Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:42 AM - Request for Warbirds (cpayne@mc.net)
2. 05:50 AM - Re: Request for Warbirds (Ernie)
3. 07:51 AM - Fw: question. (cjpilot710@aol.com)
4. 08:13 AM - Re: Fw: question. (Brian Lloyd)
5. 08:20 AM - Re: Fw: question. (Terry Calloway)
6. 08:28 AM - Re: Fw: question. (A. Dennis Savarese)
7. 08:45 AM - Re: Fw: question. (Brian Lloyd)
8. 08:50 AM - Re: Fw: question. (Brian Lloyd)
9. 08:54 AM - Re: Fw: question. (Ernest Martinez)
10. 09:03 AM - Re: Fw: question. (Ernest Martinez)
11. 10:22 AM - Re: Fw: question. (Mike McCoy)
12. 11:21 AM - Re: Fw: question. (Brian Lloyd)
13. 11:53 AM - Re: Fw: question. (cjpilot710@aol.com)
14. 01:17 PM - question. (cjpilot710@aol.com)
15. 02:59 PM - Re: Compensation (Doug)
16. 03:25 PM - Re: Re: Compensation (Craig Payne)
17. 03:38 PM - Re: Re: Compensation (Brian Lloyd)
18. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: Compensation (Doug)
19. 04:34 PM - Re: Fw: question. (Frank Haertlein)
20. 04:35 PM - Re: Re: Compensation (Terry Calloway)
21. 04:57 PM - Re: Fw: question. (Brian Lloyd)
22. 05:13 PM - Re: Re: Compensation (Doug)
23. 05:26 PM - Compensation (Frank Haertlein)
24. 05:52 PM - Re: Compensation? Ha! (Craig Payne)
25. 05:57 PM - Re: Re: Compensation (dabear)
26. 05:59 PM - Re: Fw: question. (dabear)
27. 06:18 PM - Re: Compensation (Doug)
28. 07:03 PM - Re: Compensation -air show original post (Robert Mortara)
29. 07:07 PM - Re: Re: Compensation (Ernie)
30. 07:11 PM - Re: Re: Compensation (Ernie)
31. 07:15 PM - Re: Compensation (Jon Boede)
32. 07:18 PM - LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) (Jon Boede)
33. 07:21 PM - Re: Re: Compensation (Terry)
34. 07:30 PM - Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) (Roger Bieberdorf)
35. 07:38 PM - Re: Compensation (Ernie)
36. 07:45 PM - Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) (Jon Boede)
37. 07:47 PM - Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) (Gus Fraser)
38. 07:52 PM - Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) (Ernie)
39. 07:53 PM - Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) (Ernie)
40. 08:29 PM - Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) (Jon Boede)
41. 08:31 PM - Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) (Jon Boede)
42. 08:31 PM - Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) (Ernie)
43. 08:45 PM - Re: Compensation (cjpilot710@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Request for Warbirds |
--> Yak-List message posted by: cpayne@mc.net
Here is a current request that was forwarded via my Warbird Squadron, Pay attention
you Deep South Yakkers!
Not all events are sponsored by those Big Buck Airshow Promoters we have been hearing
about. In my
experience, this is more typical. BTW, the 479th originated in 1943, training in
P-38's and P-40's. Today
they are using the new Texan T-6A as well as old Tweets, T-34C, and T-38.
Craig Payne
Nicholson Matthew J Capt 49FTS <matthew.nicholson@moody.af.mil> wrote:
Sir/Ma'am,
My name is Captain Matt Nicholson and I am part of the planning committee
for the Moody AFB 479th Flying Training Group's April 26th "dining in." On
this occasion the group's instructor pilots and students will gather
together and listen to a guest speaker and enjoy a formal dinner. In all,
around 350-400 pilots and support personnel will be in attendance. The
overall theme for the dinner will be "100 Years of Aviation: Past, Present,
and Future Warriors." We are searching for an individual or group of
individuals who would be willing to fly their classic warbird to the dinner
and allow it to be displayed for the group. Unfortunately, because off
limited funding due to world events, all aspects of this dinner will be
funded by the attendance fee. This means that we are limited in the amount
we can pay to have the aircraft brought in for our dinner. There are some
incentives we can offer, however, such as free dinner as a guest of the
479th FTG at the dining in, tours of the base and flightline, or possibly
(and I can't promise this although we have done it in the past) back seat
rides in the AT-38C.
I look forward to hearing back from you concerning this request. Please let
me know if there is anything we can do to "sweeten the deal" in order to
make this happen and help our dining in be the best seen to date. If you are
unable to help us, but know of somone who might, please also reply with
their contact information.
Thank you for your time,
Capt Matt Nicholson
Moody AFB, GA
Comm: 229-257-7771
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: Request for Warbirds |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
COUNT ME IN!!!!!
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: <cpayne@mc.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Request for Warbirds
> --> Yak-List message posted by: cpayne@mc.net
>
> Here is a current request that was forwarded via my Warbird Squadron, Pay
attention you Deep South Yakkers!
> Not all events are sponsored by those Big Buck Airshow Promoters we have
been hearing about. In my
> experience, this is more typical. BTW, the 479th originated in 1943,
training in P-38's and P-40's. Today
> they are using the new Texan T-6A as well as old Tweets, T-34C, and T-38.
>
> Craig Payne
>
>
> Nicholson Matthew J Capt 49FTS <matthew.nicholson@moody.af.mil> wrote:
>
> Sir/Ma'am,
>
> My name is Captain Matt Nicholson and I am part of the planning committee
> for the Moody AFB 479th Flying Training Group's April 26th "dining in." On
> this occasion the group's instructor pilots and students will gather
> together and listen to a guest speaker and enjoy a formal dinner. In all,
> around 350-400 pilots and support personnel will be in attendance. The
> overall theme for the dinner will be "100 Years of Aviation: Past,
Present,
> and Future Warriors." We are searching for an individual or group of
> individuals who would be willing to fly their classic warbird to the
dinner
> and allow it to be displayed for the group. Unfortunately, because off
> limited funding due to world events, all aspects of this dinner will be
> funded by the attendance fee. This means that we are limited in the amount
> we can pay to have the aircraft brought in for our dinner. There are some
> incentives we can offer, however, such as free dinner as a guest of the
> 479th FTG at the dining in, tours of the base and flightline, or possibly
> (and I can't promise this although we have done it in the past) back seat
> rides in the AT-38C.
> I look forward to hearing back from you concerning this request. Please
let
> me know if there is anything we can do to "sweeten the deal" in order to
> make this happen and help our dining in be the best seen to date. If you
are
> unable to help us, but know of somone who might, please also reply with
> their contact information.
>
> Thank you for your time,
>
> Capt Matt Nicholson
> Moody AFB, GA
> Comm: 229-257-7771
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Well, gang did I get a surprise. I put the question to the FAA guy who I
send my program letter to at the MCO FSDO. His e-mail reply is below my
message. I swear I'll never understand them, but Ernie you were right.
My question to Cichanowski.
Mr. Cichanowski,
A question has come up amongst our Yak Pilots Association members.
Can a private pilot receive a room, a car, and fuel/oil just to static
display his experimental/exibishtion warbird at an airshow?
Can a commercial rated pilot recieve a room, a car, and fuel/oil to static
display his experimental/exibishtion warbird at an airshow?
I believe I know the answers however a number of our "jail house lawyers"
come up different answers.
Jim
Jim Goolsby ATP Nanchang CJ-6 N21710
In a message dated 3/3/2003 7:07:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mike.cichanowski@faa.gov writes:
> I passed it around to the inspectors and see no problem with compensation
> for static display since your not providing transportation to persons or
> cargo.
