Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:43 AM - Re: Lower cowling slot (Deems Davis)
2. 11:06 AM - Re: Blank Messages (was: iPad Mount update) (Deems Davis)
3. 12:09 PM - Re: Blank Messages (was: iPad Mount update) (Linn Walters)
4. 01:34 PM - Re: California coast via RV10? (Bob Turner)
5. 01:38 PM - Re: performance (pitch trim) (Bob Turner)
6. 03:05 PM - Re: Re: California coast via RV10? (Dave Saylor)
7. 07:09 PM - Re: WD1002 and F1001B alignment (Andy Turner)
8. 08:38 PM - Re: performance (pitch trim) (rv10flyer)
9. 08:43 PM - Re: WD1002 and F1001B alignment (rv10flyer)
10. 09:13 PM - Re: Re: California coast via RV10? (Tim Olson)
11. 09:25 PM - Re: California coast via RV10? (Bob Turner)
12. 09:39 PM - Wisconsin ADS-B Rollout (Tim Olson)
13. 10:21 PM - Re: Re: California coast via RV10? (Dave Saylor)
14. 10:40 PM - Re: Re: California coast via RV10? (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: Lower cowling slot |
Albert,
THANKS for this idea, I'm in the process of fabricating something
identical, only out of fiberglass.
How much of an improvement do you feel you got? CHT? Oil Temp?
Did you see any reduction in TAS?
THANKS
Deems
(Hope to see you @ Copperstate!)
On 9/15/2010 3:20 AM, Albert Gardner wrote:
> I fought high oil temps and installed a second oil cooler on the right side.
> Final part of the solution was cowl flaps as these pics show. Before I put
> the non-adjustable flaps in I had louvers in those locations but they didn't
> do enough. Still have to be careful of extended ground operation in 100+
> days though.
> Albert Gardner
> N991RV
> Yuma, AZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Dunne
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:31 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Lower cowling slot
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Dunne"<acs@acspropeller.com.au>
>
> I extended the slot forward to enable easier removal of the 3 blade prop as
> others have done. I haven't made a cover for this area but it doesn't seem
> to have made any real difference to the oil temps in any case.
> My oil temps now average 206 deg F at 5000' OAT 50F
> Initial running was around 215-216 deg F
> I was told everything will eventually stabilise and don't be too concerned
> about the high oil temps, but I'm not real comfortable with the temps
> creeping up there.
> A suggestion was put to me to install small ramp style wedges in front of
> the stock louvers in order to drag the hot air out and away from the lower
> cowl. Anybody had any experience with this?
>
> John 40315
> Phase 1 Fly off
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Strasnuts
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 September 2010 3:50 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Lower cowling slot
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Strasnuts"<sean@braunandco.com>
>
> I would like to make a removable plate on the lower cowling to make it
> easier to put on and take off. I was wondering if it's worth it for those
> of you who have done it and if I should close the gap to the front gear leg
> or leave the same amount of space for cooling. Was this space used for the
> equation for cooling? Any pics out there for reference?
>
> Thanks
>
> --------
> Cust. #40936
> RV-10 SB Fuselage
> N801VR reserved
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312297#312297
>
>
> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
> Database version: 6.15860
> http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
>
>
> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
> Database version: 6.15870
> http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
>
>
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: Blank Messages (was: iPad Mount update) |
Sorry for all of the white space, and Thanks Tim for parsing the
message and re-posting. I use T'bird on a pc and also occasionaly find
emails from matronics lists with empty text. I changed my send options
from (Auto Detect) to plain text, we'll see if that helps.
Deems
On 9/24/2010 8:45 AM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>
> I noticed something similar that started just recently with the
> Matronics lists. Not sure if Matt changed anything recently, but...
>
> I use Thunderbird (on a Mac) and had to set my account to always use
> plain text when sending emails to the matronics.com domain or they
> would just show up as blank. I never had to do this until about a
> month ago. Maybe Matt could chime in with any suggestions.
>
> -Sean
>
> On 9/24/10 10:21 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> He's got something funky with his email program. I am
>> trying to pull it apart now and see if there is an attachment
>> to view. But here is the text I extracted. I noticed the message
>> had size, but just wasn't displaying....
