Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:23 AM - Re: "Fish Scales" rebuilt. (Doug Sapp)
2. 03:56 AM - Re: "Fish Scales" rebuilt. (Daniel Fortin)
3. 07:29 AM - helmets, and flight suits and bears... oh my. (Drew Blahnick)
4. 08:09 AM - Tight fit (Jerry Painter)
5. 08:57 AM - Re: Tight fit (Dee L. Conger)
6. 09:13 AM - Paint prep (Ernest Martinez)
7. 10:36 AM - Helmet Room (Jeff Linebaugh)
8. 11:21 AM - Re: Tight fit (Dee L. Conger)
9. 11:37 AM - Re: Paint prep (Robert Starnes)
10. 12:47 PM - Big head, no problem! (Barry Hancock)
11. 01:02 PM - Re: Big head, no problem! (Mills, Bill)
12. 01:10 PM - Re: Big head, no problem! (Ernest Martinez)
13. 01:13 PM - Re: Paint prep (Ernest Martinez)
14. 01:13 PM - Re: Tight fit (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
15. 01:34 PM - Re:Reason for not type certifying the Yak/CJ (was Big head, no problem!) (Daniel Fortin)
16. 01:35 PM - Re: Equipment/FAST (Barry Hancock)
17. 04:11 PM - Fw: FW: Actual exchanges between pilots and control towers (PeteAbbott@aol.com)
18. 04:28 PM - Re: Big head, no problem! (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
19. 05:03 PM - Re: Paint prep (Walter Lannon)
20. 05:55 PM - Re: Paint prep (Ernest Martinez)
21. 07:23 PM - RPA Dress Code (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
22. 07:37 PM - Re: Paint prep (David Stroud)
23. 08:13 PM - You will never be able to fly lead in formation (Frank Haertlein)
24. 08:38 PM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Walt Fricke)
25. 09:21 PM - So Cal FAST Clinic (Barry Hancock)
26. 09:21 PM - So Cal FAST Clinic (Barry Hancock)
27. 10:15 PM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Isaiahmccole@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | "Fish Scales" rebuilt. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Dan, its good of you to offer, but shipping from you to me is a killer for
something that big. Maybe if I get a call from some one in need I'll send
them directly to you. What do you need for them?
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Daniel Fortin
Subject: RE: Yak-List: "Fish Scales" rebuilt.
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
Doug,
I have an old set from my 285hp engine. Worked great last time it was used.
If you are interrested.
Dan
>From: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Yak-List: "Fish Scales" rebuilt.
>Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:08:58 -0800
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>
>Jim,
>This should make your day.............If I can find them in new condition
>which is VERY rare, they are $1250.00. I have not been able to find a new
>set for 2 years now, so you just saved yourself 1250 at the minimum! Not a
>bad days pay even for a big iron driver!! You should have asked me about
>the
>backwards thing, I have experience in that area also. What did you use for
>the long pivot bolts? I now have them and the short center bolts with the
>drilled heads as well.
>
>Always Yakin,
>Doug Sapp
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>cjpilot710@aol.com
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: "Fish Scales" rebuilt.
>
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
>
>Another beautiful day here in Florida.
>
>I just finished rebuilding the cooling cowl vanes (Chinese call them "Fish
>Scales"). This was quite a job. I've spent long days in the hangar this
>week. The two aluminum ring castings had worn though in a number of
>places; to
>the point that a number of the vanes were just flopping around.
>
>I disassemble the entire unit, and took the castings to a local weld shop
>were they filled up the all holes and worn out sections. I than sat down
>with
>a file and dressed them back to shape. Next I made drilling jigs to re
>drill
>the all the holes.
>
>Wall-la!, she's back on the machine and works just fine.
>
>As simple as these mechanisms are you can screw them up. Position of the
>holes are very important. It is possible to put them back together, up
>side
>down and backward! All the parts will fit beautifully, but she won't work
>worth a *&$%. Yes I did do just that. Since there are 28 vanes, it means
>undoing your mistakes 28 times!
>
>Maybe someone could tell me how much a replacement system cost. Than I
>can
>either feel proud of myself or wonder why I put myself though so much
>work.
>
>Did I mention that it was a beautiful day here? :)
>
>Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
>
>
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: | "Fish Scales" rebuilt. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>
What do you need for them?
Mmmmmmm... a year's supply of AVGAS!!!? ;-)
I'll check an contact you off list.
Dan
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | helmets, and flight suits and bears... oh my. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Drew Blahnick <lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
Folks,
If you download the safety equipment and policy change letter from 1/2004, it may
clear things up, it attempts to explain why as well as what.
This may be the only public response I will send on this recent Yak List communication,
but if you email me directly I always respond.
Let me first say, being the President of the RPA during a time when the RPA is
literally being built or rebuilt from the ground up has been enlightening. One
area of responsability that will never go away is the need to moderate views,
desires, requirements, regulations and the urge to "do the right thing" in to
a livable policy for all. One that is certainly legal for the association and
individual aviator/member, and goes beyond that to capture at least the minimum
that I and the Board feel is good for the RPA and for the majority of members.
