Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:56 AM - Re: CJ6a Air System-Water tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, (Brian Lloyd)
2. 04:51 AM - Aerobatics (Jeff Linebaugh)
3. 05:55 AM - canopy seal (jay reiter)
4. 05:58 AM - seal (jay reiter)
5. 06:59 AM - Re: Question about low altitude waivers ... (Ron)
6. 06:59 AM - Re: Aerobatics (Ron)
7. 06:59 AM - Re: CJ6a Air System-Water tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55 (Ron)
8. 06:59 AM - Re: Question about low altitude waivers ... (Ron)
9. 07:09 AM - Re: Question about low altitude waivers ... (Ernie)
10. 07:38 AM - Re: CJ6a Air System-Water tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55 (William Halverson)
11. 08:29 AM - Re: Aerobatics (William Halverson)
12. 08:36 AM - Sliding canopy (jay reiter)
13. 09:00 AM - What is reckless conduct? We may be on to something ... (William Halverson)
14. 09:59 AM - Re: canopy seal (Walt Lannon)
15. 03:33 PM - Re: CJ6a Air System-Water tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, (Brian Lloyd)
16. 03:37 PM - Re: CJ6a Air System-Water tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, (Brian Lloyd)
17. 03:44 PM - Re: What is reckless conduct? We may be on to something (Brian Lloyd)
18. 09:09 PM - travel to Oshkosh (Lou Dakos)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CJ6a Air System-Water tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, |
USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Walt Fricke wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Walt Fricke <walterfricke@yahoo.com>
>
> You two guys are among the most entertaining on the list. Thanks for a good
chuckle!
Thank you for the kind words but I must differ; this is *serious*! After I
return from playing musical airplanes in CONUS we plan to begin the rum
testing series. We will start by touring the local distillery at St. Croix
where we can evaluate the chemical composition prior to controlled field
testing.
We are looking for qualified testers to assist. There is no question in my
mind but that both you and Doug would perform admirably. If you are
interested I will send you a questionaire that will determine your suitability.
--
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
GMT-4
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Jeff Linebaugh <jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net>
The 30 degrees pitch and 60 degree bank limitations in the FARS are associated
with the parachute requirement. They are not the definition of aerobatic. ANYTHING
"abnormal" can be considered aerobatic by those that regulate.
By the way...just because you are "legal" to perform a "low" pass at 500'AGL doesn't
mean that "someone" can't call it "careless and reckless". Those three
words can be used pretty much at will by any inspector.
Be Careful... AND safe. Now- go fly!
Jeff Linebaugh
jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net
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: "jay reiter" <jmreiter@adelphia.net>
What do you use for a seal at the bottom sides of the center canopy the one on
the aircraft was just gum when removed.
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "jay reiter" <jmreiter@adelphia.net>
The aircraft is a CJ6
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: Question about low altitude waivers ... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
By low pass do you mean over a runway? If so, then some FAA types call this
aerobatics when done by a retractable plane with the gear up. There is an
exemption to the altitude requirements for landing, and their logic goes
that if you (intentionally) have the gear up then you aren't landing and the
altitude exemption doesn't apply so you have to be 1000 feet above the
highest object within a 2000' radius. If you do intend to land and the gear
is up, then you are careless and reckless, so don't use that excuse. In
fixed gear plane they can't hit you with this.
If you mean flying low in a "sparcely populated" area, then you can legally
fly at any altitude so long as there is no person within a 500 radius of you
(below, to the side, or above- think canyon here to understand above). The
canyon thing wouldn't be a factor in Florida.
No matter what you do or don't do, the careless and reckless FAR applies and
can be slapped on you if the fed wants to.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ernie <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Question about low altitude waivers ...
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
>
> Is a low pass considered aerobatics?
>
> Ernie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Question about low altitude waivers ...
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
> >
> > See paragraph (e) below:
> >
> > Date of last Revision: JUNE 4, 2003
> >
> > Section 91.303: aerobatic flight.
> > No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight --
> > (a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
> > (b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
> > (c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class
> C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
> > (d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
> > (e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
> > (f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles. For the
purposes
> of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving
an
> abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal
> acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Roy
> >
> > At 04:34 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Ernie wrote:
> > >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
> > >
> > >My understanding is that the L.A.W. is only for FAA waivered airspace
at
> > >airshows. If the event is not in FAA waivered airspace all you need to
do
> is
> > >stay at least 500ft away from any person, building or vehicle and you
can
> go
> > >as low as you like.