>
> mike cichanowski
>
Jim
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
Subject: Re: question.
From: mike.cichanowski@faa.gov
03/03/2003 07:07:28 AM
I passed it around to the inspectors and see no problem with compensation
for static display since your not providing transportation to persons or
cargo.
mike cichanowski
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: Fwd: question. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
cjpilot710@aol.com wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
>
>
> Well, gang did I get a surprise. I put the question to the FAA guy who I
> send my program letter to at the MCO FSDO. His e-mail reply is below my
> message. I swear I'll never understand them, but Ernie you were right.
Jim, get him to send you that answer on FAA letterhead with a signature at the
bottom and then send me a copy. That would go a LONG way toward shutting up the
FAA inspectors and ramp inspection monkeys when confronted. The key is to abort
the beginning of the enforcement process before it begins. Once they get
started they don't want to lose face and you losing your license is less
important than them being wrong and losing face. The FAA is *never* wrong once
they have taken official notice.
--
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 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: Fwd: question. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Terry Calloway" <TCalloway@datatechnique.com>
I wouldn't rely on one FSDO's reading of this.
tc
>>> cjpilot710@aol.com 3/3/2003 9:49:34 AM >>>
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Well, gang did I get a surprise. I put the question to the FAA guy who I
send my program letter to at the MCO FSDO. His e-mail reply is below my
message. I swear I'll never understand them, but Ernie you were right.
My question to Cichanowski.
Mr. Cichanowski,
A question has come up amongst our Yak Pilots Association members.
Can a private pilot receive a room, a car, and fuel/oil just to static
display his experimental/exibishtion warbird at an airshow?
Can a commercial rated pilot recieve a room, a car, and fuel/oil to static
display his experimental/exibishtion warbird at an airshow?
I believe I know the answers however a number of our "jail house lawyers"
come up different answers.
Jim
Jim Goolsby ATP Nanchang CJ-6 N21710
In a message dated 3/3/2003 7:07:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mike.cichanowski@faa.gov writes:
> I passed it around to the inspectors and see no problem with compensation
> for static display since your not providing transportation to persons or
> cargo.
>
> mike cichanowski
>
Jim
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
Subject: Re: question.
From: mike.cichanowski@faa.gov
03/03/2003 07:07:28 AM
I passed it around to the inspectors and see no problem with compensation
for static display since your not providing transportation to persons or
cargo.
mike cichanowski
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: Fwd: question. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
I'll take a copy as well Jim. If you can scan it in and email it to me,
I'll post it on my web site, www.yak-52.com, for all the world to see. If
you can, snail mail it and I'll scan it in and post it.
Thanks
Dennis Savarese
215 Crossgate Dr.
Elmore, AL 36025
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Fwd: question.
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> cjpilot710@aol.com wrote:
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
> >
> >
> > Well, gang did I get a surprise. I put the question to the FAA guy who
I
> > send my program letter to at the MCO FSDO. His e-mail reply is below my
> > message. I swear I'll never understand them, but Ernie you were right.
>
> Jim, get him to send you that answer on FAA letterhead with a signature at
the
> bottom and then send me a copy. That would go a LONG way toward shutting
up the
> FAA inspectors and ramp inspection monkeys when confronted. The key is to
abort
> the beginning of the enforcement process before it begins. Once they get
> started they don't want to lose face and you losing your license is less
> important than them being wrong and losing face. The FAA is *never* wrong
once
> they have taken official notice.
>
> --
>
> 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 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: Fwd: question. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Terry Calloway wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Terry Calloway" <TCalloway@datatechnique.com>
>
> I wouldn't rely on one FSDO's reading of this.
Terry, this is an area where I would disagree. I beleive very strongly that one
FSDO will not override a public notice of another FSDO. This would violate the
precept of "The FAA is Never Wrong" and even more so when it appears that there
is dissention in the ranks. Now they are trying to actually come up with real
consistency across all the FSDOs and at that point once they come up with a
formal central interpretation, the interpretation of one will be recognized by
the others. That is why this letter would be so valuable. I do believe that it
would stop a potential enforcement action because an inspector would have to
explain to an administrative law judge why there were differences in the
interpretation and application of the rules. That would probably result in a
ruling that may have an effect on past enforcement actions thus seriously taking
to task "The FAA is Never Wrong."
Now if we could only get this to work with the BATF too ...
--
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 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: Fwd: question. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Terry Calloway wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Terry Calloway" <TCalloway@datatechnique.com>
>
> I wouldn't rely on one FSDO's reading of this.
BTW, Terry, if you ask enough FSDOs you will also get one that will put in
writing that compenstation for static display is against the regs unless you
have a valid commercial ticket with 2nd class medical or higher and all the
other FSDOs will recognize that as well also so don't keep asking the question.
If Jim gets a formal letter and that letter gets sufficient circulation it
will become the defacto standard for the FSDOs thus eliminating the need for
further ruling and it may even become codified in their internal documentation.
Don't look the gift horse in the mouth.
--
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 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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernest Martinez" <Ernest.Martinez@oracle.com>
Aha!! Logic prevails!!!!
Ernie
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Yak-List: Fwd: question.
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Well, gang did I get a surprise. I put the question to the FAA guy who I
send my program letter to at the MCO FSDO. His e-mail reply is below my
message. I swear I'll never understand them, but Ernie you were right.
My question to Cichanowski.
Mr. Cichanowski,
A question has come up amongst our Yak Pilots Association members.
Can a private pilot receive a room, a car, and fuel/oil just to static
display his experimental/exibishtion warbird at an airshow?
Can a commercial rated pilot recieve a room, a car, and fuel/oil to static
display his experimental/exibishtion warbird at an airshow?
I believe I know the answers however a number of our "jail house lawyers"
come up different answers.
Jim
Jim Goolsby ATP Nanchang CJ-6 N21710
In a message dated 3/3/2003 7:07:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mike.cichanowski@faa.gov writes:
> I passed it around to the inspectors and see no problem with compensation
> for static display since your not providing transportation to persons or
> cargo.
>
> mike cichanowski
>
Jim
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
Subject: Re: question.
From: mike.cichanowski@faa.gov
03/03/2003 07:07:28 AM
I passed it around to the inspectors and see no problem with compensation
for static display since your not providing transportation to persons or
cargo.
mike cichanowski
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernest Martinez" <Ernest.Martinez@oracle.com>
Actually it happens all the time with regard to certification of jets and
LOA's. I just spoke with a guy from the LA area and they absolutely refused
to issue Airworthiness certs or LOA's to several L-29 and 39 guys. THey all
ended up getting PO boxes in the San Diego FSDO's area of jurisdiction and
home based the aircraft there then got their LOAs and COA's there.
Ernie
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Fwd: question.
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Terry Calloway wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Terry Calloway"
<TCalloway@datatechnique.com>
>
> I wouldn't rely on one FSDO's reading of this.
Terry, this is an area where I would disagree. I beleive very strongly that
one
FSDO will not override a public notice of another FSDO. This would violate
the
precept of "The FAA is Never Wrong" and even more so when it appears that
there
is dissention in the ranks. Now they are trying to actually come up with
real
consistency across all the FSDOs and at that point once they come up with a
formal central interpretation, the interpretation of one will be recognized
by
the others. That is why this letter would be so valuable. I do believe
that it
would stop a potential enforcement action because an inspector would have to
explain to an administrative law judge why there were differences in the
interpretation and application of the rules. That would probably result in
a
ruling that may have an effect on past enforcement actions thus seriously
taking
to task "The FAA is Never Wrong."