>> Tim
>>
>
>
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: Blank Messages (was: iPad Mount update) |
Tbird used to have an option of 'HTML and text' but it now seems like
we have to make a choice. Bummer.
Linn
On 9/25/2010 1:29 PM, Deems Davis wrote:
>
> Sorry for all of the white space, and Thanks Tim for parsing the
> message and re-posting. I use T'bird on a pc and also occasionaly find
> emails from matronics lists with empty text. I changed my send options
> from (Auto Detect) to plain text, we'll see if that helps.
>
> Deems
>
> On 9/24/2010 8:45 AM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>>
>> I noticed something similar that started just recently with the
>> Matronics lists. Not sure if Matt changed anything recently, but...
>>
>> I use Thunderbird (on a Mac) and had to set my account to always use
>> plain text when sending emails to the matronics.com domain or they
>> would just show up as blank. I never had to do this until about a
>> month ago. Maybe Matt could chime in with any suggestions.
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>> On 9/24/10 10:21 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>> He's got something funky with his email program. I am
>>> trying to pull it apart now and see if there is an attachment
>>> to view. But here is the text I extracted. I noticed the message
>>> had size, but just wasn't displaying....
>>> Tim
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: California coast via RV10? |
Going north to south:
The northern california coast is quite beautiful. Arcata has an ILS if the stratus
has moved in.
Shelter cove is quaint but not too much else there. vfr only
Mendocino (Little River Airport) is a popular tourist spot (many TV series and
movies have been filmed there) but last time I looked the ground transportation
was a problem, I'd check that out first. The airport is just far enough inland
that it often escapes the coastal stratus.
Santa Rosa is 20 nm inland, has an ILS, is a good alternate.
You're asked to fly at least 2000' over Pt Reyes National Seashore.
If you happen to be near SFO at lunch, I can recommend Half Moon Bay (KHAF). There
is a diner at the tie-down/fuel area, but instead taxi all the way to the
southern end of the field. There are some tie downs there. Take the path south
a couple hundred yards to Princeton by the Sea. There are numerous casual restaurants
there, with fresh sea food.
KHAF is often under the stratus but now has a good LPV gps approach. The east bay
airports like Livermore (KLVK) are almost always vfr this time of year; good
alternates.
The coastal area around SFO is easily navigated, just one small area north of KHAF
where you either (1) deal with atc, or (2) fly low and just a bit off shore.
Monterey has a restaurant on the field; also a tie down fee of $20 or so.
The Big Sur coast south of Monterey is again quite beautiful. As others have said,
an engine failure means ditching, although very close to shore.
I'd consider going direct Catalina from Oxnard or so. This is a bit of overwater
flying, but stays outside the LAX class B. There's nothing to see along the
LAX shoreline, IMHO
As others have said, Catalina airport is quite a ways from the town of
Avalon. It is an "aircraft carrier", with steep drop offs at either end. But it
should be no trouble for a -10.
Continuing south Palomar is a good airport, although lately it seems more jet oriented.
I like Montgomery Field (KMYF) as GA friendly in San Diego.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=313718#313718
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: performance (pitch trim) |
I've put pullable CB's for the trim and autopilot right next to each other, just
right of center in front of the pilot, easily reached by the right hand. I'll
put a red box around them. My plan is that if the pitch goes nuts, I'll pull
both breakers, then sort out the problem.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=313720#313720
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: | Re: California coast via RV10? |
> You're asked to fly at least 2000' over Pt Reyes National Seashore.<
Last month during my BFR, I learned a couple things about a few areas
that more-or-less coincide with some ambiguous markings on the SF
sectional.
One of the good things that came out of this exercise was that I
learned about a publication that I think is pretty cool. I never
realized that there was a (nearly) complete legend for all the
markings on WAC, sectional, and terminal charts:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/aero_guide
I say "nearly" because I still can't figure out what the single blue
dots without a corresponding blue line are supposed to mean. An
example is along the coast adjacent to KWVI.