The RPA is not old; it's extremely young; how we address these issues now
will set the tone and standard years from now when this organization is not
350 strong, but 1350 strong.
Many will not agree, and you have that right:
Basis of policy on personal equipment at RPA events was changed significantly in
early 2004. For the most part, the list of "mandatory" items was reduced, although
they remain as emphasized items. This was done for a very specific reason:
In all the debate, the factions, and the arguments, the one thing that remained
surfaced above all arguments was this: the RPA should not get in to the liability
game of insuring your protection from injury. If you have a mishap and your
flight suit sleeves are rolled up and you had no gloves on and you wore only
a headset, and all this resulted in catastrophic injuries such that your arms
ended in burned off stubs and you have a plate in the side of your head and
can only enunciate "ga-ga" for the reminder of your days, the RPA has to realize
it can not take responsability for preventing these personal injuries. That's
not the game were in, thats not our role and the RPA certainly has no assets,
insurance, or legal power to defend itself as the gardian of your wifes spouse.
What is left of the mandatory list was based on this process:
1. On meeting our source guidance, in this case the Federal Aviation Regulations.
We want to be an organization that is seen as in compliance with all Federal
Regulations and instills in our pilots the same. Most of these regulations
are designed to insure the safety of the public, we can understand and respect
that. I would like when the RPA shows up at an airshow or has one of its annual
regional events, that when the FSDO is notified, or if an FAA Inspector is
walking the ramp, he just sort of nods to the RedStar group, "oh, its them,
don't worry about those guys, their a sharp outfit" and moves on.
This concept of first and foremost addressing issues to the source guidance is
a sound policy for this young organization - let me hit this before moving on;
even now we are having difficulty in fielding advanced military flight / formation
/ BFM programs as individuals want to custom design the programs to their
personal whims and desires. To moderate the factions I turn to the source guidance,
in this case USAF & USN flight training regulations & manuals, just as
we did to help resolve the safety equipment debate by sourcing the FARS when
possible. To protect the foundation of "policy and program" development for the
future of the RPA (and it's a bright future), I am urging the BoD to adopt the
concept of "source guidance" in all that we do to resolve such issues when
possible.
2. Once that's achieved, we looked at where we could impact safety and liability,
in regards to how it effects those around you, both in the air and on the ground.
In this statement, I'm saying that the RPA has to look at how you can
effect others, not how the RPA can somehow prevent your own death or injury by
mandating a long list of protective gear. The concern is how you effect others
around you. From liability (organizers) to personal injury.
3. Finally, we looked at personal equipment/uniform wear, as it reflects our professional,
competant image to the outside public, as well as instilling a sense
of professionalism and focus of attention to the group - so critical at training
events with new pilots. Along with this is an understanding that how seasoned
aviators adress their safety and equip themselves will be emulated by new
aviators, if you take a visible step toward your safety and professional approach
to [warbird] aviation, so likely will they.
From this I recommended to the BoD the following;
Mandatory:
Flight Suits (4)
We are a young aviation organization thats unique to anything else out there. If
you saw the Flight Suite Inc. demonstration I don't need to go on about its
safety aspect, but its important enough in regards to the reasons under #4 that
we should maintain them. We also have other reasons that are coming to the surface
now that I can go in to later.
Protective Footwear (2 & 4)
Parachutes (1):
In sticking to the policy process, the RPA will meet the FARS. Because we can not
control every pilot who is flying extendid trail from exceeding flight parameters
that achieve the definition of "aerobatics", and we can't police every
cockpit that goes up if it has a passenger or not, we erred to the consiervative
and made parachutes mandatory for formation and advanced tactical flight programs
front and back (instructors will not get in the aircraft unless they have
or are provided a chute as well) . I will bring up this policy and how it
effects single seat aircraft at the BoD meeting tonight.
On helmets (2):
Here again, although the right thing to do is much more than the RPA is asking,
when we apply the policy logic, helmets in BFM came out under #2. Our concern
with BFM and Fighting Wing work at events is keeping your headset on your noggin
during high-g/rapid g manuevering in close proximity to another aircraft
so you can hear these absolutely critical, and perhaps directive, radio calls
- the type of helmet is not mandated; the Livermore group wears leather helmets
that take up almost no more vertical height on their chrome domes and keeps
their headsets securely in place. And it gives a little blunt force protection
for these tight cockpits where your head is inches from the plexiglass. I realize
IAC folks do some pretty violent head-snapping manuevers with a headset only,
but we can't police every pilot and you fly "danger close" [if I can use
an old Gunship term] to another RPA member...
These could change, run for the Board, run for President, and vote in the next
election. Make the officers tell you their views on such issues...
Thanks for listening, email me directly with feedback to lacloudchaser@yahoo.com
I may not download the list everytime...
Drew
Drew Blahnick
---------------------------------
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 |
|
IMItemGuid: {D4B0DCF4-90C2-4BA7-931A-34EF55D0F287}
1.67 SARE_ADLTSUB2 Contains possible adult words
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
Mark,
Have you seen the "Malcolm Hood" front canopy being sported by a few CJ's?