Now if we could only get this to work with the BATF too ...
--
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 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: Fwd: question. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mike McCoy" <mike@aircraftsales.com>
Terry Calloway is absolutely right. Walt Linscott (an aviation attorney)
has already said that he has represented several pilots that have been
violated for this very act. While I agree that a signed letter on FAA
Letterhead MAY help make defend an individual that was violated, there is
already case law to say that these activities are against the regs. The
point is that threr already IS a standard on this issue. Therefore, just
because one FSDO doesn't know what they're talking about, that doesn't mean
that the rest of the FSDOs will respect this errant interpretation. In
addition, without this signed letter from the FAA, I'd bet that the local
FSDO inspectors would deny every saying that this activity was permissible
if one of their pilots got into a jam. Also, did Jim make it clear to the
FSDO that he was talking about flying the airplane to and from an airshow
for the purpose of getting paid for the static display? Clearly illegal!
Mike McCoy
> BTW, Terry, if you ask enough FSDOs you will also get one that will put in
> writing that compenstation for static display is against the regs unless
you
> have a valid commercial ticket with 2nd class medical or higher and all
the
> other FSDOs will recognize that as well also so don't keep asking the
question.
> If Jim gets a formal letter and that letter gets sufficient circulation
it
> will become the defacto standard for the FSDOs thus eliminating the need
for
> further ruling and it may even become codified in their internal
documentation.
>
> Don't look the gift horse in the mouth.
> --
>
> 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 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: question. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Mike McCoy wrote:
>
> Terry Calloway is absolutely right. Walt Linscott (an aviation attorney)
> has already said that he has represented several pilots that have been
> violated for this very act. While I agree that a signed letter on FAA
> Letterhead MAY help make defend an individual that was violated, there is
> already case law to say that these activities are against the regs. The
> point is that threr already IS a standard on this issue. Therefore, just
> because one FSDO doesn't know what they're talking about, that doesn't mean
> that the rest of the FSDOs will respect this errant interpretation.
But it certainly calls into question the interpretation.
> addition, without this signed letter from the FAA, I'd bet that the local
> FSDO inspectors would deny every saying that this activity was permissible
> if one of their pilots got into a jam.
I agree with that 100%. There may be honor among thieves but not much in a
bureaucracy.
> Also, did Jim make it clear to the
> FSDO that he was talking about flying the airplane to and from an airshow
> for the purpose of getting paid for the static display? Clearly illegal!
No, not clearly illegal as this discussion shows. If it were clearly illegal we
wouldn't be having this discussion. The regs also say that I may using a PP
rating for business when the flying part is ancillary to the profit-making
activity. This allows the PP to fly to a business meeting, even if it is for an
aviation-related activity. If I am an airshow promoter and I fly to the airshow
I am using my PP license for aviation-related business but that is clearly legal
because the flying is ancillary to the business, not directly related.
Therefore someone could clearly interpret flying to a static display as being
ancillary to the business at hand. You can truck the airplane there and
accomplish the same task so the means of transport is not related to the
activity itself. The arguement is valid. It just remains whether the local
FSDO will agree.
Regardless, as I pointed out earlier, the FAA is capricious, inconsistent, and
often downright hostile. Once the juggernaut gets rolling to cite you, you are
unlikely to change its direction. You can only hope you can head 'em off at the
pass ahead of time. An approval letter from the FSDO with jurisdiction over the
event is a definite "get out of jail free" card. One in hand from another FSDO
as you walk into the controlling FSDO before you do it might accomplish the same
thing. Showing up cold without knowning is a good way to shoot craps and end up
with a suspension on your record.
In the end, I have a commercial rating and I keep my 2nd class medical alive
just so I never have to deal with the issue. No worries mate! You know,
getting a commercial rating isn't that difficult and it is a good refresher for
your basic skills. It is also a stepping stone to the instructor's rating.
(Hint, hint.)
--
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 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: Fwd: question. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
In a message dated 3/3/2003 1:22:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mike@aircraftsales.com writes:
> . Also, did Jim make it clear to the
> FSDO that he was talking about flying the airplane to and from an airshow
> for the purpose of getting paid for the static display? Clearly illegal!
My exact question was.
Can a private pilot receive a room, a car, and fuel/oil just to static
display his experimental/exibishtion warbird at an airshow?
I would assume that "receiving a room, a car, and fuel/oil" could not be
misconstrued for anything else other than the private pilot flew into the
airshow. I was (and still believe) as Mike, that one needed to have a
commercial ticket to do this. This particular FAA guy is not known around
here as being a dummy about FARs.
I will as Brain suggested try to get a letter verifying this from the FAA MCO
FSDO. When they look into it in detail before issuing a letter, "they might
change their mind" or qualify it somehow. I should know better than to trust
e-mailed answers?
Jim
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Well, I've sent a letter to the MCO (Orlando) FSDO manger. Standby.
Hopefully we'll get a 'definitive answer' that will cause us even more
trouble. :)
Jim
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Guys,
Just my 2 bits worth (actually a bit more) but it would seem to me that this
issue would be of paramount interest to both the EAA and AOPA. If we are
actually required to have to have a commercial and a 2nd class medical we
need to encourage them (EAA and AOPA) to lobby the FAA for some common sense
in this reg. or perhaps a change. I am betting that the reg is actually
being mis-interpreted by the FSDO's and the line inspectors, and that a
simple directive from the top would go a long way to fix things and may even
make the problem go away. I do not agree with the naysayers who say we
should not call attention to ourselves, quite on the contrary, I think if we
stick together we are big enough and well connected enough to cause the
pressure to come to bear in the right places. To get these "aircraft of
interest" out for the public to see is the goal of the EAA and to a certain
extent the AOPA, and should not in my mind be restricted. I would think
that the situation exists wherein antique or exotic aircraft are owned and
flown by old coots who are actually lucky to pass their third class medical,
let alone get a 2nd class. With many of us in or soon to be in this
category, will we soon be denied the joy of showing our aircraft? Baby
boomers make up the majority of aircraft owners today, that make most of us
55+, so just how much longer are we going to be able to get a 2nd class
medical? When that day comes should the public be denied the opportunity to
view your aircraft? I would think not, in fact when you think about this
reg (if true), flys in the face of the whole "Experimental Exhibition" idea
and category. I understand all the "yada yada" about the FAA and agree with
most of it so don't preach to the choir by answering back with the FAA is
not logical or all that crap, we already know that. Lets get the addresses
of those in the EAA and start a campaign to drown them in paper. We were
all willing to take a moment to vote for a acro box for a guy that 90% of us
did not even know. So lets get the same (or bigger) effort going for
something that will benefit us all. I think that if enough input is given
the EAA and AOPA they will at least attempt to effect some change.
So, who out there knows who to contact within the EAA and AOPA to get the
ball rolling?
Doug Sapp
----- Original Message -----
From: <cjpilot710@aol.com>
Subject: Yak-List: question.
> --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
>
> Well, I've sent a letter to the MCO (Orlando) FSDO manger. Standby.
> Hopefully we'll get a 'definitive answer' that will cause us even more
> trouble. :)
>
> Jim
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
> deserve neither liberty nor safety"
> Benjamin Franklin 1759
> "With my shield, or on it"
> Trojan Warriors BC
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Craig Payne <cpayne@mc.net>
How about working through Warbirds Of America? Many other WB's share the
same issue, even U.S. made warbirds that got shipped out of the US to
other countries and then shpped back and forced into "Experimental
Exhibition".