One well marked and defined area is a sea otter preserve, and as Bob
mentioned, the sectional "requests" that you stay above 2000' AGL. I
kind of stumbled upon another federal regulation, not an FAR, that
strictly prohibits flights in that area, and couple other areas as
well, below 1000'. The regulation is
CFR 15 922.132 (a) (6)
(of course FARs are in CFR 14).
Here's a map of the "restricted overflight zones" per CFR 15 922.132 (a) (6):
http://montereybay.noaa.gov/research/techreports/marinezones/fig4.html
Now I wouldn't normally fly below 1000' AGL without a good reason,
probably not with my family on board, over populated areas, etc. I
guess what bothers me about this reg is that 1) it's in my own
backyard and I didn't know about it until last month; 2) it's not
marked or noted on the sectional; 3) it's not an FAR, though it is a
federal regulation; and 4) how many other areas like this are out
there and where are they defined?
I guess this falls under the concept that we're all pretty much
breaking some law, somewhere, all the time. And, hitting a pelican
probably has consequences beyond the obvious...
Now back to RVs.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
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: WD1002 and F1001B alignment |
Bringing this old thread back to life in order to document my saga and solution.
First time around drilling the firewall brackets, I ended up with insufficient
edge distance on the upper flange of the upper (wd-1002) bracket - actually
no edge distance. I removed the upper firewall brackets in order to replace
them, but had a hard time figuring out what what went wrong. The base of wd-1002
sits on the firewall, partially on top of the base of f-1001b, so these two
parts are tied tightly together. The flange of the wd-1002 isn't close to parallel
to the f-1001b (see photo, orange tape added for contrast), and since they
are rivited together at their bases, there isn't much scope for applying pressure
to bring them in line without exerting substantial preloading to the firewall
rivets.
Scott Risan was good enough to send me new brackets, so today I clecoed up the
right side one, and it looked nice. Edge parallel to the F-1001B. I smiled and
clecoed up the left side, only to find that it was quite non-parallel, and there
would be no way to get good edge distance. Quit smiling. Eventually discovered,
as I was playing with them on the table top, that the base of the W-1002L
was ever so slightly rockered across the horizontal axis. Because all the rivet
holes across the top are on one side of the rocker, it pitches the flange
arm inboard. I threw the bracket into a vice and bent the base just a bit, then
did a little filing of that thick powdercoat, till the base (forward side of
the weldment) sat flat on the table. Re-clecoed it, and it looks good enough.
The high spot on the forward face of the base that caused the rocker is associated
with the welding on the aft side.
So, this problem is solved. I should also note though that even though the W-1002
bracket arms are parallel with the F-1001B, they sit 1/16 inboard of the outer
edge of the F-1001B. The prepunched rivet holes in the F-1001B that serve
as the drilling template are right at 2 edge diameters, so edge space is really
at a premium here. I think the bracket could be welded up so the arms sit a
bit further outboard - the U channel can handle another 1/8 inch or so.
--------
Andy Turner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=313736#313736
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/problem_464.jpg
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: performance (pitch trim) |
Bob,
That was originally the way I was going to do it, but as fast as things could happen
I thought I might be safer going this route. As long as we do something
that is the main thing. Those are some huge trim tabs.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Grayson, KY Bldr# 40983
Ord complete kit 8/24/09; DB Sch del 11/20/09
Emp 12/01/09-3/14/10 332 hrs
Wings 3/14/10-9/18/10 360 hrs
Fuselage 9/21/10-
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=313745#313745
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: WD1002 and F1001B alignment |
Thanks for the info guys. I will be doing this in a few days.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Grayson, KY Bldr# 40983
Ord complete kit 8/24/09; DB Sch del 11/20/09
Emp 12/01/09-3/14/10 332 hrs
Wings 3/14/10-9/18/10 360 hrs
Fuselage 9/21/10-
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=313746#313746
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: California coast via RV10? |
Dave,
Those blue dots actually do have a line, it's just shown along
the shoreline. It has the appearance of a depth curve on an
ocean navigation chart, but it's the line (and they do break it
from time to time to keep other things on the chart readable)
that marks the wildlife area. I think that means you need
to stay 2000' AGL in those areas along the coast. We have
many such areas in the Northern Minnesota and Northern
Wisconsin areas around national/state park areas.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
On 9/25/2010 5:02 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Dave Saylor<dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com>
>
>> You're asked to fly at least 2000' over Pt Reyes National Seashore.<
>
> Last month during my BFR, I learned a couple things about a few areas
> that more-or-less coincide with some ambiguous markings on the SF
> sectional.
