---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 10/14/06: 38 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:03 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Mickey Coggins) 2. 04:22 AM - Re: Training and judgement (glen matejcek) 3. 05:02 AM - Rudder Strength (Hopperdhh@AOL.COM) 4. 05:36 AM - Re: Rudder Strength (Jim Sears) 5. 05:46 AM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (Dave/Deb) 6. 06:04 AM - Re: Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (bill shook) 7. 07:16 AM - Re: Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Bob Collins) 8. 07:27 AM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (Paul Folbrecht) 9. 07:28 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins) 10. 08:06 AM - RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Jerry2DT@aol.com) 11. 08:37 AM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Bob Collins) 12. 08:42 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Mickey Coggins) 13. 08:57 AM - Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (go_lancair) 14. 09:16 AM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Ed Anderson) 15. 09:37 AM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Bob Collins) 16. 09:49 AM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Tedd McHenry) 17. 09:53 AM - Re: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (Jerry Springer) 18. 09:55 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins) 19. 10:07 AM - Landing Float was RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Ed Anderson) 20. 12:17 PM - Cirrus & journalists (JOHN STARN) 21. 12:35 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins) 22. 01:09 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Charlie England) 23. 01:19 PM - RV-7 For Sale (jrlewismail-rv@yahoo.com) 24. 01:37 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (JOHN STARN) 25. 02:28 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (linn Walters) 26. 02:50 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Bob Collins) 27. 02:53 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Ron Lee) 28. 03:18 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (JOHN STARN) 29. 03:48 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Chuck Jensen) 30. 03:49 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Jeffery J. Morgan) 31. 04:19 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (David Maib) 32. 04:36 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Chuck Jensen) 33. 06:24 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Mark Grieve) 34. 07:51 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (JOHN STARN) 35. 08:47 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins) 36. 09:18 PM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Dave Nellis) 37. 10:18 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (JOHN STARN) 38. 10:26 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Jeffery J. Morgan) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:03:05 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > ... Extra, Extra TV show comes on with photos about " Celeb Pilots " > who bought the farm, like Denver, Kennedy, Ricky Nelson !!!! wow, what a > loss..and what that has to do with the New York thing beats me....so a > baseball guy becomes a statistic of Darwin's Law....gee....why so little > said about his pax who also left a wife and child ? I think many people have the illusion that the news media is some kind of public service, or that they have some kind of standard to uphold. They don't. TV news is a trick to try to get you to watch the commercials - nothing more. If people don't watch, they go out of business, so they put on stuff that they think a lot of people will watch - nothing more, nothing less. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:22:01 AM PST US From: "glen matejcek" Subject: RV-List: RE: Training and judgement --> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" Hi Rob- First, my commentary on the 'hierarchy' of pilots was intended as more of a philosophical observation than a purely technical one. If one chooses to look down their nose at folks with lesser ratings and experience, they are likely to find themselves staring straight up the nostrils of the fellow with more ratings and experience. Second, I can't comment on the state of affairs north of the border, but here in the States my comment is also precisely correct on a technical basis. Although my commentary was about pilots and not certificates, and "Private' is a certificate and "instrument' is a rating, you must have the former before acquiring the latter. Further, the latter requires much more knowledge, training, and skill to acquire. As to the privileges accorded the various certificates, a US sport pilot can not fly a C-172. Nor can he fly at night. A private pilot can do both (simultaneously!), and without an instrument rating. I believe our northern brethren must have the instrument rating to fly at night at all. Also, both the Sport and Recreational Pilot certificates in the US carry many limitations that do not apply to Private pilots. These include passenger, operations, airspace, weather, altitude, and border crossing limitations. Some of those limits can be mitigated with further training. Well, I'm sure there are RV'ers all around the planet rolling their eyes right about now, so I'll yield soapbox. Pax- > From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" > Subject: Re: RV-List: Training and judgement > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" > > On 5:42:15 2006-10-13 "glen matejcek" wrote: > > > As far as i'm concerned, all the RPP and > > > Sport Pilot permits do is "dumb down" the priviledge of getting a > > > pilot's license. It may get more people in the air, but it looks > > > more and more like the tradeoff is less capable pilots. > > > > Well, that's true. And a private is a dumbed down / less capable > > instrument pilot, is a dumbed down / less capable commercial pilot, > > is a dumbed down / less capable ATP. > > Not quite. An instrument pilot is a private pilot who has learned specific > additional skills to fly into additional conditions. He's not required to > have any flying abilities or precision any greater than a private pilot. A > Commercial pilot, on the other hand, has learned to fly to a higher > standard, and i'll grant you that point. Carrying passengers for hire > probably does require greater precision than someone out for fun. But the > standards for the Recreational/Sport Pilot and the PP aren't really any > different, other than the number of hours necessary to get your license. > > Furthermore, (in Canada, anyway) a Recreational Pilot can fly the same > plane that a Private Pilot can, provided he only carries one passenger. > There may be an upper weight limit that i'm not aware of as well, i'm not > that knowledgeable about the permit. But I do know that an RPP can fly a > Cessna 172 just like a PP can, as long as there is only one passenger. > > So the only difference between an RPP and a PP (or SP and PP, in the US) > really, is how heavy an airplane you can fly. There are just too many > other things that vary between airplane types, and the RPP/PP division > doesn't address them. It's just an artificial division, to make an > artificially cheapened license. > > And let's not even get into the discussion about pilots who are dropping > their PP in favour of a RPP or SPP because it means they don't have to get > a full medical that would invalidate their PP. > > -Rob > Do Not Archive > glen matejcek aerobubba@earthlink.net ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:02:55 AM PST US From: Hopperdhh@AOL.COM Subject: RV-List: Rudder Strength The recent ground loop by Senator Inhofe caused me to post this. I read that his ground loop was caused by some kind of failure of the rudder. Hopefully, someone will update us on how the rudder failed. Occasionally, I find that before I buckle the harness in my -7A, I find myself sitting on a belt or the crotch strap. I have caught myself using the rudder pedals to raise myself in the seat in able to get them out from under me. This places extreme tension on the rudder cables and the rudder horn which I think could eventually lead to failure of the rudder. Just a thought. Dan Hopper RV-7A ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:36:53 AM PST US From: "Jim Sears" Subject: Re: RV-List: Rudder Strength --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" >> The recent ground loop by Senator Inhofe caused me to post this. I read >> that his ground loop was caused by some kind of failure of the rudder. >> Hopefully, someone will update us on how the rudder failed. Occasionally, I find that before I buckle the harness in my -7A, I find myself sitting on a belt or the crotch strap. I have caught myself using the rudder pedals to raise myself in the seat in able to get them out from under me. This places extreme tension on the rudder cables and the rudder horn which I think could eventually lead to failure of the rudder.