I hereby nominate "Pappy Goolsby" as spokesperson, (we can't say
SpokesMAN in this PC world) Our *massive* presence at WOA events like
SNF, OSH, and Arlington will help "motivate" those who benefit from our
presence and give "Pappy" some leverage.
Any Seconds?
Craig Payne
> Doug wrote:
>
> So lets get the same (or bigger) effort going for
> something that will benefit us all. I think that if enough input is given
> the EAA and AOPA they will at least attempt to effect some change.
>
> So, who out there knows who to contact within the EAA and AOPA to get the
> ball rolling?
>
> Doug Sapp
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Craig Payne wrote:
> I hereby nominate "Pappy Goolsby" as spokesperson, (we can't say
> SpokesMAN in this PC world) Our *massive* presence at WOA events like
> SNF, OSH, and Arlington will help "motivate" those who benefit from our
> presence and give "Pappy" some leverage.
>
> Any Seconds?
Second!
--
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 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
This is exactly what I mean, we have the man power and connections to make
this work!. Lets do it!
Doug Sapp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne" <cpayne@mc.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Compensation
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Craig Payne <cpayne@mc.net>
>
> How about working through Warbirds Of America? Many other WB's share the
> same issue, even U.S. made warbirds that got shipped out of the US to
> other countries and then shpped back and forced into "Experimental
> Exhibition".
>
> I hereby nominate "Pappy Goolsby" as spokesperson, (we can't say
> SpokesMAN in this PC world) Our *massive* presence at WOA events like
> SNF, OSH, and Arlington will help "motivate" those who benefit from our
> presence and give "Pappy" some leverage.
>
> Any Seconds?
>
> Craig Payne
>
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > So lets get the same (or bigger) effort going for
> > something that will benefit us all. I think that if enough input is
given
> > the EAA and AOPA they will at least attempt to effect some change.
> >
> > So, who out there knows who to contact within the EAA and AOPA to get
the
> > ball rolling?
> >
> > Doug Sapp
> >
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Brian;
One may also want to consider that the FAA allows the "EXPERIMENTAL
EXHIBITION" rating for the purpose of attending air shows, proficiency
training, etc. They have given us explicit permission to do that.
The FAA is into regulating the flying and maintenance part of a
commercial or private enterprise....especially when it has to do with
paying PASSENGERS.
As a static display, you are NOT flying. We already have permission to
attend the air shows (provided you have it detailed in your program
letter or you fax them before flying). I really don't think they care
about NON-FLYING STATIC DISPAYS.
Frank
N911OM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Fwd: question.
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Mike McCoy wrote:
>
> Terry Calloway is absolutely right. Walt Linscott (an aviation
> attorney) has already said that he has represented several pilots that
> have been violated for this very act. While I agree that a signed
> letter on FAA Letterhead MAY help make defend an individual that was
> violated, there is already case law to say that these activities are
> against the regs. The point is that threr already IS a standard on
> this issue. Therefore, just because one FSDO doesn't know what
> they're talking about, that doesn't mean that the rest of the FSDOs
> will respect this errant interpretation.
But it certainly calls into question the interpretation.
> addition, without this signed letter from the FAA, I'd bet that the
> local FSDO inspectors would deny every saying that this activity was
> permissible if one of their pilots got into a jam.
I agree with that 100%. There may be honor among thieves but not much
in a
bureaucracy.
> Also, did Jim make it clear to the
> FSDO that he was talking about flying the airplane to and from an
> airshow for the purpose of getting paid for the static display?
> Clearly illegal!
No, not clearly illegal as this discussion shows. If it were clearly
illegal we
wouldn't be having this discussion. The regs also say that I may using
a PP
rating for business when the flying part is ancillary to the
profit-making
activity. This allows the PP to fly to a business meeting, even if it
is for an
aviation-related activity. If I am an airshow promoter and I fly to the
airshow
I am using my PP license for aviation-related business but that is
clearly legal
because the flying is ancillary to the business, not directly related.
Therefore someone could clearly interpret flying to a static display as
being
ancillary to the business at hand. You can truck the airplane there and
accomplish the same task so the means of transport is not related to the
activity itself. The arguement is valid. It just remains whether the
local
FSDO will agree.
Regardless, as I pointed out earlier, the FAA is capricious,
inconsistent, and
often downright hostile. Once the juggernaut gets rolling to cite you,
you are
unlikely to change its direction. You can only hope you can head 'em
off at the
pass ahead of time. An approval letter from the FSDO with jurisdiction
over the
event is a definite "get out of jail free" card. One in hand from
another FSDO
as you walk into the controlling FSDO before you do it might accomplish
the same
thing. Showing up cold without knowning is a good way to shoot craps
and end up
with a suspension on your record.
In the end, I have a commercial rating and I keep my 2nd class medical
alive
just so I never have to deal with the issue. No worries mate! You
know,
getting a commercial rating isn't that difficult and it is a good
refresher for
your basic skills. It is also a stepping stone to the instructor's
rating.
(Hint, hint.)
--
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
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Terry Calloway" <TCalloway@datatechnique.com>
Good luck.
Maybe while you're looking for support, you can contact the Air Force and get them
on you side.
The Civil Air Patrol cannot use non-commercial pilots for funded flights like blood
and organ donor flights. So I am sure the FAA would be happy to change the
rule once you explain the situation exists wherein antique or exotic aircraft
could be seen.
tc
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: question. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Frank Haertlein wrote:
> As a static display, you are NOT flying. We already have permission to attend
> the air shows (provided you have it detailed in your program letter or you
> fax them before flying). I really don't think they care about NON-FLYING
> STATIC DISPAYS.
Personally, I agree. I also know that the FAA can make your life miserable just
because and without any basis in fact.
Just in case anyone was wondering, the horse has been dead for awhile.
--
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 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Terry,
I'm sorry but I cant see your point, you lost me when you brought in the
CAP. What we are talking about is trying to (at the least) get the FAA to
explain/clarify the reg, and at the most to correct the problem it has
caused with respect to our aircraft. Personally my moneys on the scenario
wherein the local FSDO's have simply enforced it the way they saw fit at the
time and because no "body or group" of folks have rose up in opposition they
have not bothered to change it or issue a clarification. This will remain
the same if we all don't put in just a bit of time to write a letter or two.
I do appreciate your wish of "good luck" we do need that but we most
importantly need your and everyone else's support. So where did the CAP
come from??
Oh by the way the blast tube for your cabin heater is on its way to you.
Fly warm!
Best,
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Calloway" <TCalloway@datatechnique.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Compensation
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Terry Calloway"
<TCalloway@datatechnique.com>
>
> Good luck.
>
> Maybe while you're looking for support, you can contact the Air Force and
get them on you side.
>
> The Civil Air Patrol cannot use non-commercial pilots for funded flights
like blood and organ donor flights. So I am sure the FAA would be happy to
change the rule once you explain the situation exists wherein antique or
exotic aircraft could be seen.
>
> tc
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Doug, YAKKERS;
With all due respect, I think we should keep these questions low key. If
the FAA gets wind of a bunch of people flying to air shows for the ONLY
purpose of making money you will soon be seeing an NPRM (Notice of
Proposed Rule Making) disallowing those activities. When asking the FAA
any question you need to couch the questions in such a manner that they
don't consider too much the "FLYING TO THE AIRSHOW PART". ie..... They
have already given us permission to fly there with the EXPERIMENTAL
EXHIBITION" category. But if you tell them that your ONLY reason for
going to the air show is to make money then it casts a whole new light
on the subject.
