testing
--> RV-List message posted by: "Douglas A. Fischer" <dfischer@iserv.net>
A question from a first-timer to the experienced folks out there in RV Land.
I'm currently pressure testing my first tank with a manometer. I started on
the 9th of May and the level on the open end of the tube has varied up and
down in about a 5-inch range (it's currently in about the middle of that
range - about a 23 inch difference between the column heights). My guess is
this is primarily caused by barometric pressure and temp but my question is:
when do you call it a day and say definitively the tank doesn't leak? I'm
beginning to feel it's safe after 8 days, but want to get educated opinions.
Pretty soon I'll have to take into account evaporation of the water in the
tube!
Doug Fischer
RV-9A 90706 Wings
Jenison, MI
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! --
|