> > >
> > >Ernie
> >
> > ',,'',,'',,',,'
> > Roy Wright 512.378.1234 mailto:royw@cisco.com
> > Cisco Systems import com.cisco.std-disclaimer
> > "Experience is the thing you get the moment after you needed to have
it."
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
You are correct about 30/60 being the chute requirements. You can win lots
of beer by knowing that. Many hangar experts are "absolutely sure" about
the definition of aerobatic being based on bank and pitch. The actual
definition of aerobatic is a manuver not necessary to normal flilght.
Another tidbit to reduce your bar tab: Do the FARs require you to wear a
chute when you make an inverted low pass flying alone in the plane? No, the
chute requirement only applies when there is more than one person in the
plane.
Do you have to have a chute when doing a spin on a BFR with a flight
instructor on board. No way to tell, the reg isn't clear about whether the
manuver (spin) is exempted or whether a training flight for a CFI trainee
doing a spin is expempt. Something is clearly exempted, but the wording of
the reg is not well written enough to know what the author intended. Like
the second amendment.
This is very vague. Some FAA types consider a low pass over a runway with
the gear up, at any speed to meet this definition. Fixed gear planes can't
fall in this trap of course because they are in the landing configuration no
matter what the speed.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Linebaugh <jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Aerobatics
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Jeff Linebaugh
<jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net>
>
> The 30 degrees pitch and 60 degree bank limitations in the FARS are
associated with the parachute requirement. They are not the definition of
aerobatic. ANYTHING "abnormal" can be considered aerobatic by those that
regulate.
>
> By the way...just because you are "legal" to perform a "low" pass at
500'AGL doesn't mean that "someone" can't call it "careless and reckless".
Those three words can be used pretty much at will by any inspector.
>
> Be Careful... AND safe. Now- go fly!
>
> Jeff Linebaugh
> jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net
>
>
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: CJ6a Air System-Water tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, |
USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
What is rum made out of anyway?
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ6a Air System-Water
tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, USER_IN_WHITELIST
version=2.55
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> Walt Fricke wrote:
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Walt Fricke <walterfricke@yahoo.com>
> >
> > You two guys are among the most entertaining on the list. Thanks for a
good chuckle!
>
> Thank you for the kind words but I must differ; this is *serious*! After
I
> return from playing musical airplanes in CONUS we plan to begin the rum
> testing series. We will start by touring the local distillery at St.
Croix
> where we can evaluate the chemical composition prior to controlled field
> testing.
>
> We are looking for qualified testers to assist. There is no question in
my
> mind but that both you and Doug would perform admirably. If you are
> interested I will send you a questionaire that will determine your
suitability.
>
> --
>
> 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
> GMT-4
>
>
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: Question about low altitude waivers ... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
The statement of aerobatic competency can be very limited or very general.
The form has a block for manuever limitations, altitude limitations, and
authorized aircraft. It could be for loops, 1400', in N12345, or it could
say none, none, all. This form is for the pilot, not the plane or the
place.
The plane's limits are in the type certificate (if any) and the approved
aircraft manual (Ops Limits for experimental).
The places you can't do aerobatics is in the FARs (airways, over crowds,
etc, etc, etc). An airspace waiver lets you do aerobatics in places the
FARs say you can't. It waives certain FARs at a certain time at a certain
place. They are usually about 20 pages long. It is a good idea to read it
carefully.
- Original Message -----
From: Rick Basiliere <discrab@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Question about low altitude waivers ...
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Rick Basiliere" <discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> Sir; ICAS, the International Council of Air Shows, Inc. phone;
> 703-779-8510 e-mail: icas@airshows.org or web www.airshow.org These folks
> should be able to help you. I have to do ground and flight tests before
an
> ACE (Aerobatic Competency Evaluator) and if acceptable to him/her the FAA
> (FSDO) will send me a 8710-7 card. Different levels are given based on
> experience and demonstrations, e.g.. 800'agl level 4, 500' level 3, 250'
> level 2, and level 1- Unrestricted.
>
> Your local FSDO would know how they can waiver airspace for you to do
> aerobatics below the FAR 1500' agl. Maybe your local IAC Chapter would
know
> how, since they have to get an airspace waiver, from the local FSDO in
order
> to allow Unlimited to go to 328' agl during a competition.