<< Dan is correct. In fact, this practice may be why there is a service bulletin on the rudder stirrups. They're not designed to manage the weight we place on them when we use them in a manner other than what they were designed for. I've been careful to only use mine for controlling the rudder; and, I'm happy to say that I've seen no cracks in my old style rudder pedals. Hopefully, my old style nose gear will remain crack free, as well. :-) Jim Sears in KY RV-6A N198JS (Scooter) do not archive ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:46:16 AM PST US From: "Dave/Deb" Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave/Deb" Ordered my Catto prop in Jan, said I did not need it till June. Craig is a nice guy he said June would be fine. Still have not gotton it. Dave Wolles finishing 9A ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:30 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop > --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 > > Jeff: > I placed the order in mid March. He specified a June delivery, which I > did not believe at the time. I expected to get it in august or september. > I actually got it on Oct. 12. Craig knew that my project wasn't stopped > waiting for the prop. He gives priority to those who are in more > immediate need. I can't really argue with that. I got mine in plenty of > time. He seems to know his stuff and was always happy to talk to me when > I called up. I can't wait to see what this thing will really do. > > Jeff Orear wrote: > >> Just curious Tom.....How long did it take for you get your prop after you >> ordered it?? >> >> And yes, it does fly as good as it looks. I have an O320 with a 3 blade >> Catto. Just took some dual with a CFI that has RV time and he commented >> on how smooth the engine runs. >> >> You're gonna love that prop. >> >> Regards, >> Jeff Orear >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:40 PM >> Subject: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop >> >> >>> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 >>> >>> I just received a Catto 3 blade for my IO360. I just had to post a note >>> to say it is a beautiful piece of work. If it flies half as good as it >>> looks, I'll have a real hot rod on my hands. >> >> > -- > Tom Sargent, RV-6A > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:04:56 AM PST US From: bill shook Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: bill shook > Last point: My kid, who got his driver's license last year, recently bought a > motorcycle. I found out the other day he was zipping down the road at 85. The fact > that the machine will go 85 and provide absolutely no protection isn't an indictment > of the machine. The fact some bonehead will go 85 down the road with no protection -- > and break the law in the process -- speaks volumes about the bonehead doing so. But you son does have protection on his motorcycle. Judgement. I bought my first street bike at 17. A 750 interceptor. Odds are a bike like that kills a new rider as fast as he can get it into gear, but judgement is what has taken me through that and several other much faster road rockets without an incident in the 20 years that followed. 200k miles and counting..skin all in tact. Judgement is what will get your son by. That same judgement is what makes or breaks a pilot. It is not that your son can or does do 85 mph..it is where and under what circumstances he does so. Judgement...and that comes with experience. Trust in how you raised him, pray for a little luck along the way and let the boy live....50 years from now the experiences of which is all he will have. Bill __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:16:15 AM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" > But you son does have protection on his motorcycle. > Judgement. That's precisely my point, of course and underscores my point regarding training. One of the reasons kids do what kids do is because kids don't know any better. The highest accident rate in the county is among teenage drivers. Very little judgment, of course, and judgment comes from experience. But BOY, have you ever been in a car driven by a 15 year old kid for the first time? Man, they drive slow and they're careful. They're not partiuclarly good. But they're careful. It's theauto version of time in type, imho. Judgement comes from experience. Once he realizes how stupid driving at 85 is, I presume he'll slow down. I hope so, anyway. Do not archive ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:27:32 AM PST US From: Paul Folbrecht Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht I ordered mine well over a year ago ($700 deposit). Every couple months I inquire about it, he asks "do you _need_ it now?", I reply, honestly, "no", and am asked to wait a bit longer. This has been Ok with me. I believe if I had an engine and did need that prop, he'd get it to me. On Oct 14, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Dave/Deb wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave/Deb" > > Ordered my Catto prop in Jan, said I did not need it till June. > Craig is a nice guy he said June would be fine. Still have not > gotton it. > > Dave Wolles > finishing 9A > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" > To: > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:30 PM > Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop > > >> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 >> >> Jeff: >> I placed the order in mid March. He specified a June delivery, >> which I did not believe at the time. I expected to get it in >> august or september. I actually got it on Oct. 12. Craig knew >> that my project wasn't stopped waiting for the prop. He gives >> priority to those who are in more immediate need. I can't really >> argue with that. I got mine in plenty of time. He seems to know >> his stuff and was always happy to talk to me when I called up. I >> can't wait to see what this thing will really do. >> >> Jeff Orear wrote: >> >>> Just curious Tom.....How long did it take for you get your prop >>> after you ordered it?? >>> >>> And yes, it does fly as good as it looks. I have an O320 with a >>> 3 blade Catto. Just took some dual with a CFI that has RV time >>> and he commented on how smooth the engine runs. >>> >>> You're gonna love that prop. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jeff Orear >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" >>> To: >>> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:40 PM >>> Subject: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop >>> >>> >>>> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 >>>> >>>> I just received a Catto 3 blade for my IO360. I just had to >>>> post a note to say it is a beautiful piece of work. If it flies >>>> half as good as it looks, I'll have a real hot rod on my hands. >>> >>> >> -- >> Tom Sargent, RV-6A >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:28:38 AM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" > I think many people have the illusion that the news media is > some kind > of public service, or that they have some kind of standard to uphold. > They don't. TV news is a trick to try to get you to watch the > commercials - nothing more. If people don't watch, they go out of > business, so they put on stuff that they think a lot of people will > watch - nothing more, nothing less. You've cmbined so many generalities here, Mickey. News media and TV news are not necessarily the same thing. I agree that TV is pretty ratings based stuff. I just saw a study that the average amount of time in a newscast spent on election year issues is 35 seconds. Not good especially in an, ummm, election year. To the etent they're in the business to make money, you're right, they're not a public service. They want to make money. Same as we all do, I guess, but it's illogical for anyone to expect any0one even here on this board to stop making money to perform some public service for me. There used to be a requirement and regulation about news in the electronic media but that went away in our efforts to deregulate. Good or bad? You decide. However there's more to the "news media" than TV news and it's there I disagree with the sweeping generalization. There are thousands of good journalists out there who go to work every day to write a factual and complete story. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail but almost always they have a sense of duty to tell a story on behalf of the reader. I missed by kid's 4th birthday (working halfway across the country) and my 20th anniversary (Wellstone crash) for no other reason than to tell the story. I didn't make any more money from it, my employer didn't make any more money from it. In fact, my employer didn't even tell me to do it. I'll certainly hold my work on the Wellstone story (I think the nav beacon was involved in the disorientation because the FAA/NTSB testing after the flight showed abnormalities. The government made the pilots fly it until it didn't, for one thing) up against idiots like Prof. James Fetzer any day) There are a LOT of journalists with a sense of purpose and mission to telling the story right. Heck, I ripped my editors and reporters (some of whom are not senior to me) for ignoring half the stuff I told them Thursday about where to go on the Cirrus story (Cirrus is based in this state). That didn't go over well and if I end up losing my job for rocking the boat -- always a possibility -- it's not because I stand to gain personally, but because I think we do have a duty to report things accurately and fairly. Does everyone in the business? I'd say not. But are there a ton who do? Acidentally. BTW, one of them was Daniel Pearl, who I knew from my time in the Berkshires when he covered small city government in North Adams. He always had a sense of duty to the story. It got him killed. Do not archive. ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:56 AM PST US From: Jerry2DT@aol.com Subject: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! Bob, With due respect, and I mean that, this brings up one of my pet peeves about the reputation that RV's seem to have. I don't know how many times I've heard how difficult they are to fly. I'd like to start a thread here and have folks weigh in on the subject. To me, it boils down to a few. They are very fast, so one must be even more vigilant to stay ahead of the plane, watch for traffic, but just like a Bonanza or 210 in this regard. On the short wing RV's it's imperative to mind your speed in the pattern. Too slow and it's a brick. We've lost a number on that turn to final. The -a models seem to have a tendency to bend the nose gear, so land on the mains, true for any trike. That's about it from my perspective with about 200+hrs. of RV time. I tend to regard the talk about how difficult they are to fly as urban legend or OWT's. I took 4 hours with Mike Seager and 3 with a seasoned RV pilot, and that was it. I was happily surprised that our -6a wasn't the handful as I was told to expect. (by non-RV pilots of course). So, Bob and others, take heart. They really are not the skitterish hot rod portrayed in some circles... My .05 as usual, Jerry Cochran Subject: RV-List: Re: Cirrus - OT From: "Bob Collins" --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me that low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend a LOT of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training. Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly this thing safely." -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/ ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:59 AM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! I've never said RVs are harder to fly. I don't know. I've ridden in one once. But I'm in the Richard L. Collins camp. The machine isn't the issue for me. It's the driver. when I talk about how *I* consider the New York accident to re-examine whether *I'm* a good enough pilot to pilot an RV, that isn't saying anything about the RV. It's saying something about *me.* Can I keep ahead of the plane? How much training will it take? I don't know, but I take as 100% gospel, the reports of RV drivers about what a good plane it is. If only some of you would drop down and give me some stick time I'd know for sure. (vbg) I'm not scared of flying an RV. I'm merely evaluating my present proficiency as a pilot. Obviously, YMMV and I sure hope it does. (g) Bob Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry2DT@aol.com Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:05 AM Subject: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! Bob, With due respect, and I mean that, this brings up one of my pet peeves about the reputation that RV's seem to have. I don't know how many times I've heard how difficult they are to fly. I'd like to start a thread here and have folks weigh in on the subject. To me, it boils down to a few. They are very fast, so one must be even more vigilant to stay ahead of the plane, watch for traffic, but just like a Bonanza or 210 in this regard. On the short wing RV's it's imperative to mind your speed in the pattern. Too slow and it's a brick. We've lost a number on that turn to final. The -a models seem to have a tendency to bend the nose gear, so land on the mains, true for any trike. That's about it from my perspective with about 200+hrs. of RV time. I tend to regard the talk about how difficult they are to fly as urban legend or OWT's. I took 4 hours with Mike Seager and 3 with a seasoned RV pilot, and that was it. I was happily surprised that our -6a wasn't the handful as I was told to expect. (by non-RV pilots of course). So, Bob and others, take heart. They really are not the skitterish hot rod portrayed in some circles... My .05 as usual, Jerry Cochran Subject: RV-List: Re: Cirrus - OT From: "Bob Collins" --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me that low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend a LOT of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training. Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly this thing safely." -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/ ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:33 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins Bob Collins wrote: > However there's more to the "news media" than TV news and it's there I > disagree with the sweeping generalization. There are thousands of good > journalists out there who go to work every day to write a factual and > complete story. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail but almost > always they have a sense of duty to tell a story on behalf of the reader. I agree 100%. The news people that I know are all trying to do the best job they can with the resources they are given. I in no way intended to disparage any of these committed, hard working people. My point was that "news" is a business, and with very few exceptions, the goal is to make money, not to inform people. We should not rely exclusively on corporate news organizations for our information, or we won't be well informed. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:57:07 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT From: "go_lancair" --> RV-List message posted by: "go_lancair" I knew that kind of comment would draw the naysayers out from behind the trees. I would like to hear from the guy that posted the original question. By now he confused and bewildered, but I agree with the earlier statement of "whatever floats your boat", then just fly it. I am lucky engh to spend a lot of my time in the air and not talking about it on the ground. My principle goal is to take advantage of the newer composite technology enjoy the added speed and comfort it provides. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67762#67762 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 09:16:35 AM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: Re: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! I have to agree with Jerry. While certainly not recommended, I made my first flight in my RV-6A without any RV flight time. I attempted to check out in a Grumman but none readily available (without joining a club). So I got approx 20 hours in a Cherokee Warrior before the first flight. I had an oil temp issue which cause me to abort my planned flight of 5 trips around the pattern and decided to land after first circuit. The landing was a grease job (I'm told the tires didn't chirp - yes, I did have a "crash" crew stationed off each end of the runway) - amazing what concentration will do. In any case, as I taxied back in, I recall thinking - I didn't even have to think about flying the airplane, it was so honest and behaved to control movement as expected. Responsive but not twitchy at all. I recalled thinking that a Cessna 150 was much harder to get a good landing in and I have not changed my mind at 350 hours in the RV. As someone already mentioned, heavily loaded and on a high density altitude day, you can get an excessive rate of descent if you don't mind your airspeed on final - and it doesn't have the wing area to give you a nice flair if sinking fast and slow on airspeed. It did take a bit of time to get use of trying to slow it down for pattern entry {:>). You can kill yourself in any airframe (J3 cub included) if you get behind the airplane, don't know your aircraft's limitations and most importantly don't know your own limitations and get into a bad situation. Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry2DT@aol.com To: rv-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:04 AM Subject: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! Bob, With due respect, and I mean that, this brings up one of my pet peeves about the reputation that RV's seem to have. I don't know how many times I've heard how difficult they are to fly. I'd like to start a thread here and have folks weigh in on the subject. To me, it boils down to a few. They are very fast, so one must be even more vigilant to stay ahead of the plane, watch for traffic, but just like a Bonanza or 210 in this regard. On the short wing RV's it's imperative to mind your speed in the pattern. Too slow and it's a brick. We've lost a number on that turn to final. The -a models seem to have a tendency to bend the nose gear, so land on the mains, true for any trike. That's about it from my perspective with about 200+hrs. of RV time. I tend to regard the talk about how difficult they are to fly as urban legend or OWT's. I took 4 hours with Mike Seager and 3 with a seasoned RV pilot, and that was it. I was happily surprised that our -6a wasn't the handful as I was told to expect. (by non-RV pilots of course). So, Bob and others, take heart. They really are not the skitterish hot rod portrayed in some circles... My .05 as usual, Jerry Cochran Subject: RV-List: Re: Cirrus - OT From: "Bob Collins" --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me that low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend a LOT of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training. Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly this thing safely." -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/ ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:37:16 AM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! // So I got approx 20 hours in a Cherokee Warrior before the first flight. That reminds me of a question I was thinking about asking driving home the other night (before I got distracted by the Cirrus accident). When I transitioned from a high wing (172) to the low wing (Warrior), I had difficulty -- and still do sometimes -- judging the "ground effect" properly. in the Warrior. I've never seen this evaluated in RV discussions but can anyone who's flown in both compare the ground effect characteristics of the two raft? Bob Do not archive ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:49:50 AM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry Jerry: > I'd like to start a thread here and have folks weigh in on the subject. I'll take you up on that. I think the myth that RVs are difficult to fly is a little like the taildragger myth in that pilots who have little or no experience with both types fret about them while pilots who regularly fly them can't understand what the big deal is. But the RV myth differs in that, while a pilot new to taildraggers does have to learn a couple of new things to fly them, someone transitioning from, say, a C-172 to an RV doesn't have to learn anything new. It's possible that he'll have to be a bit more careful to do the things he should be doing in his Cessna (but might have got lax about). But he doesn't have to learn anything new. I suspect another factor leading to the RV myth is that so many private pilots have a background in a handful of airplanes that are designed to handle a certain way (C-150/172, Cherokee), and RVs handle differently. I checked out in a C-172 long after I started flying RVs, and I found it much more difficult to learn than the RV. So I suspect it's the CHANGE that people find difficult, not the airplane. But, as a result of demographics, that change is far more likely to be Cessna-to-RV than