You might consider making one for your -50 (might even improve the a/c
looks). Drew Blahnick's -50 (ser #1) was originally fitted with fixed gear
and a teardrop bubble--looked great!
No chute? Read Neil Williams account of landing a Zlin after an inverted
approach and very short final roll to flare following positive G wing
failure. No chute. Even the Brits wear 'em now.
Keep your toes dry, but not too dry and don't wear nylon socks (static
electricity).
And, Frank, I'm sure you know some Sukhois are fitted with ejection seats.
Seems I've read of at least one successful deployment. I'd rather be
over-equipped than wish for more when I needed it. If you're going to be
serious, be serious--I prefer to take a gun to knife fights. Yes, I know.
Me, too (sigh). But then, I'm not very serious...usually.
What we need is early retirement, lowest-bidder surplus sales of US military
piston trainers fully equipped with hot seats, survival gear and functional
spars.
Jerry Painter
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Dee L. Conger" <dee@ansatainc.com>
I'd love to see a "malcolm Hood" on the -50 - is anyone else interested
in getting one blown?
Dee L. Conger
(858) 754-3010 Direct
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Painter
Subject: Yak-List: Tight fit
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
Mark,
Have you seen the "Malcolm Hood" front canopy being sported by a few
CJ's?
You might consider making one for your -50 (might even improve the a/c
looks). Drew Blahnick's -50 (ser #1) was originally fitted with fixed
gear
and a teardrop bubble--looked great!
No chute? Read Neil Williams account of landing a Zlin after an
inverted
approach and very short final roll to flare following positive G wing
failure. No chute. Even the Brits wear 'em now.
Keep your toes dry, but not too dry and don't wear nylon socks (static
electricity).
And, Frank, I'm sure you know some Sukhois are fitted with ejection
seats.
Seems I've read of at least one successful deployment. I'd rather be
over-equipped than wish for more when I needed it. If you're going to
be
serious, be serious--I prefer to take a gun to knife fights. Yes, I
know.
Me, too (sigh). But then, I'm not very serious...usually.
What we need is early retirement, lowest-bidder surplus sales of US
military
piston trainers fully equipped with hot seats, survival gear and
functional
spars.
Jerry Painter
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: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
I finaly bit the bullet and starting striping my airplane. I'm taking
the Craig Paine approach and doing the airplane in sections, I started
with the cowl instead of the tail.
Is there any prep that is done to the alodined metal after the
stripper has been washed off???
Ernie
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jeff Linebaugh" <jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net>
Dan, et al...
If you are serious about wanting to wear a helmet, but don't have room---
The guys out in Deer Valley are all raving about the "Malcom Hood" front
canopy conversions for the CJ....They give you a significant increase in
head room, look good, and if you ask them they will tell you it gives them
an extra 5 knots of airspeed ;
)
Go to the RPA CJ gallery and check out Barry's ride..it shows the Malcom
hood front canopy.
Jeff Linebaugh
jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net
CJ-6P N621CJ
Memphis, TN
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Dee L. Conger" <dee@ansatainc.com>
Who makes the "Malcom Hoods" for the CJs?
Dee L. Conger
(858) 754-3010 Direct
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Painter
Subject: Yak-List: Tight fit
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
Mark,
Have you seen the "Malcolm Hood" front canopy being sported by a few
CJ's?
You might consider making one for your -50 (might even improve the a/c
looks). Drew Blahnick's -50 (ser #1) was originally fitted with fixed
gear
and a teardrop bubble--looked great!
No chute? Read Neil Williams account of landing a Zlin after an
inverted
approach and very short final roll to flare following positive G wing
failure. No chute. Even the Brits wear 'em now.
Keep your toes dry, but not too dry and don't wear nylon socks (static
electricity).
And, Frank, I'm sure you know some Sukhois are fitted with ejection
seats.
Seems I've read of at least one successful deployment. I'd rather be
over-equipped than wish for more when I needed it. If you're going to
be
serious, be serious--I prefer to take a gun to knife fights. Yes, I
know.
Me, too (sigh). But then, I'm not very serious...usually.
What we need is early retirement, lowest-bidder surplus sales of US
military
piston trainers fully equipped with hot seats, survival gear and
functional
spars.
Jerry Painter
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: Robert Starnes <a35plt@yahoo.com>
Hey Ernie,
Yes, after stripping you need to acid etch the metal,
there are many comanies selling acid etch at auto body
stores(make sure to specify for aluminum). After acid
etch, which neutralizes the stripper (very corrosive)
apply alodine per instructions. DO NOT let the acid
etch sit on the plane too long, follow the
instructions and you'll be fine. If you are going to
do a section at a time go ahead and acid etch as you
go. I also suggest not using a pressure washer, on
these airplanes it blows stripper too far into the
nooks and crannies. Call me 678-457-8377 if you have
any questions.