>
> One of the good things that came out of this exercise was that I
> learned about a publication that I think is pretty cool. I never
> realized that there was a (nearly) complete legend for all the
> markings on WAC, sectional, and terminal charts:
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/aero_guide
>
> I say "nearly" because I still can't figure out what the single blue
> dots without a corresponding blue line are supposed to mean. An
> example is along the coast adjacent to KWVI.
>
> One well marked and defined area is a sea otter preserve, and as Bob
> mentioned, the sectional "requests" that you stay above 2000' AGL. I
> kind of stumbled upon another federal regulation, not an FAR, that
> strictly prohibits flights in that area, and couple other areas as
> well, below 1000'. The regulation is
>
> CFR 15 922.132 (a) (6)
>
> (of course FARs are in CFR 14).
>
> Here's a map of the "restricted overflight zones" per CFR 15 922.132 (a) (6):
>
> http://montereybay.noaa.gov/research/techreports/marinezones/fig4.html
>
> Now I wouldn't normally fly below 1000' AGL without a good reason,
> probably not with my family on board, over populated areas, etc. I
> guess what bothers me about this reg is that 1) it's in my own
> backyard and I didn't know about it until last month; 2) it's not
> marked or noted on the sectional; 3) it's not an FAR, though it is a
> federal regulation; and 4) how many other areas like this are out
> there and where are they defined?
>
> I guess this falls under the concept that we're all pretty much
> breaking some law, somewhere, all the time. And, hitting a pelican
> probably has consequences beyond the obvious...
>
> Now back to RVs.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA 95076
> 831-722-9141 Shop
> 831-750-0284 Cell
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: California coast via RV10? |
Dave,
If you hold the chart at arms length, to get the big picture, and also look out
to sea, I think you'll see the 'dots' outline the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary.
The solid line doubles over the coast line, so you can't see it.
Now, why they put marine sanctuaries on aeronautical charts, I haven't a clue.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=313750#313750
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: | Wisconsin ADS-B Rollout |
I had an interesting day flying today!
I took a flight 92nm to drop off the kids, and while I was doing it,
I was beta testing a cool new feature that NavWorx added just
in the last couple days. More on that when I can.
But anyway, my wife flew on the return leg, so I fired up the laptop and
did some data logging of the stations I was receiving, up here in
central/western Wisconsin, now that ADS-B covers us. Turns out the
coverage is quite nice!! I was picking up traffic in the "middle of
nowhere", and when I logged the ground stations, NavWorx has some cool
debug logging that gives you the Lat/Long position of the GBT, so that
you know how far you're receiving it from. You will be able to see
from these log lines that the stations weren't too close, yet I was
attached throughout the flight to 5 different GBT's on just that one
92nm flight! Note that these 5 log lines were just clipped from random
places, just to identify the individual unique stations. In reality,
these 5 stations aren't the listed distance from ONE position, but from
various positions on my trip. Anyway, I was surprised to see I could
receive that many GBT's in our area, since it was just rolled out!