the other way around. Finally, there's the effect of manoeuvrability. Any vehicle that has quicker transient response and more sensitive controls is EASIER than a lower-performance vehicle once you've adjusted to it. But it's also HARDER to go up the performance chain than to stay where you are (or go down). --- Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 09:53:26 AM PST US From: Jerry Springer Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer go_lancair wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "go_lancair" > >I knew that kind of comment would draw the naysayers out from behind the trees. I would like to hear from the guy that posted the original question. By now he confused and bewildered, > I think you may be the one confused here!!! >but I agree with the earlier statement of "whatever floats your boat", then just fly it. I am lucky engh to spend a lot of my time in the air and not talking about it on the ground. My principle goal is to take advantage of the newer composite technology enjoy the added speed and comfort it provides. > > > As I said before if you want to go fast and look pretty, great build your Lancair. If you want to have fun build a RV. do not archive ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 09:55:20 AM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" > > My point was that "news" is a business, and with very few exceptions, > the goal is to make money, not to inform people. We should not rely > exclusively on corporate news organizations for our > information, or we > won't be well informed. > My defense notwithstanding, there is a factor in newsroom that I think is often at play. Arrogance. For example, in the case I was talking about, I actually had two editors and a reporter in a meeting with me yesterday after I raised concerns about this story (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/12/cirrusreacts/). At one point, I actually had three people who've never even been in a small plane... Let alone flown one, or even kept up to speed on aviation issues, lecturing me on piloting and matters of transition training etc. THAT is the dirty little secret -- that's not that much of a secret -- in the nation's newsrooms: the only perspetive from which knowledgd can be assessed is from the reporter and editor's knowledge. The public, or any other editor or reporter, be damned. There's pushback on this with the introduction of "public insight journalism" (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/publicinsightjournalism/), which guys like Jeff Jarvis and Dan Gilmore have championed, but it's doomed to failure until newsrooms are disinfected of this arrogance and I don't see that happening. At the same time, you've got guys like Phil Boyer who's style of leadership is a "circle the wagons" approach, creating an us vs. them mentality (I call this the "Don Cherry method of managing. He was an old Boston Bruins coach I liked). You've got the arrogance of newsrooms that does essentially the same thing. And then there's the folks in the middle who find the only thing they can do is choose one or the other, because there's no infrastruture in place (i.e. mindset) to get the two sides together. I often talk about the need for pilots to be educators, rather than mockers and it is usually met witih derision as folks choose what camp to get into. Of course it didn't help yesterday that Richard L. Collins apparently told one of our reporters that there was no correlation between pilots who quickly transition to a Cirrus being involved in an accident, and any othr pilot. I don't remember his past writings say that, but then when I wen thome last night, there was a new issue of Flying Magazine and Collins wrote, "One other note on accident reports. Our son, Richard, is also a student of aviation. He has been looking at the correlation between accidnts and the length of time the pilot has owned the airplane. Quite frequently, the airplane and the pilot have just gotten together." Of course, Collins has made no secret of his dislike for the media, so it's entirely possible that by suggesting one thing on Thurday to a reporter, and writing another thing to pilots on Friday, he was just blowing off the reporter. But on the one hand, you can't legitimately complain that the media doesn't know what it's doing, and then ignore the opportunities to help, or -- at worst -- deliberately tell them something that contradicts yourself. In many caes, the reporter is in a bind between people who say two things. And we know, for instance, that there is no conclusive proof to make a defnitive statement about, in this case, low time pilots flying Cirrus. There is only the anecdotal. So if you wished to write about the issue (and I probably will in the next RV Builder's Hotline), you might have Mac McLellan saying -- as he did -- that a Cirrus SR20 is a fine training aricraft (which it may well be), and Phil Greenspun who says, "Cirrus has marketed its airplanes to generic rich guys (i.e., nonpilots) with ads in generic rich guy magazines, a strategy that Beech, Cessna, and Piper pursued in the 1970s but gave up when airplanes went out of mass production and yuppies decided that flying themselves around was too dangerous. Cirrus's advertising stresses the enhanced safety provided by the airframe parachute and the computer screens showing the airplane's position relative to airports, mountains, weather, etc. The combination of novice pilots and a fast airplane has resulted in a mournful accident record that is reflected in high insurance rates and recurrent training requirements similar to what you'd find on a twin-engine plane or pressurized single." The problem journalists make is they think they have to choose one or the other, and then make the story about that conclusion. On stories like this, their REAL job is just to present the various and diverse arguments to you, and let it be your problem to decide. There are days I'd love to get out of the business. Thursday and Friday were the most recent two. If I only knew how to do something else. Bob Do not archive ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 10:07:45 AM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: RV-List: Landing Float was RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! MessageBob, here is my subjective viewpoint. If you are a bit high on airspeed when flaring, the RV will seem to float forever down the runway. However, if you are a bit low on airspeed, it will thump on the ground pretty quickly. So airspeed control is a bit more critical (in my opinion) to get that just-right landing in an RV. . I too had flown only high wing aircraft before my 20 hours in a Warrior prepping for my RV, so I understand what you are encountering. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Collins To: rv-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:36 PM Subject: RE: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! // So I got approx 20 hours in a Cherokee Warrior before the first flight. That reminds me of a question I was thinking about asking driving home the other night (before I got distracted by the Cirrus accident). When I transitioned from a high wing (172) to the low wing (Warrior), I had difficulty -- and still do sometimes -- judging the "ground effect" properly. in the Warrior. I've never seen this evaluated in RV discussions but can anyone who's flown in both compare the ground effect characteristics of the two raft? Bob Do not archive ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 12:17:30 PM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" Subject: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" I have listened to the news reports and am amazed how many times I heard that the "engineS were running" or the "propellerS" have been located & are being sent for further examination. There were not multiple engines or propellers but on the third day after the accident I again saw an info babe babbling on about something to which she has no knowledge or understanding. Passing on misinformation from a misinformed source. Do Not Archive these soapbox ravings. KABONG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Collins" Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists , ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 12:35:51 PM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" I heard the 'engines' thing too. But you know where it came from?. The NTSB briefer on Thursday night. I was watching it and I couldn't believe it when she said it. She also referred to finding two propellors. Presumably she meant to say propellor blades. The day the Joe Mauer won the batting title ahead of Derek Jeter (GEE tur), I heard the local blow-dry refer to him as Derek Jetter. So it's not just airplanes. (g) Do not archive. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:16 PM Subject: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" I have listened to the news reports and am amazed how many times I heard that the "engineS were running" or the "propellerS" have been located & are being sent for further examination. There were not multiple engines or propellers but on the third day after the accident I again saw an info babe babbling on about something to which she has no knowledge or understanding. Passing on misinformation from a misinformed source. Do Not Archive these soapbox ravings. KABONG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Collins" Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists , ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 01:09:30 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England JOHN STARN wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" > > I have listened to the news reports and am amazed how many times I > heard that the "engineS were running" or the "propellerS" have been > located & are being sent for further examination. There were not > multiple engines or propellers but on the third day after the accident > I again saw an info babe babbling on about something to which she has > no knowledge or understanding. Passing on misinformation from a > misinformed source. Do Not Archive these soapbox ravings. KABONG I saw the segment. If I heard the intro correctly, she was the spokesperson for the NTSB. She sounded like she was reading 'scene of the accident' boilerplate copy. Note that the rest of the statement was 'I will now take any of your questions.' Don't be surprised if the final report says something like, 'Cause of accident: Pilot failed to maintain control after the left aileron departed the a/c.' Charlie ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 01:19:07 PM PST US From: jrlewismail-rv@yahoo.com Subject: RV-List: RV-7 For Sale I am selling my RV-7 due to a divorce settlement. The specifics are listed below. I will gladly answer any questions anyone may have. I bought this kit new in Dec 2002 and have almost completed it. This is a Quick Build RV- 7 taildragger with a slider canopy. It includes ALL Van's kits parts (emp, fuse, wing, and finish) as well as much more. The cowl is for a standard 1 50-180 hp Lyc. I do not have an engine, accessories, or prop.