-Robert Starnes
--- Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez
> <erniel29@gmail.com>
>
> I finaly bit the bullet and starting striping my
> airplane. I'm taking
> the Craig Paine approach and doing the airplane in
> sections, I started
> with the cowl instead of the tail.
>
> Is there any prep that is done to the alodined metal
> after the
> stripper has been washed off???
>
> Ernie
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Yak-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Big head, no problem! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
On Feb 22, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Yak-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> Dan "Whish his canopy was 2" taller" Fortin
Dan, you desparately need a "bubble" canopy. I installed the first one
(though not my idea), and many more have followed suit. They look cool
(which, of course, is the *most* important consideration!), and give
you 2+" of additional head room...I actually have more headroom with
the seat in the *middle* position now than I did in the down position
before the bubble canopy!
We have them available if you are interested....
Contact me directly.
As for being excluded because of the helmet requirement. The
definition of "helmet" is pretty loose...an acro "helmet" that does not
decrease head room is acceptable...
Cheers,
Barry
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
1-866-L39-JETS
office (714) 730-3958
cell (949) 300-5510
bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
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: | Big head, no problem! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mills, Bill" <Bill.Mills@Avnet.com>
Where can we see some pictures of these canopies? I might be
interested.........
Bill Mills
Avnet Partner Solutions
District Sales Manager
South East US
386 447 1118
"Because I Fly......I envy no man on Earth"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Hancock
Subject: Yak-List: Big head, no problem!
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
On Feb 22, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Yak-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> Dan "Whish his canopy was 2" taller" Fortin
Dan, you desparately need a "bubble" canopy. I installed the first one
(though not my idea), and many more have followed suit. They look cool
(which, of course, is the *most* important consideration!), and give you
2+" of additional head room...I actually have more headroom with the
seat in the *middle* position now than I did in the down position before
the bubble canopy!
We have them available if you are interested....
Contact me directly.
As for being excluded because of the helmet requirement. The definition
of "helmet" is pretty loose...an acro "helmet" that does not decrease
head room is acceptable...
Cheers,
Barry
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
1-866-L39-JETS
office (714) 730-3958
cell (949) 300-5510
bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
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: Big head, no problem! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Do you have them for CJ's? Are they front and rear canopies? Do you have pics??
Ernie
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:46:43 -0800, Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
>
> On Feb 22, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Yak-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> >
> > Dan "Whish his canopy was 2" taller" Fortin
>
> Dan, you desparately need a "bubble" canopy. I installed the first one
> (though not my idea), and many more have followed suit. They look cool
> (which, of course, is the *most* important consideration!), and give
> you 2+" of additional head room...I actually have more headroom with
> the seat in the *middle* position now than I did in the down position
> before the bubble canopy!
>
> We have them available if you are interested....
>
> Contact me directly.
>
> As for being excluded because of the helmet requirement. The
> definition of "helmet" is pretty loose...an acro "helmet" that does not
> decrease head room is acceptable...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Barry
>
> Barry Hancock
> Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
> 1-866-L39-JETS
> office (714) 730-3958
> cell (949) 300-5510
> bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com
> www.worldwidewarbirds.com
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Thanks,
Well too late, I power washed the stripper off. Why would I want to
acid etch the perfectly good alodined aluminum, only to re-alodine
it??
Ernie
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:36:39 -0800 (PST), Robert Starnes
<a35plt@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Robert Starnes <a35plt@yahoo.com>
>
> Hey Ernie,
> Yes, after stripping you need to acid etch the metal,
> there are many comanies selling acid etch at auto body
> stores(make sure to specify for aluminum). After acid
> etch, which neutralizes the stripper (very corrosive)
> apply alodine per instructions. DO NOT let the acid
> etch sit on the plane too long, follow the
> instructions and you'll be fine. If you are going to
> do a section at a time go ahead and acid etch as you
> go. I also suggest not using a pressure washer, on
> these airplanes it blows stripper too far into the
> nooks and crannies. Call me 678-457-8377 if you have
> any questions.
> -Robert Starnes
> --- Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez
> > <erniel29@gmail.com>
> >
> > I finaly bit the bullet and starting striping my
> > airplane. I'm taking
> > the Craig Paine approach and doing the airplane in
> > sections, I started
> > with the cowl instead of the tail.
> >
> > Is there any prep that is done to the alodined metal
> > after the
> > stripper has been washed off???
> >
> > Ernie
> >
> >
> >
> > Contributions
> > any other
> > Forums.
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Yak-List.htm
> > http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
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: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Yes..... without question.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Dee L. Conger [mailto:dee@ansatainc.com]
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Tight fit
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Dee L. Conger" <dee@ansatainc.com>
I'd love to see a "malcolm Hood" on the -50 - is anyone else interested
in getting one blown?
Dee L. Conger
(858) 754-3010 Direct
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Painter
Subject: Yak-List: Tight fit
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
Mark,
Have you seen the "Malcolm Hood" front canopy being sported by a few
CJ's?