>
> I hope this helps. Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of William
> Halverson
> To: yak-list@matronics.com; members@iac38.org;
> acro@gf24.de.Gecko/20020508.Netscape6/6.2.3
> Subject: Yak-List: Question about low altitude waivers ...
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
>
> I'm curious about how one gets a low altitude waiver from the FAA to do
> 'selected' maneuvers at low altitudes. It would be for a particular day
> at a particular time and location ...
>
> A friend wants me to help celebrate the opening day of a sailboat race
> ... it would be over open water in the SF Bay. Nothing outrageous, just
> some low altitude passes with smoke, that sort of thing ... no crowds,
> just sailboats ...
>
> Thanks in advance for any ideas/leads ...
>
> Bill Halverson
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Question about low altitude waivers ... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
The original post was that the guy wanted to do a low flyby with smoke over
water for some festival.
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Question about low altitude waivers ...
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> By low pass do you mean over a runway? If so, then some FAA types call
this
> aerobatics when done by a retractable plane with the gear up. There is an
> exemption to the altitude requirements for landing, and their logic goes
> that if you (intentionally) have the gear up then you aren't landing and
the
> altitude exemption doesn't apply so you have to be 1000 feet above the
> highest object within a 2000' radius. If you do intend to land and the
gear
> is up, then you are careless and reckless, so don't use that excuse. In
> fixed gear plane they can't hit you with this.
>
> If you mean flying low in a "sparcely populated" area, then you can
legally
> fly at any altitude so long as there is no person within a 500 radius of
you
> (below, to the side, or above- think canyon here to understand above).
The
> canyon thing wouldn't be a factor in Florida.
>
> No matter what you do or don't do, the careless and reckless FAR applies
and
> can be slapped on you if the fed wants to.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ernie <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Question about low altitude waivers ...
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
> >
> > Is a low pass considered aerobatics?
> >
> > Ernie
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
> > To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Question about low altitude waivers ...
> >
> >
> > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
> > >
> > > See paragraph (e) below:
> > >
> > > Date of last Revision: JUNE 4, 2003
> > >
> > > Section 91.303: aerobatic flight.
> > > No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight --
> > > (a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
> > > (b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
> > > (c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B,
Class
> > C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
> > > (d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
> > > (e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
> > > (f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles. For the
> purposes
> > of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver
involving
> an
> > abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or
abnormal
> > acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
> > >
> > > Have fun,
> > > Roy
> > >
> > > At 04:34 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Ernie wrote:
> > > >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
> > > >
> > > >My understanding is that the L.A.W. is only for FAA waivered airspace
> at
> > > >airshows. If the event is not in FAA waivered airspace all you need
to
> do
> > is
> > > >stay at least 500ft away from any person, building or vehicle and you
> can
> > go
> > > >as low as you like.
> > > >
> > > >Ernie
> > >
> > > ',,'',,'',,',,'
> > > Roy Wright 512.378.1234 mailto:royw@cisco.com
> > > Cisco Systems import com.cisco.std-disclaimer
> > > "Experience is the thing you get the moment after you needed to have
> it."
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CJ6a Air System-Water tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, |
USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55
--> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
Make sure you make your test results available to all ... some of us may
want to determine if latitude or altitude has an effect of the results ...
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
>Walt Fricke wrote:
>
>>--> Yak-List message posted by: Walt Fricke <walterfricke@yahoo.com>
>>
>>You two guys are among the most entertaining on the list. Thanks for a good
chuckle!
>>
>
>Thank you for the kind words but I must differ; this is *serious*! After I
>return from playing musical airplanes in CONUS we plan to begin the rum
>testing series. We will start by touring the local distillery at St. Croix
>where we can evaluate the chemical composition prior to controlled field
>testing.
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
Hmmm reckless .. sounds like a lot of the guys on the boats I'd be
flying over ... they routinely pass within 2 feet of each other at 6kts
and sometimes collide as they jockey for the best starting position ...
but they do it very carefully, so maybe they'd get a pass on it ...
Actually now that I think of it, is it possible to be 'reckless' but
also 'careful'?
Would that description apply to race car drivers? Think I'll go find my
OED now ...
;-)
Bill
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Jeff Linebaugh <jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Yak-List: Aerobatics--> Yak-List message posted by: Jeff Linebaugh
>
><jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net>
>
>>The 30 degrees pitch and 60 degree bank limitations in the FARS are associated
with the parachute requirement. They are not the definition of
>>aerobatic. ANYTHING "abnormal" can be considered aerobatic by those that
>>regulate. By the way...just because you are "legal" to perform a "low" pass at
500'AGL doesn't mean that "someone" can't call it "careless and reckless".
