Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:37 AM - Re: Phase II Flight restrictions (Brian Lloyd)
2. 03:49 AM - Re: Phase II Flight restrictions (Gus Fraser)
3. 03:58 AM - Re: Exact wording of Flight restrictions (Gus Fraser)
4. 01:26 PM - Preheat Pad Cord (Petri, David S. CDR NAVSPACE)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Phase II Flight restrictions |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
At 02:24 AM 12/13/2002, you wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
>
>Ewww!! 300 miles with no alternates... the worst of both worlds!
>
>Does somebody have an explanation for this??
It is also the wrong paragraph for the class of aircraft.
>I mean... are we (you know, us wild and wooly warbird folk) some kind of
>danger to the public? An annoyance to the FAA?
Yes to both.
>Why do we keep getting put in smaller and smaller boxes?
Because they can get away with it. They invoke the magic word "safety" and
they can do anything they want. BTW, a perfect safety record is possible;
just ground all the airplanes.
>I have a friend with a 1947 Cessna with an engine that's like 4 billion
>hours past TBO -- but since he's Part 91 he can fly it to failure. But
>that's *no problem*. On my 1987 L-39 they're proposing that I have to
>overhaul my engine every 750 hours... which, by the way, is approximately
>15,250 hours before it really needs an overhaul. I feel like I swallowed
>the wrong pill and wound up in an alternate universe. :-)
... and the ones
mother gives you
don't do anything at all ...
>Do you get the feeling that the FAA would like to shut down everything in
>the sky but Part 121 carriers?
Absolutely! Part 121 and part 135 carriers benefit The People. Part 91
operations only benefit the rich, self-centered bastards who don't give a
damn about the safety of The People. But like MBAs who think that you can
improve the bottom line long-term by cutting costs in critical areas, they
forget that part 91 is where the pool of trained professionals comes from
now that the military can no longer provide enough pilots.
The government protects us from ourselves.
We are the government.
God save us from ourselves.
So what are you going to do about it?
"We have met the enemy and it is us."
Walt Kelly in "Pogo"
Bah! Humbug!
Brian Lloyd
brian@lloyd.com
+1.340.998.9447
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: Phase II Flight restrictions |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Gus Fraser <fraseg@comcast.net>
Last year I did an event at Newark Liberty EWR. I was worried about that
clause so I phoned the FSDO and they said no problem. My local FSDO is
Teterboro and they have a reputation of being one of the toughest in the
country. They said that as I had INFORMED them it was OK.
Gus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Phase II Flight restrictions
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
>
> My L-29 Program letter states
>
> "This aircraft is restricted to airports that are within airspace classes
> C,D,E, and G during proficiency flights, except in the case of a declared
> emergency or when otherwise directed by Air Traffic Control."
>
> Read "DURING PROFICENCY" which I read as if there is an airshow inside
class
> bravo then you're good to go. The more important line is "or when
otherwise
> directed by Air Traffic Control" which means that if you want to enter
class
> bravo, just get flight following into the airport.
>
> Ernie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Phase II Flight restrictions
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
> >
> > Jon Boede wrote:
> > >
> > > Then perhaps you can "assist" them in correcting their typo... or if
> that
> > > doesn't work you might nudge them to show you the order that has the
> > > wording in it that they used. You probably want to avoid getting
fully
> > > uppity with them and pointing out that they can't just go making
things
> > > up; and shooting at them just seems to make them mad. :-)
> > >
> > > I get (30) for my L-39, which is even worse... *600* NM with "one
> > > alternate" per flight. Although that's not so bad -- I can fly
> somewhere,
> > > eat, get gas, and come home.
> >
> > Yeah, I forgot about the 600 nm radius for turbine-powered aircraft.
> >
> > > If they stick to their wording on your special version of (29) ... you
> > > might try faxing them a "goin' somewhere" letter every day until they
> get
> > > tired of it. :-)
> > >
> > > Brian... when you say "fight" -- what exactly did you do, and what
> worked
> > > in the end?
> >
> > I used that word figuratively. I did not get into an altercation since
> that is
> > counterproductive. The natural reaction of the confronted bureaucrat is
> to say
> > no and kick you out. I was firm and I did not yield. The FAA has
helped
> > because they have standardized this and left it less to the discretion
of
> the
> > local FSDO, i.e. the FSDO is *NOT* supposed to make up their own LoL
> anymore.