You might consider making one for your -50 (might even improve the a/c
looks). Drew Blahnick's -50 (ser #1) was originally fitted with fixed
gear
and a teardrop bubble--looked great!
No chute? Read Neil Williams account of landing a Zlin after an
inverted
approach and very short final roll to flare following positive G wing
failure. No chute. Even the Brits wear 'em now.
Keep your toes dry, but not too dry and don't wear nylon socks (static
electricity).
And, Frank, I'm sure you know some Sukhois are fitted with ejection
seats.
Seems I've read of at least one successful deployment. I'd rather be
over-equipped than wish for more when I needed it. If you're going to
be
serious, be serious--I prefer to take a gun to knife fights. Yes, I
know.
Me, too (sigh). But then, I'm not very serious...usually.
What we need is early retirement, lowest-bidder surplus sales of US
military
piston trainers fully equipped with hot seats, survival gear and
functional
spars.
Jerry Painter
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:Reason for not type certifying the Yak/CJ (was Big head, |
no problem!)
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
Thanks for the info, but unfortunately impossible. You see, here in Canada,
the CJ is not experimental, and if it didn't come from the manufacturer, it
cost some more $$$ to get it certified. Just the new canopy would easily
run somewhere $3000 - $5000 in paperwork alone... I therefore spent it on
Avgas.
D
>From: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
>Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: Big head, no problem!
>Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:46:43 -0800
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
>
>
>On Feb 22, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Yak-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> >
> > Dan "Whish his canopy was 2" taller" Fortin
>
>Dan, you desparately need a "bubble" canopy. I installed the first one
>(though not my idea), and many more have followed suit. They look cool
>(which, of course, is the *most* important consideration!), and give
>you 2+" of additional head room...I actually have more headroom with
>the seat in the *middle* position now than I did in the down position
>before the bubble canopy!
>
>We have them available if you are interested....
>
>Contact me directly.
>
>As for being excluded because of the helmet requirement. The
>definition of "helmet" is pretty loose...an acro "helmet" that does not
>decrease head room is acceptable...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Barry
>
>
>Barry Hancock
>Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
>1-866-L39-JETS
>office (714) 730-3958
>cell (949) 300-5510
>bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com
>www.worldwidewarbirds.com
>
>
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: Equipment/FAST |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
On Feb 22, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Frank wrote:
> Barry, Drew......remember, you stress safety! Right? You're looking out
> for your guys...right? Then explain your lack of "HIGH VALUE" safety
> regulations that include more than just a flight suit and helmet? Don't
> you care about us RPA members?
Frank, et. al.,
Other than being inflammatory, what were you hoping to accomplish with
your post about safety equipment?
One thing that *continually* gets missed is what FAST is all about.
It's about airshow flying...that's IT!
FAST and the RPA do not intend or desire to regulate your flying, or
even your formation flying. However, when it comes to training for air
shows, there is a different expectation. In one word it is
"professionalism." There is a certain standard that has been
recommended by FAST, the RPA has set the standard slightly higher.
If you were on a baseball team you know that the league had dress code
requirements (basic uniform, etc.) and safety equipment
requirements....because the league has a position of responsibility to
ensure reasonable standards. The RPA could ignore it's inherent
responsibility and require nothing, with all the attendant
consequences, but I'm sure the vast majority of the membership would
not be appreciative of that choice.
Again, the RPA does not say that you have to do anything, even when you
fly formation...but if you are going to do it at events with the RPA's
name on it (read liability and image) then we need to follow the
reasonable guidelines that have been set forth. It's more than safety,
it's about demonstrating that you take safety seriously (remember, the
other guys you are flying with are counting on *you*) and being a team
player. If you don't think the guidelines are reasonable, that's fine.
However, it is rather selfish to attempt to denigrate the policies of
the association because they do not fit your beliefs.
On a personal note, Frank, while your web page with extensive links to
various aviation related sites is nice, I do not believe there is
anyone on this list who has complained or been the author of personal
attack more than yourself. If you are sincerely attempting to have a
positive influence and engage in progressive discourse, I would suggest
that you re-evaluate your approach. So far your productive
contributions concerning issues within the association are hovering
around zilch...
Cheers,
Barry
Barry Hancock
Western Regional Coordinator
RedStar Pilots Association
(949) 300-5510
www.flyredstar.org
"Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes"
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: | Fwd: FW: Actual exchanges between pilots and control towers |
--> Yak-List message posted by: PeteAbbott@aol.com
Thought you all may enjoy this.
Pete Abbott
N852GC
From: Aoplabs@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: FW: Actual exchanges between pilots and control towers
-------------------------------1109202370
-------------------------------1109202370
<META content"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" nameGENERATOR>
<BODY idrole_body style"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20Arial"
bottomMargin7 leftMargin7 topMargin7 rightMargin7><FONT idrole_document
faceArial color#000000 size2>
-------------------------------1109202370--
From: KHank33206@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: FW: Actual exchanges between pilots and control towers
-------------------------------1109166721
-------------------------------1109166721
<META content"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" nameGENERATOR>
<BODY idrole_body style"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20Arial"
bottomMargin7 leftMargin7 topMargin7 rightMargin7><FONT idrole_document
faceArial color#000000 size2>
-------------------------------1109166721--
Subject: FW: Actual exchanges between pilots and control towers
From: "Hankins, Noel E \(UMC-Student\)" <nehb6b@mizzou.edu>
>Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"
>Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We have digital watches!"