=0A=0AInfo on my plane:=0ARV-7 w/ slider = QB complete with all kit parts=0ABuild Stat us: Ready for engine/prop (eng and prop not included) / panel / canopy ins tall=0AEquipment / Avionics: (Will permit IFR flight with 3 times redundan cy!)=0A- Fuel tank flop tubes for inverted flight=0A- Strobes=0A- 2 axis Au to-Pilot W/ Vertical Speed Hold & GPS Track (servos installed)=0A- Blue Mou ntain Avionics EFIS=0A- RMI Engine Monitor=0A- RMI Encoder w/independent co mpass system=0A- Dynon EFIS=0A- Dual Pitot static systems=0A- Landing light =0A- Taxi Light=0A- Electric Aileron and Elevator Trim=0A- Custom stick gri ps enable trim, auto-pilot, and nav control=0A- Electric Flaps=0A- EMI Fuel Monitor System=0A- Wingtip comm./nav antennas=0A- Sitting on a custom buil t 20 ft flatbed trailer=0A- Top aviation grade wiring installed=0A=0AI am a professional pilot (USAF) and was building this for myself. The build qua lity is EXCELLENT.=0AOver $60K invested (not including any build time). I will sell for $45K cash (no trades or notes). =0AInterested persons may co ntact me directly at the following email: jrlewismail-rv@yahoo.com ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 01:37:28 PM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" Yep. Just 'cause you have a title from the NTSB & look good on TV does not mean you know "Jack.....t" about airplanes and/or flying. Take a look at the "pilots" we've had as the head of the FAA for the past two decades. NADA. Do Not Archive. KABONG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Collins" > I heard the 'engines' thing too. But you know where it came from?. The > NTSB > briefer on Thursday night. I was watching it and I couldn't believe it > when > she said it. She also referred to finding two propellors. Presumably she > meant to say propellor blades. ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 02:28:56 PM PST US From: linn Walters Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: linn Walters bertrv6@highstream.net wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net > > >Hi: > >No to add more on this, but would like to hear other comments, as to >why two people make such mistake...Pilot error... > snip >But I digress,, why they didn't turn right or request climb.. > My thoughts exactly. It appears that there was no attempt to avoid the building (from what I'm hearing). I'm of the opinion they didn't know the building was there .... because they both had their heads in the cockpit fiddling with something, such as the GPS or something. This whole accident just doesn't make sense, but not many of them do. It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor, squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public outcry. >Cirrus can fly very well at 100 MPH no? > I'm not sure, but any airplane has a speed range and doesn't have to be flown at full throttle. WE can operate the airplane according to our skills. >It is a shames this things happen....but if the Big boys make mistakes... >with same consequences.. > >just my thoughts. > Good ones, too. Linn do not archive > >Bert > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 02:50:46 PM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" The URL I posted yesterday from the Cirrus driver/cfi showed a wind blowing from the East at a fairly good clip. And he says they made their turn downwind which would've made a turn in a 2,000 foot corridor more difficult -- he says. The NTSB says they lost 200 feet in the turn. Was that in recognition that the stall speed was increasing as the turn tightened? Tune in in about 2 years. Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:29 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: linn Walters bertrv6@highstream.net wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net > > >Hi: > >No to add more on this, but would like to hear other comments, as to >why two people make such mistake...Pilot error... > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 02:53:55 PM PST US From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee > It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of > regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor, > squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public outcry. My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to talk to ATC (Laguardia) beyond a certain point in that area. Hardly a big deal. Ron Lee ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 03:18:06 PM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" , 'Cause of accident: Pilot failed to maintain control after the left aileron > departed the a/c.' > > Charlie And the NTSB spokesperson will answer the reporters question. "What is a left aileron ?" "I think it's the control thingie that left". Do Not Archive KABONG ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 03:48:48 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question From: "Chuck Jensen" --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" We are often critical of the FAA for being a political organization that attempts to address technical issues. In this case, that may well be what they did...they acted like a political animal by throwing a bone to the public while technically doing next to nothing (that being the requirement to talk to ATC--not that big a deal). Given the hue and cry, perhaps the FAA did just enough to salve the angry hordes while minimizing the actual harm and restrictions to GA. Yes, yes, it's understood that it won't do anything to prevent future stupid pilot tricks (may they rest in peace), but the public doesn't know that, however, as long as they are satisfied, we're should be satisfied. Now, if da Mayor (Daly) and other political blowhards start trying to erect TFRs over all the major cities...then 'Houston, we have a problem.' Chuck Jensen Do Not Archive > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:53 PM > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question > > > --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee > > > > It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of > > regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor, > > squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result > of public outcry. > > My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to > talk to ATC > (Laguardia) beyond a certain > point in that area. Hardly a big deal. > > Ron Lee > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 03:49:19 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question From: "Jeffery J. Morgan" --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan" The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but rather the way it came to be. The whole thing is not a result of any reasonable cause. It is strictly because of the public outcry. This is exactly what we as pilots and aviation professionals need to stop. It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you look at the notams in effect over Disney properties for example and ask yourself what purpose/role they fill, what do you see? Clearly the limits of distance and height are not enough to stop anyone that is bent on breaking the rules, but enough to satisfy the public that something was done. Same applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up. In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control the advertising above their properties. Nothing else was accomplished by them, nor is there any justification for them. Technical violations will be plenty, but safety and reason are no where in the picture. So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then we are agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our freedoms one piece at a time for reasons that aren't justifiable. If there is a reason, beyond public outcry, and it will enhance safety, then I am willing to agree. However, when it is not based on something that is tangible or reasonable, then I have to not just go along, even if it isn't a big deal. I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to give up in the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights that for hundreds of years people have fought and died over, we are willing to slowly give up and agree it is okay to do that "in the name of security". Though the intent is to be benevolent in nature, it is ripe for abuse of power. I think that there have been specific things taking place that show how it can be taken away. It is simple enough to say that the government has the right to spy on terrorists, but not on us citizens. However we have seen that all comes down to a definition by someone other than us and what they decide goes. Remember the pilot insecurity rule? The TSA has the right to revoke your license, without disclosing why (under the guise of national security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to disclose what evidence they had, nor was there an appeal process. Again it was suggested that normal folks need not worry, but what if you ended up on the wrong side of