I think our questions should be limited to only those questions that
have to do with static displays of any kind! Get it? Ask only about the
static display part. It boils down to what your intentions are and the
spirit of the law. If the FAA sees what we are doing only in terms of a
commercial enterprise you will soon find yourself regulated to the hilt.
It brings to mind the old saw that goes "WHY HAND YOUR ENEMY A STICK? SO
HE CAN BEAT YOU OVER THE POINTED HEAD WITH IT"?
We don't go to air shows for the primary purpose of making money! Do we?
;-) wink wink... We go to promote aviation! That we make a little side
money as part of a static displays is a small benefit we don't need to
stress to much...you know? Our primary reason is to promote aviation!
Right? ;-)One interesting thing about law is that you could be doing
some activity....but if you look at it one way you are legal, if you
look at it another way you are illegal. It all depends on your
prospective. Trust me on this one....if the FAA gets wind of a bunch of
people owning EXPERIMENTAL EXHIBITIONS with the sole purpose of making
money it will very soon come to a sudden stop.
That's my opinion....anyways!
Frank
N911OM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Compensation
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Guys,
Just my 2 bits worth (actually a bit more) but it would seem to me that
this issue would be of paramount interest to both the EAA and AOPA. If
we are actually required to have to have a commercial and a 2nd class
medical we need to encourage them (EAA and AOPA) to lobby the FAA for
some common sense
in this reg. or perhaps a change. I am betting that the reg is
actually
being mis-interpreted by the FSDO's and the line inspectors, and that a
simple directive from the top would go a long way to fix things and may
even make the problem go away. I do not agree with the naysayers who
say we should not call attention to ourselves, quite on the contrary, I
think if we stick together we are big enough and well connected enough
to cause the pressure to come to bear in the right places. To get these
"aircraft of interest" out for the public to see is the goal of the EAA
and to a certain extent the AOPA, and should not in my mind be
restricted. I would think that the situation exists wherein antique or
exotic aircraft are owned and flown by old coots who are actually lucky
to pass their third class medical, let alone get a 2nd class. With many
of us in or soon to be in this category, will we soon be denied the joy
of showing our aircraft? Baby boomers make up the majority of aircraft
owners today, that make most of us
55+, so just how much longer are we going to be able to get a 2nd class
medical? When that day comes should the public be denied the
opportunity to
view your aircraft? I would think not, in fact when you think about
this
reg (if true), flys in the face of the whole "Experimental Exhibition"
idea and category. I understand all the "yada yada" about the FAA and
agree with most of it so don't preach to the choir by answering back
with the FAA is not logical or all that crap, we already know that.
Lets get the addresses of those in the EAA and start a campaign to drown
them in paper. We were all willing to take a moment to vote for a acro
box for a guy that 90% of us did not even know. So lets get the same
(or bigger) effort going for something that will benefit us all. I
think that if enough input is given the EAA and AOPA they will at least
attempt to effect some change.
So, who out there knows who to contact within the EAA and AOPA to get
the ball rolling?
Doug Sapp
----- Original Message -----
From: <cjpilot710@aol.com>
Subject: Yak-List: question.
> --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
>
> Well, I've sent a letter to the MCO (Orlando) FSDO manger. Standby.
> Hopefully we'll get a 'definitive answer' that will cause us even more
> trouble. :)
>
> Jim
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
> deserve neither liberty nor safety"
> Benjamin Franklin
> 1759 "With my shield, or on it"
> Trojan Warriors BC
>
>
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation? Ha! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Craig Payne <cpayne@mc.net>
Frank,
Perhaps; perhaps buying a CJ or Yak for the purpose of making money at
airshows *may* yield a better return than my telecommunications
portfolio...perhaps 6% or 7% of what I spend as opposed to say, my 5%
yield on stocks so far.
Craig Payne
>Frank Haertlein wrote:
>
>Trust me on this one....if the FAA gets wind of a bunch of
> people owning EXPERIMENTAL EXHIBITIONS with the sole purpose of making
> money it will very soon come to a sudden stop.
>
> That's my opinion....anyways!
> Frank
> N911OM
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "dabear" <dabear@damned.org>
Considering what Doug said " I would think that the situation exists
wherein antique or exotic aircraft are owned and flown by old coots
who are actually lucky to pass their third class medical, let alone
get a 2nd class. "
Then Pappy would make an excellent example! :-)
Al DeVere
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne" <cpayne@mc.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Compensation
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Craig Payne <cpayne@mc.net>
>
> How about working through Warbirds Of America? Many other WB's
share the
> same issue, even U.S. made warbirds that got shipped out of the US
to
> other countries and then shpped back and forced into "Experimental
> Exhibition".
>
> I hereby nominate "Pappy Goolsby" as spokesperson, (we can't say
> SpokesMAN in this PC world) Our *massive* presence at WOA events
like
> SNF, OSH, and Arlington will help "motivate" those who benefit
from our
> presence and give "Pappy" some leverage.
>
> Any Seconds?
>
> Craig Payne
>
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > So lets get the same (or bigger) effort going for
> > something that will benefit us all. I think that if enough
input is given
> > the EAA and AOPA they will at least attempt to effect some
change.
> >
> > So, who out there knows who to contact within the EAA and AOPA
to get the
> > ball rolling?
> >
> > Doug Sapp
> >
>
>
====
>
====
>
====
>
====
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: question. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "dabear" <dabear@damned.org>
Brian,
More like the wet spot where the dead horse used to be.
Al DeVere
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Fwd: question.
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> Frank Haertlein wrote:
> > As a static display, you are NOT flying. We already have
permission to attend
> > the air shows (provided you have it detailed in your program
letter or you
> > fax them before flying). I really don't think they care about
NON-FLYING
> > STATIC DISPAYS.
>
> Personally, I agree. I also know that the FAA can make your life
miserable just
> because and without any basis in fact.
>
> Just in case anyone was wondering, the horse has been dead for
awhile.
>
> --
>
> 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 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Before this gets going in the wrong direction I would caution everyone that
part of Harry's admonition is, I feel good information. I do agree that
questions should be directed directly at "is a pvt pilot in violation of
any regs if he receives fuel, food or room for displaying his aircraft?" or
some other close verbiage. Also, I agree, don't get stuck on *flying TO the
airshow*. Remember we aren't "charging" them anything as we (normally) do
not set the rates. They are simply OFFERING us "X" to display our aircraft,
which has nothing to do with the transportation people or cargo.
However, and maybe you have got to cut me some slack here as maybe I'm just
not too wide between the ears, but I have yet to find anyone who can look
you in the eye (even after a few beers when everyone bragging) and say that
they are "making a little money" on owning their Yak. "Making money"
infers that you are showing a profit. Hello Harry!!! Hell, if I ever break
EVEN I'll think this is a swell deal!
But I do think Harry's basic point is well taken, we need to phrase our
question correctly. When letters are sent they should all basically ask the
same question.
Best,
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Compensation
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Doug, YAKKERS;
> With all due respect, I think we should keep these questions low key. If
> the FAA gets wind of a bunch of people flying to air shows for the ONLY
> purpose of making money you will soon be seeing an NPRM (Notice of
> Proposed Rule Making) disallowing those activities. When asking the FAA
> any question you need to couch the questions in such a manner that they
> don't consider too much the "FLYING TO THE AIRSHOW PART". ie..... They
> have already given us permission to fly there with the EXPERIMENTAL
> EXHIBITION" category. But if you tell them that your ONLY reason for
> going to the air show is to make money then it casts a whole new light
> on the subject.