LAT:45.822300 LNG:-89.334595 TID:1 GD:75.166351 MD:75.166351 PV:0
ADV:1 UTC:1 SLOTID:23
LAT:43.422195 LNG:-88.892517 TID:1 GD:102.900658 MD:102.900658 PV:0
ADV:1 UTC:1 SLOTID:1
LAT:46.100693 LNG:-88.540314 TID:1 GD:112.543198 MD:112.543198 PV:0
ADV:1 UTC:1 SLOTID:26
LAT:44.914707 LNG:-92.946503 TID:1 GD:89.365959 MD:90.793045 PV:0
ADV:1 UTC:1 SLOTID:26
LAT:44.847992 LNG:-93.579285 TID:1 GD:96.877029 MD:98.547401 PV:0
ADV:1 UTC:1 SLOTID:9
So from the looks of it, when they say the coverage will be better
than radar coverage service areas, I think that's going to prove
to be true. I know I now get ADS-B right above my own airport,
at pretty low altitudes, so we're finally entering into the days
where the rollout is far enough along that traffic display will
be MUCH improved over what I had with my GTX330. In fact, this
week I decided now to disable the "Composite TIS" function that
they had, because I now probably won't need Mode S traffic passed
through to the EFIS anymore, as it would just be duplicate targets
from all the ADS-B targets there are.
Cool stuff. Definitely is a very welcome addition to the capabilities
that we all can have.
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: California coast via RV10? |
Right, but in some places, like Point Lobos, the blue line is obvious.
Just north of there the marking changes to just blue dots, no line.
You may be right, maybe the blue line is just overlaid on the coast
but it looks different in some places.
Do you think that since Point Lobos is a "different" reserve within
the larger area that they gave it a separate boundary?
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> If you hold the chart at arms length, to get the big picture, and also look out
to sea, I think you'll see the 'dots' outline the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary.
The solid line doubles over the coast line, so you can't see it.
> Now, why they put marine sanctuaries on aeronautical charts, I haven't a clue.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=313750#313750
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: California coast via RV10? |
That must be right, that the blue line is just omitted in that
particular area. Some places it's shown and some places it isn't.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> Those blue dots actually do have a line, it's just shown along
> the shoreline. It has the appearance of a depth curve on an
> ocean navigation chart, but it's the line (and they do break it
> from time to time to keep other things on the chart readable)
> that marks the wildlife area. I think that means you need
> to stay 2000' AGL in those areas along the coast. We have
> many such areas in the Northern Minnesota and Northern
> Wisconsin areas around national/state park areas.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> On 9/25/2010 5:02 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
>>
>> Saylor<dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com>
>>
>>> You're asked to fly at least 2000' over Pt Reyes National Seashore.<
>>
>> Last month during my BFR, I learned a couple things about a few areas
>> that more-or-less coincide with some ambiguous markings on the SF
>> sectional.
>>
>> One of the good things that came out of this exercise was that I
>> learned about a publication that I think is pretty cool. I never
>> realized that there was a (nearly) complete legend for all the
>> markings on WAC, sectional, and terminal charts:
>>
>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/aero_guide
>>
>> I say "nearly" because I still can't figure out what the single blue
>> dots without a corresponding blue line are supposed to mean. An
>> example is along the coast adjacent to KWVI.
>>
>> One well marked and defined area is a sea otter preserve, and as Bob
>> mentioned, the sectional "requests" that you stay above 2000' AGL. I
>> kind of stumbled upon another federal regulation, not an FAR, that
>> strictly prohibits flights in that area, and couple other areas as
>> well, below 1000'. The regulation is
>>
>> CFR 15 922.132 (a) (6)
>>
>> (of course FARs are in CFR 14).
>>
>> Here's a map of the "restricted overflight zones" per CFR 15 922.132 (a)
>> (6):
>>
>> http://montereybay.noaa.gov/research/techreports/marinezones/fig4.html
>>
>> Now I wouldn't normally fly below 1000' AGL without a good reason,
>> probably not with my family on board, over populated areas, etc. I
>> guess what bothers me about this reg is that 1) it's in my own
>> backyard and I didn't know about it until last month; 2) it's not
>> marked or noted on the sectional; 3) it's not an FAR, though it is a
>> federal regulation; and 4) how many other areas like this are out
>> there and where are they defined?
>>
>> I guess this falls under the concept that we're all pretty much
>> breaking some law, somewhere, all the time. And, hitting a pelican
>> probably has consequences beyond the obvious...
>>
>> Now back to RVs.
>>
>> Dave Saylor
>> AirCrafters
>> 140 Aviation Way
>> Watsonville, CA 95076
>> 831-722-9141 Shop
>> 831-750-0284 Cell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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! --
|