that because of a misspelling, glitch in system, or common name, you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it when it was for terrorists, but never though it would apply to them. When it did, they had no recourse! As much as it is easy to say it doesn't apply to me, it will eventually. The idea that is it not a big deal is what will erode away the capacity we have as pilots. Once they do away with us, the public will turn on the next easy group. I would suggest that we need to not be so easy going about it, and fight and demand an reasonable explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world. Bob Collins is right on the money when he suggests that we educate folks about what it is we do. Now more than ever or my children will likely not be able to enjoy the world of aviation as we do today and less that of my grandparents... -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:53 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee > It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of > regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor, > squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public outcry. My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to talk to ATC (Laguardia) beyond a certain point in that area. Hardly a big deal. Ron Lee ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 04:19:59 PM PST US From: David Maib Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: David Maib Jeff, I will vote for you if you ever decide to run for office! ;-) David Maib do not archive On Oct 14, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Jeffery J. Morgan wrote: --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan" The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but rather the way it came to be. The whole thing is not a result of any reasonable cause. It is strictly because of the public outcry. This is exactly what we as pilots and aviation professionals need to stop. It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you look at the notams in effect over Disney properties for example and ask yourself what purpose/role they fill, what do you see? Clearly the limits of distance and height are not enough to stop anyone that is bent on breaking the rules, but enough to satisfy the public that something was done. Same applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up. In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control the advertising above their properties. Nothing else was accomplished by them, nor is there any justification for them. Technical violations will be plenty, but safety and reason are no where in the picture. So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then we are agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our freedoms one piece at a time for reasons that aren't justifiable. If there is a reason, beyond public outcry, and it will enhance safety, then I am willing to agree. However, when it is not based on something that is tangible or reasonable, then I have to not just go along, even if it isn't a big deal. I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to give up in the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights that for hundreds of years people have fought and died over, we are willing to slowly give up and agree it is okay to do that "in the name of security". Though the intent is to be benevolent in nature, it is ripe for abuse of power. I think that there have been specific things taking place that show how it can be taken away. It is simple enough to say that the government has the right to spy on terrorists, but not on us citizens. However we have seen that all comes down to a definition by someone other than us and what they decide goes. Remember the pilot insecurity rule? The TSA has the right to revoke your license, without disclosing why (under the guise of national security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to disclose what evidence they had, nor was there an appeal process. Again it was suggested that normal folks need not worry, but what if you ended up on the wrong side of that because of a misspelling, glitch in system, or common name, you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it when it was for terrorists, but never though it would apply to them. When it did, they had no recourse! As much as it is easy to say it doesn't apply to me, it will eventually. The idea that is it not a big deal is what will erode away the capacity we have as pilots. Once they do away with us, the public will turn on the next easy group. I would suggest that we need to not be so easy going about it, and fight and demand an reasonable explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world. Bob Collins is right on the money when he suggests that we educate folks about what it is we do. Now more than ever or my children will likely not be able to enjoy the world of aviation as we do today and less that of my grandparents... -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:53 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee > It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of > regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor, > squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public outcry. My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to talk to ATC (Laguardia) beyond a certain point in that area. Hardly a big deal. Ron Lee ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 04:36:44 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question From: "Chuck Jensen" --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" Jeffery, I share your concern about the erosion of rights, but what terrifies me is the concept of unfettered rights and freedom. What makes a society work is compromise, something that has been notably scarce in the political arena in the last 10-15 years. It is compromise that allows an overlaps of conflicting rights to be resolved. The push and shove of compromise allows stakeholders to each win a little but no one to lose everything. In the immediate instance, if I ever decide to fly the East River, which I doubt, I would rather have to contact ATC and be able to fly it then to be prohibited from doing so under all circumstances. The restriction may do little for safety, but it does much to salve the public outcry--is this too great a compromise to enter into to retain the right to fly the river? A purest would feel its too great a price, a realist would say it is the price to pay. Finally, lest we confuse rights with privilege, we should remind ourselves that flying is a privilege granted by the majority since it has been determined, when controlled by rules and regulations, to be of minimal harm to the commonweal. We live in a great country because (for the most part) most activities are permitted unless they are shown to be harmful and detrimental to individuals, groups or society as a whole. In many other countries, the starting point is everything is prohibited unless by birth or gun, one gains the power to do it. So, with good fortune and elections, may the exercise of our rights and privileges not be encumbered any more than absolutely necessary to not infringe on the peace and tranquility of others. Self-restraint in exercising our rights and privileges as well as education and lively support for the preservation of the same is our best defense against creeping rights, privilege and liberty erosion. Chuck Jensen Do Not Archive > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Jeffery J. Morgan > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:48 PM > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan" > --> > > The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but > rather the way it came to be. The whole thing is not a > result of any reasonable cause. It is strictly because of the > public outcry. This is exactly what we as pilots and > aviation professionals need to stop. > > It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you > look at the notams in effect over Disney properties for > example and ask yourself what purpose/role they fill, what do > you see? Clearly the limits of distance and height are not > enough to stop anyone that is bent on breaking the rules, but > enough to satisfy the public that something was done. Same > applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up. > > In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control > the advertising above their properties. Nothing else was > accomplished by them, nor is there any justification for > them. Technical violations will be plenty, but safety and > reason are no where in the picture. > > So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then > we are agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our > freedoms one piece at a time for reasons that aren't > justifiable. If there is a reason, beyond public outcry, and > it will enhance safety, then I am willing to agree. However, > when it is not based on something that is tangible or > reasonable, then I have to not just go along, even if it > isn't a big deal. > > I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to > give up in the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights > that for hundreds of years people have fought and died over, > we are willing to slowly give up and agree it is okay to do > that "in the name of security". Though the intent is to be > benevolent in nature, it is ripe for abuse of power. I think > that there have been specific things taking place that show > how it can be taken away. It is simple enough to say that > the government has the right to spy on terrorists, but not on > us citizens. However we have seen that all comes down to a > definition by someone other than us and what they decide goes. > > Remember the pilot insecurity rule? The TSA has the right to > revoke your license, without disclosing why (under the guise > of national > security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to > disclose what evidence they had, nor was there an appeal > process. Again it