>
> I think our questions should be limited to only those questions that
> have to do with static displays of any kind! Get it? Ask only about the
> static display part. It boils down to what your intentions are and the
> spirit of the law. If the FAA sees what we are doing only in terms of a
> commercial enterprise you will soon find yourself regulated to the hilt.
> It brings to mind the old saw that goes "WHY HAND YOUR ENEMY A STICK? SO
> HE CAN BEAT YOU OVER THE POINTED HEAD WITH IT"?
>
> We don't go to air shows for the primary purpose of making money! Do we?
> ;-) wink wink... We go to promote aviation! That we make a little side
> money as part of a static displays is a small benefit we don't need to
> stress to much...you know? Our primary reason is to promote aviation!
> Right? ;-)One interesting thing about law is that you could be doing
> some activity....but if you look at it one way you are legal, if you
> look at it another way you are illegal. It all depends on your
> prospective. Trust me on this one....if the FAA gets wind of a bunch of
> people owning EXPERIMENTAL EXHIBITIONS with the sole purpose of making
> money it will very soon come to a sudden stop.
>
> That's my opinion....anyways!
> Frank
> N911OM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Compensation
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>
> Guys,
> Just my 2 bits worth (actually a bit more) but it would seem to me that
> this issue would be of paramount interest to both the EAA and AOPA. If
> we are actually required to have to have a commercial and a 2nd class
> medical we need to encourage them (EAA and AOPA) to lobby the FAA for
> some common sense
> in this reg. or perhaps a change. I am betting that the reg is
> actually
> being mis-interpreted by the FSDO's and the line inspectors, and that a
> simple directive from the top would go a long way to fix things and may
> even make the problem go away. I do not agree with the naysayers who
> say we should not call attention to ourselves, quite on the contrary, I
> think if we stick together we are big enough and well connected enough
> to cause the pressure to come to bear in the right places. To get these
> "aircraft of interest" out for the public to see is the goal of the EAA
> and to a certain extent the AOPA, and should not in my mind be
> restricted. I would think that the situation exists wherein antique or
> exotic aircraft are owned and flown by old coots who are actually lucky
> to pass their third class medical, let alone get a 2nd class. With many
> of us in or soon to be in this category, will we soon be denied the joy
> of showing our aircraft? Baby boomers make up the majority of aircraft
> owners today, that make most of us
> 55+, so just how much longer are we going to be able to get a 2nd class
> medical? When that day comes should the public be denied the
> opportunity to
> view your aircraft? I would think not, in fact when you think about
> this
> reg (if true), flys in the face of the whole "Experimental Exhibition"
> idea and category. I understand all the "yada yada" about the FAA and
> agree with most of it so don't preach to the choir by answering back
> with the FAA is not logical or all that crap, we already know that.
> Lets get the addresses of those in the EAA and start a campaign to drown
> them in paper. We were all willing to take a moment to vote for a acro
> box for a guy that 90% of us did not even know. So lets get the same
> (or bigger) effort going for something that will benefit us all. I
> think that if enough input is given the EAA and AOPA they will at least
> attempt to effect some change.
>
> So, who out there knows who to contact within the EAA and AOPA to get
> the ball rolling?
>
> Doug Sapp
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <cjpilot710@aol.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: question.
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
> >
> > Well, I've sent a letter to the MCO (Orlando) FSDO manger. Standby.
> > Hopefully we'll get a 'definitive answer' that will cause us even more
>
> > trouble. :)
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
> > deserve neither liberty nor safety"
> > Benjamin Franklin
> > 1759 "With my shield, or on it"
> > Trojan Warriors BC
> >
> >
>
>
> direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Compensation -air show original post |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Robert Mortara" <robmortara@robinhill.com>
Original post
I have been invited to display my CJ at Penn ridge air show on June 14 2003
.
They are not offering very much. I have a pdf copy of the invitation
www.robinhill.com/penn.pdf . What are most people getting paid or comped to
display their aircraft at a show. I would welcome any suggestions.
rob
Response from Penn Ridge
Rob,
Thanks for your info! This event is not an official air show. It is a
community event to try to build relationships between the airport and the
neighbors/surrounding community. There is no admission, just a parking
donation for cars. We are trying to raise funds to pay for the pilot
lunches, etc, by selling adds in a program book. If we break even, or better
yet, if we make anything from this event, we will be donating the proceeds
to Angel Flight. On that note, the 8 people don't have to worry about
admission passes, and the airport is open the entire day. This also means
that we cannot offer to fill your tank. We have been told by the airport
that they will offer a 20% discount on fuel that day to the display
aircraft. All that being said, I hope that you can still make it. If not, I
understand.
Thanks for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you!
Laurie
After reading all the posts
If I attend and haven't got my Commercial ticket I pay full price for the
gas and pay for my own hot dog.
rob
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
Here Here!
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Compensation
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>
> Guys,
> Just my 2 bits worth (actually a bit more) but it would seem to me that
this
> issue would be of paramount interest to both the EAA and AOPA. If we are
> actually required to have to have a commercial and a 2nd class medical we
> need to encourage them (EAA and AOPA) to lobby the FAA for some common
sense
> in this reg. or perhaps a change. I am betting that the reg is actually
> being mis-interpreted by the FSDO's and the line inspectors, and that a
> simple directive from the top would go a long way to fix things and may
even
> make the problem go away. I do not agree with the naysayers who say we
> should not call attention to ourselves, quite on the contrary, I think if
we
> stick together we are big enough and well connected enough to cause the
> pressure to come to bear in the right places. To get these "aircraft of
> interest" out for the public to see is the goal of the EAA and to a
certain
> extent the AOPA, and should not in my mind be restricted. I would think
> that the situation exists wherein antique or exotic aircraft are owned and
> flown by old coots who are actually lucky to pass their third class
medical,
> let alone get a 2nd class. With many of us in or soon to be in this
> category, will we soon be denied the joy of showing our aircraft? Baby
> boomers make up the majority of aircraft owners today, that make most of
us
> 55+, so just how much longer are we going to be able to get a 2nd class
> medical? When that day comes should the public be denied the opportunity
to
> view your aircraft? I would think not, in fact when you think about this
> reg (if true), flys in the face of the whole "Experimental Exhibition"
idea
> and category. I understand all the "yada yada" about the FAA and agree
with
> most of it so don't preach to the choir by answering back with the FAA is
> not logical or all that crap, we already know that. Lets get the
addresses
> of those in the EAA and start a campaign to drown them in paper. We were
> all willing to take a moment to vote for a acro box for a guy that 90% of
us
> did not even know. So lets get the same (or bigger) effort going for
> something that will benefit us all. I think that if enough input is given
> the EAA and AOPA they will at least attempt to effect some change.
>
> So, who out there knows who to contact within the EAA and AOPA to get the
> ball rolling?
>
> Doug Sapp
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <cjpilot710@aol.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: question.
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
> >
> > Well, I've sent a letter to the MCO (Orlando) FSDO manger. Standby.
> > Hopefully we'll get a 'definitive answer' that will cause us even more
> > trouble. :)
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
> > deserve neither liberty nor safety"
> > Benjamin Franklin 1759
> > "With my shield, or on it"
> > Trojan Warriors BC
> >
> >
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
I will bring up the issue with a nieghbor of mine who happens to be a big
cheese in WOA ( I mentioned our displeasure with lat years OSH
representation of our planes to him and I think our concernes were echoed)
and maybe he can bring this up at the meeting their annual meeting.
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne" <cpayne@mc.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Compensation
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Craig Payne <cpayne@mc.net>
>
> How about working through Warbirds Of America? Many other WB's share the
> same issue, even U.S. made warbirds that got shipped out of the US to
> other countries and then shpped back and forced into "Experimental
> Exhibition".