>>Those three words can be used pretty much at will by any inspector.Be Careful...
AND safe. Now- go fly!
>>
>>Jeff Linebaugh
>>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "jay reiter" <jmreiter@adelphia.net>
We are in the middle of a canopy change the drilling trimming and fitting of the
stationary portions have gone well. Does anyone have a tip on working the sliders
where there is no vertical reference is a fixture necessary or can they
be assembled on the aircraft. Thanks
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: | What is reckless conduct? We may be on to something ... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
I'm tracking down what this word 'reckless' means ... so far am stuck in
legal land ... here is the most concise definition I'm come across:
"CONDUCT, RECKLESS - highly unreasonable conduct that is an extreme
departure from ordinary care."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c091.htm
OK .. so what is 'ordinary care' when we are doing an aerobatic
competition or an airshow? ...does that mean only being a safe pilot, or
does it include all the paperwork?
"STANDARD OF CARE - The degree of care a reasonable person would take to
prevent an injury to another."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s063.htm
Hmmmm ... well if no injury to another has happened ... is it legally
correct to say 'the action could not have been reckless since no injury
was created'?
Are aerobatic pilots reasonable? Well, statistics prove aerobatic flying
is safer than driving a car to work. Since reasonable people drive cars
to work, we must conclude people that fly aerobatics are not
unreasonable people - they are doing something that is less risky than
driving to work!
A broader question is this: if the accident statistics show that
aerobatic flight is more safe than GA flight, is that because of all the
paperwork we do or because of the cautious, careful nature of the pilots
that do the flying? Does the low accident rate for aerobatic flying
prove we _don't_ need to do the paperwork, or that without the paperwork
we could be as dangerous as the general GA fleet?
Bill Halverson
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 |
|
tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
USER_IN_WHITELIST
version=2.55
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <lannon@look.ca>
Jay;
I have been using a two part, paintable, rubber-like sealant for the fixed
section lower edges and many other areas of the canopy. It is PRC 1435
though I believe that number is now obsolete and replaced with another. The
company is Products Research Corporation. They manufacture a full range of
sealant products for the aerospace industry. Check with your local aircraft
equip. supplier.
If you use the Chinese method of sealing the glass you can do the final
fitting on the aircraft. I would recommend this method over the use of a
permanent sealant as final fitting is necessary.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "jay reiter" <jmreiter@adelphia.net>
Subject: Yak-List: canopy seal
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "jay reiter" <jmreiter@adelphia.net>
>
> What do you use for a seal at the bottom sides of the center canopy the
one on the aircraft was just gum when removed.
>
>
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: CJ6a Air System-Water tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, |
USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Ron wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> What is rum made out of anyway?
Sugar cane.
--
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
GMT-4
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: CJ6a Air System-Water tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, |
USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
William Halverson wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
>
> Make sure you make your test results available to all ... some of us may
> want to determine if latitude or altitude has an effect of the results ...
Certainly. All tests are going to be low (sea level) and slow (anchored).
You also forgot to mention attitude. Testers must have a good attitude
or they will be asked to leave or even tossed overboard in cases of
extremely poor attitude.
--
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
GMT-4
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: What is reckless conduct? We may be on to something |
...
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
William Halverson wrote:
> A broader question is this: if the accident statistics show that
> aerobatic flight is more safe than GA flight, is that because of all the
> paperwork we do or because of the cautious, careful nature of the pilots
> that do the flying? Does the low accident rate for aerobatic flying
> prove we _don't_ need to do the paperwork, or that without the paperwork
> we could be as dangerous as the general GA fleet?
This is making my head hurt. I believe this requires me to return to
testing. Right now I am testing Beamish, a stout in the manner of Guinness
but a touch sweeter and not having quite as much bite (bitter aftertaste).
Output tests will be in a short while.
--
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
GMT-4
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: | travel to Oshkosh |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Lou Dakos" <lou_dakos@bordermail.com.au>
Dear Yak members
We are travelling from Australia to Oshkosh arriving in Greenbay on Saturday 26
July and were hoping to travel to Oshkosh on Sunday 27th but we are having trouble
finding an economical way of getting there. Willing to share a taxi or
limo with someone or take any other suggestions.
Thanks
Lou and Deanne Dakos
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! --
|