was suggested that normal folks need not > worry, but what if you ended up on the wrong side of that > because of a misspelling, glitch in system, or common name, > you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it when it was for > terrorists, but never though it would apply to them. When it > did, they had no recourse! As much as it is easy to say it > doesn't apply to me, it will eventually. The idea that is it > not a big deal is what will erode away the capacity we have > as pilots. Once they do away with us, the public will turn > on the next easy group. I would suggest that we need to not > be so easy going about it, and fight and demand an reasonable > explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the > scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world. > Bob Collins is right on the money when he suggests that we > educate folks about what it is we do. Now more than ever or > my children will likely not be able to enjoy the world of > aviation as we do today and less that of my grandparents... > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:53 PM > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question > > --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee > > > > It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of > > regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor, > > squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public > outcry. > > My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to > talk to ATC > (Laguardia) beyond a certain > point in that area. Hardly a big deal. > > Ron Lee > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 06:24:33 PM PST US From: Mark Grieve Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve Ever notice that news reports covering something you know a lot about always contain glaring errors? Could one conclude that ALL news reports contain errors as well? I noticed the plural engine and propeller business too. Last I knew Cirrus wasn't making a twin. Also, they the data and cockpit voice recorder were not installed on this plane. mg JOHN STARN wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" > > I have listened to the news reports and am amazed how many times I heard > that the "engineS were running" or the "propellerS" have been located & > are being sent for further examination. There were not multiple engines > or propellers but on the third day after the accident I again saw an > info babe babbling on about something to which she has no knowledge or > understanding. Passing on misinformation from a misinformed source. Do > Not Archive these soapbox ravings. KABONG > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Collins" > To: > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:54 AM > Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists > > > , > > > > > -- ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:09 PM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" Having been Det. Sgt. for Fontana PD & it's "spokesman" I can tell you very little of what I told the news media EVER can out the same way it went in. Call it "journalistic license", embellishment, outright fabrications or bald-faced lies if it spices up their story it gets included. During a homicide investigation, "NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW" was the best way handle the press. Side bar...Mark are you related to the late GREAT Floyd Grieve ?, FBO, CFI out of Flabob. ? ? KABONG Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Grieve" Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:23 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists > --> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve > > Ever notice that news reports covering something you know a lot about > always contain glaring errors? Could one conclude that ALL news reports > contain errors as well? ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:28 PM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" Ouch. Where's the list to post allegations about dirty cops? Generalizations -- like the one I just made -- are usually inaccurate; an irony in a thread that's about the need for accuracy. Perhaps we should keep the door open, just a crack, that while we criticize news people who don't know about aviation... There are also aviators who don't really know that much about the news business. BTW, I looked up the pedigree of the NTSB "spokeswoman" we were talking about earlier. It turns out she wasn't a spokeswoman, she's a board member. She doesn't have a pilots license and specializes in child safety restraints, or something like that. Has a Class 2 bus and truck license and took a class to learn how to drive a motorcycle. The last NTSB board member with an engineering or aviation background quit in 2005. Stupidly -- but predictably -- the board of 5 has to be split according to political party. So there's 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Deborah Hersman is the Democrat. The law that created NTSB says, "At least three members shall be appointed on the basis of technical qualification, professional standing, and demonstrated knowledge in accident reconstruction, safety engineering, human factors, transportation safety, or transportation regulation." So why aren't there any? Because the current president, and the pols that pull the strings -- both Dems and Republicans -- didn't feel like adhering to the statute. Oh, and I tracked down a couple of complaints against journalists in the way the story was reported the other night. Oddly enough, one of the people criticized -- the CNN dude -- is a pilot... And owner of a Cirrus S20. I don't know what to make of that. Anyway, the circle-the-wagons mentality is going to kill general aviation. As long as one thinks of the other as the enemy. All of these problems are opportunities. If people own a plane, and haven't called someone at the local rag and offered to take 'em up for a ride and explain how GA works, those folks are part of the problem, AND part of the solution. Every time there's a crash, the results are predictable. The media screws it up, the bulletin boards are rife with "journalists are stupid morons" messages, and nothing changes. GA airports are still closing, and airspace is getting more restricted. One of these days, we aviators have got to recognize our responsibility to change the tone and change the results. Otherwise, see you back here after the next crash. Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:49 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" Having been Det. Sgt. for Fontana PD & it's "spokesman" I can tell you very little of what I told the news media EVER can out the same way it went in. Call it "journalistic license", embellishment, outright fabrications or bald-faced lies if it spices up their story it gets included. During a homicide investigation, "NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW" was the best way handle the press. Side bar...Mark are you related to the late GREAT Floyd Grieve ?, FBO, CFI out of Flabob. ? ? KABONG Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 09:18:20 PM PST US From: Dave Nellis Subject: RE: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Nellis Bob, I I did my PPL training in a Cherokee 140, 2-180s, and an Archer II. Shortly after receiving my PPL, I joined a flying club with 5 Cessnas. The difference between the two makes is substantial. First of all, Piper and Cessna each use a different airfoils. Piper is more of a symmetrical airfoil where Cessna uses a more flat bottom airfoil. The biggest difference I noticed is that when removing power in the Pipers, the nose would begin to fall off immediately and would occilate to a stable flightpath within two cycles of occilation. When the nose would fall the aircraft would gain very little speed before stabilizing. The Cessnas, on the other hand would occilate five or six times before stabilizing. When power is pulled back, the nose would fall off with a slight delay and then would fall off well beyond what you would expect. This would cause a large increase in airspeed and then the occilations. The occilations could be avoided by adding a little back pressure to the stick and then slowly removing the the back pressure allowing the aircraft to stabilize. Once stabilized, the Cessnas would ride like on rails, just like the Pipers. Second, on landing and flair, the Pipers were not as forgiving as the Cessnas should you be a bit high on flair. I thought I was going to punch the mains through the wings once with my instructor on board. Quite embarassing. The stall is quick due to the airfoil shape. Flairs are done almost touching the runway. As for ground effect, the symmetrical airfoil does ride ground effect but not as long as the Cessnas. Careful application of back pressure will raise the nose nicely and the aircraft will settle with just a little chirp of the mains. I made one landing in training so slick, I was waiting for the mains to chirp and the nose wheel settled onto the runway. I was down and did not know it. One of the few attaboys I ever got from that instructor. Flairs and landings in the Cessnas are little different in my experience. The flat(ter) bottom airfoil will still generate lift at higher angles of attack. Hence, a higher flair angle is not needed and if applied will balloon you up more so than the Pipers. That is not to say you should three point a Cessna trike gear or that a Piper will not balloon, on the contrary. The Cessnas seem to generate a lot of ground effect. I have landed a 172 holding it off the runway about one foot with full flaps and have touched down with the airspeed indicator not able to read the airspeed. Not easy to do. My instructor told me to practice this occassionally. If you have a blown tire, this would be the way to bring it in safely and touching down with minimum speed. I never thought about having to make a landing like that, but I know how to do it. My home field is in the middle of a commercial area of town so losing an engine on final is not an option one would want to encounter. I fly final at 80 knots till over the fence and then pull power. Ride the ground effect and touch down. If all goes well, I can leisurely pull off the runway in about 2000 feet with minimum braking only because there are very few taxiways available. Better to go further than heat up the brakes. I hope this gives some insight into the diffences regarding ground effect. By the way, I needed about 5 hours transition time into the Cessnas because of the different traits involved in landing. Humbling to say the least but an education worth having. Fly safe, Dave Nellis --- Bob Collins wrote: > // So I got approx 20 hours in a Cherokee Warrior > before the first flight. > > > That reminds me of a question I was thinking about > asking driving home the > other night (before I got distracted by the Cirrus > accident). When I > transitioned from a high wing (172) to the low wing > (Warrior), I had > difficulty -- and still do sometimes -- judging the > "ground effect" > properly. in the Warrior. I've never seen this > evaluated in RV discussions > but can anyone who's flown in both compare the > ground effect characteristics > of the two raft? > > Bob > > Do not archive > __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 10:18:48 PM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" Do Not Archive. > Ouch. Where's the list to post allegations about dirty cops? .