>
> I hereby nominate "Pappy Goolsby" as spokesperson, (we can't say
> SpokesMAN in this PC world) Our *massive* presence at WOA events like
> SNF, OSH, and Arlington will help "motivate" those who benefit from our
> presence and give "Pappy" some leverage.
>
> Any Seconds?
>
> Craig Payne
>
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > So lets get the same (or bigger) effort going for
> > something that will benefit us all. I think that if enough input is
given
> > the EAA and AOPA they will at least attempt to effect some change.
> >
> > So, who out there knows who to contact within the EAA and AOPA to get
the
> > ball rolling?
> >
> > Doug Sapp
> >
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
When somebody said that the whole "compensation & static display"
shouldn't be brought up to the FAA on the grounds that the Warbird
community might get an "official" answer they don't want to hear, it
reminded me of an old joke...
A ship goes down in the South Seas and pretty soon a couple of sharks are
picking off the guys.
So the one guy says to the other, "Don't kick at him... if you don't make
them mad, maybe they'll eat us last."
Jon
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
When I told people that I was going to NWOC, several asked if I'd take
notes on the LOA to Experimental Type Rating conversion that's been begun
by the FAA. I posted a short report at:
http://www.l39jet.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=258
LOAs are for turbojet and the larger piston Warbirds, but I know there are
some lurkers on the Yak List.
Jon
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Terry" <talewis@attbi.com>
Doug,
I think that is an excellent proposal and I would support anyone who wants
to be
a (I'm never political correct) spokesman.
Tell us what you need to get this resolved once and for all. We will
support you.
What do you think Pappy? Need another job? You'r the man that could do it.
Terry Lewis
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug <rvfltd@televar.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Compensation
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>
> This is exactly what I mean, we have the man power and connections to make
> this work!. Lets do it!
>
> Doug Sapp
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Payne" <cpayne@mc.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Compensation
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Craig Payne <cpayne@mc.net>
> >
> > How about working through Warbirds Of America? Many other WB's share the
> > same issue, even U.S. made warbirds that got shipped out of the US to
> > other countries and then shpped back and forced into "Experimental
> > Exhibition".
> >
> > I hereby nominate "Pappy Goolsby" as spokesperson, (we can't say
> > SpokesMAN in this PC world) Our *massive* presence at WOA events like
> > SNF, OSH, and Arlington will help "motivate" those who benefit from our
> > presence and give "Pappy" some leverage.
> >
> > Any Seconds?
> >
> > Craig Payne
> >
> > > Doug wrote:
> > >
> > > So lets get the same (or bigger) effort going for
> > > something that will benefit us all. I think that if enough input is
> given
> > > the EAA and AOPA they will at least attempt to effect some change.
> > >
> > > So, who out there knows who to contact within the EAA and AOPA to get
> the
> > > ball rolling?
> > >
> > > Doug Sapp
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Roger Bieberdorf <rogerbyak@yahoo.com>
I read your attachment; but am not clear on what may be a requirement for someone
who may fly aircraft other than Experimental as well as a CJ.? Will I have
to get an ETR endorsement in order to fly my CJ as well as fly a Cessna? rb
Jon Boede <jon@zoso.email.net> wrote:--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede"
When I told people that I was going to NWOC, several asked if I'd take
notes on the LOA to Experimental Type Rating conversion that's been begun
by the FAA. I posted a short report at:
http://www.l39jet.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=258
LOAs are for turbojet and the larger piston Warbirds, but I know there are
some lurkers on the Yak List.
Jon
---------------------------------
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
I agree whole heartdly with Frank.
From my standpoint, I didnt buy my CJ to make money, I bought it because I
love to fly the airplane and going to airshows is fun! I enjoy showing my
airplane to people and showing off my cool piece of history. Hey if they
want to offset my cost of ownership by giving me a little fuel thats great,
but I show up at airshows all the time for free. This is why I bought it,
this is why I own and fly it, showing it off at airshows is part of the fun
of ownership. I never expected this to be a business venture. If your reason
to own and fly your airplane is purely a commercial enterprise then it
shouldnt be too hard to abide by the loosley worded regs. Play it safe and
have a commercial ticket and a 2nd class medical.....case closed.
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Compensation
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Doug, YAKKERS;
> With all due respect, I think we should keep these questions low key. If
> the FAA gets wind of a bunch of people flying to air shows for the ONLY
> purpose of making money you will soon be seeing an NPRM (Notice of
> Proposed Rule Making) disallowing those activities. When asking the FAA
> any question you need to couch the questions in such a manner that they
> don't consider too much the "FLYING TO THE AIRSHOW PART". ie..... They
> have already given us permission to fly there with the EXPERIMENTAL
> EXHIBITION" category. But if you tell them that your ONLY reason for
> going to the air show is to make money then it casts a whole new light
> on the subject.
>
> I think our questions should be limited to only those questions that
> have to do with static displays of any kind! Get it? Ask only about the
> static display part. It boils down to what your intentions are and the
> spirit of the law. If the FAA sees what we are doing only in terms of a
> commercial enterprise you will soon find yourself regulated to the hilt.
> It brings to mind the old saw that goes "WHY HAND YOUR ENEMY A STICK? SO
> HE CAN BEAT YOU OVER THE POINTED HEAD WITH IT"?
>
> We don't go to air shows for the primary purpose of making money! Do we?
> ;-) wink wink... We go to promote aviation! That we make a little side
> money as part of a static displays is a small benefit we don't need to
> stress to much...you know? Our primary reason is to promote aviation!
> Right? ;-)One interesting thing about law is that you could be doing
> some activity....but if you look at it one way you are legal, if you
> look at it another way you are illegal. It all depends on your
> prospective. Trust me on this one....if the FAA gets wind of a bunch of
> people owning EXPERIMENTAL EXHIBITIONS with the sole purpose of making
> money it will very soon come to a sudden stop.
>
> That's my opinion....anyways!
> Frank
> N911OM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Compensation
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>
> Guys,
> Just my 2 bits worth (actually a bit more) but it would seem to me that
> this issue would be of paramount interest to both the EAA and AOPA. If
> we are actually required to have to have a commercial and a 2nd class
> medical we need to encourage them (EAA and AOPA) to lobby the FAA for
> some common sense
> in this reg. or perhaps a change. I am betting that the reg is
> actually
> being mis-interpreted by the FSDO's and the line inspectors, and that a
> simple directive from the top would go a long way to fix things and may
> even make the problem go away. I do not agree with the naysayers who
> say we should not call attention to ourselves, quite on the contrary, I
> think if we stick together we are big enough and well connected enough
> to cause the pressure to come to bear in the right places. To get these
> "aircraft of interest" out for the public to see is the goal of the EAA
> and to a certain extent the AOPA, and should not in my mind be
> restricted. I would think that the situation exists wherein antique or
> exotic aircraft are owned and flown by old coots who are actually lucky
> to pass their third class medical, let alone get a 2nd class. With many
> of us in or soon to be in this category, will we soon be denied the joy
> of showing our aircraft? Baby boomers make up the majority of aircraft
> owners today, that make most of us
> 55+, so just how much longer are we going to be able to get a 2nd class
> medical? When that day comes should the public be denied the
> opportunity to
> view your aircraft? I would think not, in fact when you think about
> this
> reg (if true), flys in the face of the whole "Experimental Exhibition"
> idea and category. I understand all the "yada yada" about the FAA and
> agree with most of it so don't preach to the choir by answering back
> with the FAA is not logical or all that crap, we already know that.