>************************************************************************
>****************************
>Tower: "TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."
>TWA 2341: "Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up
>here?"
>Tower: "Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
>************************************************************************
>****************************
>
> >From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue: "I'm
>f...ing bored!"
>Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify yourself
>immediately!"
>Unknown aircraft: "I said I was f...ing bored, not f...ing stupid!"
>************************************************************************
>****************************
>O'Hare Approach Control to a 747:
>
>"United 329 heavy, your traffic is a Fokke r, one o'clock, three miles,
>Eastbound."
>United 329:
>
>"Approach, I've always wanted to say this...I've got the little Fokker in
>sight."
>************************************************************************
>******************************
>A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While attempting
>to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What was your last known
>position?"
>Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
>************************************************************************
>*****************************
>A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly long roll out
>after touching down. San Jose Tower Noted:
>
> "American 751, make a hard right turn at the end of the runway, if you
>are
>able. If you are not able, take the Guadeloupe exit off Highway 101, make a
>right at the lights and return to the airport."
>************************************************************************
>******************************
>There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority landing
>because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked".
>Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that he was number two, behind a
>B-52 that had one engine shut down.
>"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine approach."
>************************************************************************
>*******************************
>A Pan Am 727 flight, waiting for start clearance in Munich, overheard the
>following:
>
>Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance time?"
>Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in English."
>Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane, in
>Germany. Why must I speak English?"
>Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
>"Because you lost the bloody war!"
>************************************************************************
>*****************************
>Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure on frequency
>124.7"
>Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the way,after
>we
>lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the far end of the runway."
>Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702, contact
>Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report from Eastern 702?"
>
> BR Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger; and
>yes,
>we copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers."
>************************************************************************
>********************************
> One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to hold
>short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8 landed, rolled
>out,
>turned around, and taxied back past the Cherokee.
>Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on the radio and said,
>
>"What a cute little plane. Did you make it all by yourself?"
>The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came back with a
>real
>zinger:
>
>"I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another landing like yours and I'll have
>enough parts for another one."
>************************************************************************
>*******************************
> The German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a
>short-tempered lot. They not only expect one to know one's gate parking
>location, but how to get there without any assistance from them.
>So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the
>following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways
>747, call sign Speedbird 206.
>Speedbird 206: "Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of active runway."
>Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven."
>The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.
>Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?"
>Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now."
>
>Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been
>to Frankfurt before?"
>Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark, -- And I
>didn't land."
>************************************************************************
>******************************
>While taxiing at London's Gatwick Airport, the crew of a US Air flight
>departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and came nose to nose with a
>United 727.
>An irate female ground controller lashed out at the US Air crew,
>screaming:
>"US Air 2771, where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto
>Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there. I know it's
>difficult for you to tell the difference between C and D, but get it
>right!"
>
>Continuing her rage to the embarrassed crew, she was now shouting
>hysterically:
>
> "God! Now you've screwed everything up! It'll take forever to sort this
>out! You stay right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
>progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour, and I want you to go
>exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I tell you! You got
>that,
>US Air 2771?"
>"Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded.
>Naturally, the ground control communications frequency fell terribly silent
>after the verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
>the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in every
>cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high.
>
>Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his microphone,
>asking:
>"Wasn't I married to you once?"
name="ATT5167385.txt"
filename="ATT5167385.txt"
DQo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KDQpU
aGlzIGUtbWFpbCBpcyBpbnRlbmRlZCBvbmx5IGZvciBpdHMgYWRkcmVzc2VlIGFuZCBtYXkg
Y29udGFpbiBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbg0KdGhhdCBpcyBwcml2aWxlZ2VkLCBjb25maWRlbnRpYWws
IG9yIG90aGVyd2lzZSBwcm90ZWN0ZWQgZnJvbSBkaXNjbG9zdXJlLiAgSWYNCnlvdSBoYXZl
IHJlY2VpdmVkIHRoaXMgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB1
cyBpbW1lZGlhdGVseSBieQ0KZS1tYWlsOg0KcG9zdG1hc3RlckBzaGVsdGVyaW5zdXJhbmNl
LmNvbSwgYW5kIGRlbGV0ZSB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYWwgbWVzc2FnZS4NCg0KPT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCg==
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: | Big head, no problem! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
One thing that is an "issue" with a 50 driver is the fact that in some cases
your head happens to end up right where the moveable portion of the canopy
joins up with the aft part... which is screwed in place. In other words,
one's head would not be "in the bubble", even if you added the bubble
canopy.
One of the issues of being "too tall" comes into play when measuring torso
length AND leg length. Each aspect has it's own set of problems. Long
legs... your knees end up hitting the bottom of the dash. Long torso? Your
head hits the canopy. Have both? You're pretty much SOL.