< 'round these here parts it's called the Daily (de)Press(ed) & the Los Angeles Times. > BTW, I looked up the pedigree of the NTSB "spokeswoman" we were talking > about earlier. It turns out she wasn't a spokeswoman, she's a board > member. > She doesn't have a pilots license and specializes in child safety > restraints, or something like that. Has a Class 2 bus and truck license > and took a class to learn how to drive a motorcycle. > > The law that created NTSB says, "At least > three members shall be appointed on the basis of technical qualification, > professional standing, and demonstrated knowledge in accident > reconstruction, safety engineering, human factors, transportation safety, > or transportation regulation." Dang I knew there was a job out there alook'en fer me. BA in Criminal Justice, 11 POST (Peace Officers Standards & Training) certificates, help build an HRII, EAA tech counselor, flying since 1963, investigated too many TC's to count, been "riding" motorcycles since 1959 (dirt & touring) had a class 3 driver license for 15 years. 20 years as a licensed contractor and hold a teaching certificate and boy am I opinionated. ALL IN JEST GUYS.......but all the above is true too. KABONG (GBA & GWB) ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:13 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question From: "Jeffery J. Morgan" --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan" Chuck, While I agree with the idea of compromise, and don't want to sound against it, I have to ask, where was the compromise in what Daley asks for in Chicago, Walt got for Disney, and many others like them? If there was a discussion and consensus, which I stated earlier, and the decision was that it was for the good of all, I am okay with it. However, too often, there is a closed door discussion and decision that has no consensus. ADIZ is the largest in my mind. Can you factor that into your argument? What was the consensus there? I truly would like to understand, and have tried, but reason and logic have escaped those places, which is too often becoming the norm. I don't try to come off as a one sided person, and am truly open, as I tried to express by stating if it was good for the common good, I can understand the sacrifice. After all, that is what we ask the military to do. However if there is no reasonable explanation, how can you agree to say it is better than nothing? If the folks ahead of me did that, we wouldn't be flying, driving, learning, etc... Where do you draw the acceptable line? Jeff -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:37 PM Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" Jeffery, I share your concern about the erosion of rights, but what terrifies me is the concept of unfettered rights and freedom. What makes a society work is compromise, something that has been notably scarce in the political arena in the last 10-15 years. It is compromise that allows an overlaps of conflicting rights to be resolved. The push and shove of compromise allows stakeholders to each win a little but no one to lose everything. In the immediate instance, if I ever decide to fly the East River, which I doubt, I would rather have to contact ATC and be able to fly it then to be prohibited from doing so under all circumstances. The restriction may do little for safety, but it does much to salve the public outcry--is this too great a compromise to enter into to retain the right to fly the river? A purest would feel its too great a price, a realist would say it is the price to pay. Finally, lest we confuse rights with privilege, we should remind ourselves that flying is a privilege granted by the majority since it has been determined, when controlled by rules and regulations, to be of minimal harm to the commonweal. We live in a great country because (for the most part) most activities are permitted unless they are shown to be harmful and detrimental to individuals, groups or society as a whole. In many other countries, the starting point is everything is prohibited unless by birth or gun, one gains the power to do it. So, with good fortune and elections, may the exercise of our rights and privileges not be encumbered any more than absolutely necessary to not infringe on the peace and tranquility of others. Self-restraint in exercising our rights and privileges as well as education and lively support for the preservation of the same is our best defense against creeping rights, privilege and liberty erosion. Chuck Jensen Do Not Archive > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffery J. > Morgan > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:48 PM > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan" > --> > > The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but rather > the way it came to be. The whole thing is not a result of any > reasonable cause. It is strictly because of the public outcry. This > is exactly what we as pilots and aviation professionals need to stop. > > It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you look at the > notams in effect over Disney properties for example and ask yourself > what purpose/role they fill, what do you see? Clearly the limits of > distance and height are not enough to stop anyone that is bent on > breaking the rules, but enough to satisfy the public that something > was done. Same applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up. > > In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control the > advertising above their properties. Nothing else was accomplished by > them, nor is there any justification for them. Technical violations > will be plenty, but safety and reason are no where in the picture. > > So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then we are > agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our freedoms one > piece at a time for reasons that aren't justifiable. If there is a > reason, beyond public outcry, and it will enhance safety, then I am > willing to agree. However, when it is not based on something that is > tangible or reasonable, then I have to not just go along, even if it > isn't a big deal. > > I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to give up > in the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights that for > hundreds of years people have fought and died over, we are willing to > slowly give up and agree it is okay to do that "in the name of > security". Though the intent is to be benevolent in nature, it is ripe > for abuse of power. I think that there have been specific things > taking place that show how it can be taken away. It is simple enough > to say that the government has the right to spy on terrorists, but not > on us citizens. However we have seen that all comes down to a > definition by someone other than us and what they decide goes. > > Remember the pilot insecurity rule? The TSA has the right to revoke > your license, without disclosing why (under the guise of national > security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to disclose > what evidence they had, nor was there an appeal process. Again it was > suggested that normal folks need not worry, but what if you ended up > on the wrong side of that because of a misspelling, glitch in system, > or common name, you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it when it was > for terrorists, but never though it would apply to them. When it did, > they had no recourse! As much as it is easy to say it doesn't apply > to me, it will eventually. The idea that is it not a big deal is what > will erode away the capacity we have as pilots. Once they do away > with us, the public will turn on the next easy group. I would suggest > that we need to not be so easy going about it, and fight and demand an > reasonable explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the > scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world. > Bob Collins is right on the money when he suggests that we educate > folks about what it is we do. Now more than ever or my children will > likely not be able to enjoy the world of aviation as we do today and > less that of my grandparents... > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:53 PM > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question > > --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee > > > > It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of > > regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor, > > squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public > outcry. > > My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to talk to > ATC > (Laguardia) beyond a certain > point in that area. Hardly a big deal. > > Ron Lee > > > > > > > > > > >