> >
> > The FAA has produced an internal advisory document that is supposed to
> > standardize all LoLs for experimental/exhibition aircraft. The circular
> > provides a whole bunch of paragraphs and the FSDO wants to
pick-and-choose
> from
> > the list, usually producing something very restrictive. Someplace else
> they
> > give the list of applicable paragraphs for each type of aircraft, i.e.
> recip
> > with less than 800 hp, recip with more than 800 hp, and turbine
aircraft.
> It
> > would have been so much easier to just produce the three different LoLs
> and then
> > just say, "use this one for this type of aircraft," but that would have
> been too
> > easy.
> >
> > So *you* get the AC, go through the list of paragraphs for your type of
> > aircraft, and point it out to the appropriate person at the FSDO. If
they
> are
> > still recalcitrant you probably need to hook up with the MIDO.
> >
> > > I have a whacky restriction on my 39 that's supposed to read
> > > "Class C, D, E, and G airports unless a declared emergency or directed
> by
> > > ATC" and mine just says "prohibited from entering Class B" (no "unless
> by
> > > ATC", not even "in case of a declared emergency") -- which is frankly
> > > unsafe since all the good IFR alternates for my home airport are under
> the
> > > DFW Class B. I'm looking to gently persuade them to make my program
> > > letter safer, but I haven't started that process yet.
> >
> > It doesn't matter because once you declare an emergency, everything else
> goes
> > out the window. Once you declare an emergency, the airspace is yours.
> >
> > Case in point, my father tells a story about leading a flight of two
> F-11F's
> > from Memphis to Pax River. The weather was not as forecast and they
ended
> up at
> > about 45,000' to stay above the WX all the way to DC. They had to
climb
> > through heavy rain and, unbeknownced to them, both aircraft had leaky
> hatches in
> > their avionics bays. By the time they got to the Pax River area his
> wingman had
> > lost all comm and nav and my father was down to a single comm. ATC
> directed him
> > to change frequencies and he refused on the basis that he might lose all
> comm
> > which would require them to punch out of both aircraft. He asked for
ATC
> to
> > bring Pax River's GCA controller up on the current frequency and ATC
> refused.
> > He then pointed out to ATC that their other choice was for him to
declare
> an
> > emergency and to remember that he was above *all* their other traffic.
> The next
> > voice on his receiver? "Navy Speedee flight, this is the Pax River
final
> > approach controller. Please turn to heading ..."
> >
> > The moral of this story is, once you declare an emergency you own all
the
> > airspace you need, including the class-B airspace. Don't worry about
what
> your
> > LoL says. Just get your aircraft safely on the ground and then worry
> about the
> > other crap.
> >
> > --
> > Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201
> > brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
> > +1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
> >
> >
>
>
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: Exact wording of Flight restrictions |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Gus Fraser <fraseg@comcast.net>
Again,
this is the wrong classification for your aircraft. Try the EAA they will go
to bat for you.
Gus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Di Marco" <mgdimarco@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Exact wording of Flight restrictions
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Michael Di Marco <mgdimarco@yahoo.com>
>
>
> If it is a prop bird under 800HP, this is all wrong.
>
> Mike
>
> Frank Haertlein <yak52driver@earthlink.net> wrote:--> Yak-List message
posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>
> Yakkers;
> Here's the exact wording he gave me on Phase II flight
> restrictions............
>
> 21. All proficiency flights shall be conducted within the geographic
> area described in the applicant's program letter and any modifications
> to that letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the
> aircraft's home base airport. Proficiency flights are limited to
> non-stop flight that begins and ends at the aircraft's home base
> airport. An alternate selection is not permitted for this aircraft.
> However, an exception is permitted for proficiency flights outside the
> area stated above for organized formation flying, training, or checkout
> in conjunction with a specific event listed in the aircraft's program
> letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate the location
> and dates for this proficiency flying.
>
> That's the exact wording of his restrictions.
> Frank
> Chino
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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: | Preheat Pad Cord |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Petri, David S. CDR NAVSPACE" <David.Petri@ARSPACE.ARMY.MIL>
For those that have both a heat pad on the sump and oil tank, what is the
best way to route the sump pad cord for a -52?
Thanks,
Dave
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! --
|