You "average height" guys remember all this, if you ever in your whole life
wished you were taller. Being tall can really be one huge pain in the......
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: Ernest Martinez [mailto:erniel29@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Big head, no problem!
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Do you have them for CJ's? Are they front and rear canopies? Do you have
pics??
Ernie
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:46:43 -0800, Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
>
> On Feb 22, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Yak-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> >
> > Dan "Whish his canopy was 2" taller" Fortin
>
> Dan, you desparately need a "bubble" canopy. I installed the first one
> (though not my idea), and many more have followed suit. They look cool
> (which, of course, is the *most* important consideration!), and give
> you 2+" of additional head room...I actually have more headroom with
> the seat in the *middle* position now than I did in the down position
> before the bubble canopy!
>
> We have them available if you are interested....
>
> Contact me directly.
>
> As for being excluded because of the helmet requirement. The
> definition of "helmet" is pretty loose...an acro "helmet" that does not
> decrease head room is acceptable...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Barry
>
> Barry Hancock
> Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
> 1-866-L39-JETS
> office (714) 730-3958
> cell (949) 300-5510
> bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com
> www.worldwidewarbirds.com
>
>
>
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: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
Ernie;
The acid etch will not harm the anodizing in any way. This is an anodized
surface NOT alodined. The correct material is phosphoric acid and is
availabe at any aircraft parts & material supplier under various trade
names. I think the Stitts product is called AlumaPrep, Check Aircraft
Spruce. Theoretically, since it has no effect on anodizing, you may think it
unnecessary but there will be scratches and otherwise damaged areas that
need the treatment AND a light scrub with this and Scotch Brite will remove
all traces of oil prior to priming for paint. Any corroded areas should be
thoroughly scrubbed to remove all traces of discoloration. All the NON
anodized areas should be treated with Alodine after etching.
All of the above should be done imediately prior to priming for paint. The
primary function of the phosphoric etch is to remove the aluminum oxide
coating which will begin to re-form shortly after etching. The reason for
Alodine (Chromic Acid) is to provide a coating that will prevent that
oxidation and provide a good base for primer.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Martinez" <erniel29@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Paint prep
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Well too late, I power washed the stripper off. Why would I want to
> acid etch the perfectly good alodined aluminum, only to re-alodine
> it??
>
> Ernie
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Thanks Walt,
I will hold off then, since I am going to stip the plane in small
sections then prep and prime all at one time.
Ernie
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:02:25 -0800, Walter Lannon
<wlannon@cablerocket.com> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
>
> Ernie;
>
> The acid etch will not harm the anodizing in any way. This is an anodized
> surface NOT alodined. The correct material is phosphoric acid and is
> availabe at any aircraft parts & material supplier under various trade
> names. I think the Stitts product is called AlumaPrep, Check Aircraft
> Spruce. Theoretically, since it has no effect on anodizing, you may think it
> unnecessary but there will be scratches and otherwise damaged areas that
> need the treatment AND a light scrub with this and Scotch Brite will remove
> all traces of oil prior to priming for paint. Any corroded areas should be
> thoroughly scrubbed to remove all traces of discoloration. All the NON
> anodized areas should be treated with Alodine after etching.
>
> All of the above should be done imediately prior to priming for paint. The
> primary function of the phosphoric etch is to remove the aluminum oxide
> coating which will begin to re-form shortly after etching. The reason for
> Alodine (Chromic Acid) is to provide a coating that will prevent that
> oxidation and provide a good base for primer.
>
> Walt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest Martinez" <erniel29@gmail.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Paint prep
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Well too late, I power washed the stripper off. Why would I want to
> > acid etch the perfectly good alodined aluminum, only to re-alodine
> > it??
> >
> > Ernie
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Drew, I am writing this reply both to the YAK list and to you personally.
You are an elected official of the RPA, and as such are a public figure like
it or not.
It is clear that to some, the issue of safety gear required by the RPA is
like opening Pandora's box. You have seen public comments that discuss this
issue on the YAK List, and I have about another 10 or so, that were written
to me privately that address the comments I posted (most from tall folks
with the same problems I have, but other "normal" people too).
Let me make a few points clear about my previous mailing to the YAK list. I
was not calling into question RPA's safety policies in general, but instead
how they caused specific prejudice against those few of us that could not
meet them due to the hand of God, and not personal opinion or desire. I
retain that point of few by offering you one specific safety question to
answer:
Is it safer to have untrained pilots fly formation or ACM, or to properly
train pilots in these techniques who do not wear your mandated safety
equipment? The whole thing boils down to exactly that, because in the final
analysis what matters most is not how professional you look, but how
professionally you fly. Not how well you impress the FAA with written
words, but how well you impress the guy flying just feet away from you, and
the fact that you both land airplanes that you can WALK and not PARACHUTE
away from.