> Lets get the addresses of those in the EAA and start a campaign to drown
> them in paper. We were all willing to take a moment to vote for a acro
> box for a guy that 90% of us did not even know. So lets get the same
> (or bigger) effort going for something that will benefit us all. I
> think that if enough input is given the EAA and AOPA they will at least
> attempt to effect some change.
>
> So, who out there knows who to contact within the EAA and AOPA to get
> the ball rolling?
>
> Doug Sapp
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <cjpilot710@aol.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: question.
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
> >
> > Well, I've sent a letter to the MCO (Orlando) FSDO manger. Standby.
> > Hopefully we'll get a 'definitive answer' that will cause us even more
>
> > trouble. :)
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
> > deserve neither liberty nor safety"
> > Benjamin Franklin
> > 1759 "With my shield, or on it"
> > Trojan Warriors BC
> >
> >
>
>
> direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
ETRs will only be required for experimental aircraft for which a LOA is
required now... which is to say, piston airplanes over 800hp, jets,
anything over 12,500 lbs.
Jon
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Roger Bieberdorf <rogerbyak@yahoo.com>
>
>
> I read your attachment; but am not clear on what may be a requirement
> for someone who may fly aircraft other than Experimental as well as a
> CJ.? Will I have to get an ETR endorsement in order to fly my CJ as
> well as fly a Cessna? rb
> Jon Boede <jon@zoso.email.net> wrote:--> Yak-List message posted by:
> "Jon Boede"
>
> When I told people that I was going to NWOC, several asked if I'd take
> notes on the LOA to Experimental Type Rating conversion that's been
> begun by the FAA. I posted a short report at:
>
> http://www.l39jet.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=258
>
> LOAs are for turbojet and the larger piston Warbirds, but I know there
> are some lurkers on the Yak List.
>
> Jon
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Gus Fraser <fraseg@comcast.net>
Joe,
Great job, Does this mean that the aircraft will operate as a standard
category but with the requirement for the type rating ? Do things like the
300nm and events lists go away ?
Thanks again for the report.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon Boede
Subject: Yak-List: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating)
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
When I told people that I was going to NWOC, several asked if I'd take
notes on the LOA to Experimental Type Rating conversion that's been begun
by the FAA. I posted a short report at:
http://www.l39jet.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=258
LOAs are for turbojet and the larger piston Warbirds, but I know there are
some lurkers on the Yak List.
Jon
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
You made no mention of the reductions of minimum pilot qualifications for
straight wing jets going to 500 hrs from 1000. Any more info on the
subject????
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
Subject: Yak-List: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating)
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
>
> When I told people that I was going to NWOC, several asked if I'd take
> notes on the LOA to Experimental Type Rating conversion that's been begun
> by the FAA. I posted a short report at:
>
> http://www.l39jet.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=258
>
> LOAs are for turbojet and the larger piston Warbirds, but I know there are
> some lurkers on the Yak List.
>
> Jon
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
For turbojets the radius is 600NM
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating)
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Gus Fraser <fraseg@comcast.net>
>
> Joe,
> Great job, Does this mean that the aircraft will operate as a standard
> category but with the requirement for the type rating ? Do things like the
> 300nm and events lists go away ?
>
> Thanks again for the report.
>
> Gus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon Boede
> To: Yak-List@matronics.com; L39-List@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating)
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
>
> When I told people that I was going to NWOC, several asked if I'd take
> notes on the LOA to Experimental Type Rating conversion that's been begun
> by the FAA. I posted a short report at:
>
> http://www.l39jet.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=258
>
> LOAs are for turbojet and the larger piston Warbirds, but I know there are
> some lurkers on the Yak List.
>
> Jon
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
This is an aside conversation, but our FSDO guys (some of whom are VERY
sympathetic to Warbird and Experimental folks) have repeatedly said, "We
think these rules are really whacked, too... but these are the rules, and
you can't ask *us* to change them. Ask your national organizations to
request the change." Which is to say, change will never come from within
the FAA, it must be acted upon by an outside force. Newton would be
proud. :-)
To be clear, all the ETR process really does is:
a) Get the FSDOs out of the middle of the LOA process by making it more
"standard" across the whole FAA.
b) Get the LOA letters, which were scattered hither and yon, into a
database -- the same database that holds certificates.
So, the short answer is no... if we want the 300nm nonsense to go away,
that's another process.
Jon
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Gus Fraser <fraseg@comcast.net>
>
> Joe,
> Great job, Does this mean that the aircraft will operate as a standard
> category but with the requirement for the type rating ? Do things like
> the 300nm and events lists go away ?
>
> Thanks again for the report.
>
> Gus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon Boede To:
> Yak-List@matronics.com; L39-List@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating)
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
>
> When I told people that I was going to NWOC, several asked if I'd take
> notes on the LOA to Experimental Type Rating conversion that's been
> begun by the FAA. I posted a short report at:
>
> http://www.l39jet.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=258
>
> LOAs are for turbojet and the larger piston Warbirds, but I know there
> are some lurkers on the Yak List.
>
> Jon
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
We asked about that... and the new draft version of "Chapter 32" (which is
what all of this is being called) still keeps the 1,000 hours for the ETR
in jets. Whether you need that to "solo" is unclear.
Worse, they're talking about adding "instrument rating" as an additional
requirement. How that makes things any safer (which, supposedly, is the
only reason they can require *anything*) is unclear -- nearly everybody
who's ever augered-in a jet had an ATP or at least an instrument rating.
Go figure.
Jon
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
>
> You made no mention of the reductions of minimum pilot qualifications
> for straight wing jets going to 500 hrs from 1000. Any more info on the
> subject????
>
> Ernie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
> To: <Yak-List@matronics.com>; <L39-List@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating)
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
>>
>> When I told people that I was going to NWOC, several asked if I'd take
>> notes on the LOA to Experimental Type Rating conversion that's been
>> begun by the FAA. I posted a short report at:
>>
>> http://www.l39jet.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=258
>>
>> LOAs are for turbojet and the larger piston Warbirds, but I know there
>> are some lurkers on the Yak List.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
The aircraft will still be considered experimental exhibition with all the
assoiciated restrictions. Just the requirements to fly them are changing.
Specifically, the concept of LOA's issued by the local FSDO's are going
away, you will now recieve an ETR (Experimental Type Rating) for the class
of airplane you are flying. They will be similar to any other type rating
and they will be an endorsement on your license as opposed to a letter that
has to be carried on board.
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating)
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Gus Fraser <fraseg@comcast.net>
>
> Joe,
> Great job, Does this mean that the aircraft will operate as a standard
> category but with the requirement for the type rating ? Do things like the
> 300nm and events lists go away ?
>
> Thanks again for the report.
>
> Gus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon Boede
> To: Yak-List@matronics.com; L39-List@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: LOA -> ETR (experimental type rating)
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@zoso.email.net>
>
> When I told people that I was going to NWOC, several asked if I'd take
> notes on the LOA to Experimental Type Rating conversion that's been begun
> by the FAA. I posted a short report at:
>
> http://www.l39jet.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=258
>
> LOAs are for turbojet and the larger piston Warbirds, but I know there are
> some lurkers on the Yak List.
>
> Jon
>
>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
1. I have not put the letter to MCO FSDO manger, in the mail box yet.
2.Thank you for the confidence which I do not deserve .
3. To Al, Yes I just passed another 2nd class physical. I'm still warm to
the touch and as usual, you better check your six.
Jim
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
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! --
|