Repeating what I just said... for some, meeting your requirements is not a
matter of CHOICE. What do you say specifically to those people? "Tough
luck, you were born too big, come back when you can modify yourself or your
aircraft to meet our requirements?" Respectfully Drew, that is not a very
professional answer and I politely object to anyone that might ever say it.
Now...... on to what everyone ELSE was discussing, "What should every well
adorned Pilot wear to an Air Show?", and the 'RPA's requirements in general'
debate, which is really just an answer to the question I just posed.
Your post was extremely well written and presented, my compliments. I
applaud your comments that direct RPA to meet all source guidance,
specifically the Federal Aviation Regulations. Your comments seem to echo
my own in this regard completely.
Next you said:" the RPA has to look at how you can effect others, not how
the RPA can somehow prevent your own death or injury by mandating a long
list of protective gear." Again Drew... right on the mark. I could
not agree more, your comments also concur with everyone who wrote me
directly by the way. RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
You really hit the nail on the head when you said: "the RPA should not get
in to the liability game of insuring your protection from injury. If you
have a mishap and your flight suit sleeves are rolled up and you had no
gloves on and you wore only a headset, and all this resulted in catastrophic
injuries such that your arms ended in burned off stubs and you have a plate
in the side of your head and can only enunciate "ga-ga" for the reminder of
your days, the RPA has to realize it can not take responsibility for
preventing these personal injuries. That's not the game were in, that's not
our role and the RPA certainly has no assets, insurance, or legal power to
defend itself as the guardian of your wife's spouse. "
GREAT WORDS... I also might add that the FAA is also not in the business of
taking responsibility for what you wear while flying an aircraft, and in my
honest humble opinion probably does not care one whit whether the RPA does,
or does not, either! The only exception being... doing Aerobatics with
someone else in the aircraft. Period.
So Drew... with all this said, when it comes to RPA's requirement for
wearing Flight Suits, shoes, helmets, and parachutes (in single seat, or
single piloted aircraft) the only real reason you require it is... well...
let's be candid. IMAGE.
I am not trying to start a pie-throwing contest here, but it would be best
to admit that when it walks like a duck, quack's like a duck, looks like a
duck, then folks... by Gosh, it probably IS A DUCK! Calling it something
else is just an open invitation for debate.
Requiring flight suits for safety without checking for nomex content is as
far as safety goes... useless.
Requiring ANY sort of worn equipment, whether it be flight suit, shoes,
socks, helmets, regardless.. is useless without a total program.
Requiring Parachutes means you also need to be CHECKING those parachutes for
Re-Pack dates, size / weight ratios etc. Failing to do that makes the
requirement no real test, just a "feel good / Look Good" policy, and nothing
else.
All of the above then are requirements that help IMAGE and nothing else.
I concur that any type of system that holds your headset in place is a good
thing. I hesitate to call these devices a "Helmet", but I concur that they
are a good thing, and yours truly along with about every IAC member that I
know of, wear them too. I also concur that these specific devices add
little to nothing in the way of overall height. So, no one really has any
issues with the head-phone restrainer 'thing'... or with wearing sneakers,
so that leaves us with just flight suits and parachutes.
Parachutes are the strict purview of the FAA. The fact that the RPA follows
FAA regulations is of course a good thing. The RPA should not go any
further in that department than the FAA does. Your own words echo that...
why not have your rules follow it too? To do less strikes of hypocrisy.
Sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth.
And ... coming to the end now.. that just leaves the ambiguous Flightsuit.
And excuse me Drew, I did not start this line of discussion looking for a
shoot-out at sun up. To be 100% candid, I opened this line of discussion
hoping to bring some reason to a rule that could show prejudice towards tall
people... namely... ME! In fact, I would dearly love to have a FAST card,
but the only way to obtain same is to fly in either my YAK-50, or something
like a Cherokee 140... and wearing a chute in a 140 is like .. well.. not
very realistic. However... after reading all the comments written to me
personally, and your own comments written publicly.... I have to go a
little bit on the attack... please excuse me.
The RPA may be all about flying at airshows, but the actual training is
applicable to everyone doing or contemplating ACM or formation flight. That
said, there simply is no way on this green Earth that a person should be
prevented from receiving this training simply because he or she declines to
wear a flight suit. Your issues of image apply only to those giving the
training, not receiving it.
If you want to specify that RPA members giving training to others must wear
a flight suit, well... that issue can be addressed separately, if and when
it ever surfaces.
You said: "Finally, we looked at personal equipment/uniform wear, as it
reflects our professional, competent image to the outside public, as well as
instilling a sense of professionalism and focus of attention to the group -
so critical at training events with new pilots."
Excuse me SIR. Wearing a flight suit is not a matter of professionalism,
or competency. What it is.. what it TRULY REALLY IS......... is an
imitation of what military pilots do, and by ASSOCIATION TO THAT GROUP OF
PEOPLE, an imitation of THEIR professionalism and THEIR safety and NOT your
own. Wearing it may indeed convince many people that you are in fact
connected in some way with the military. To REQUIRE it to be worn... well,
I am not sure what to really call that. It sure as blazes is not an issue
that you can point to and call "safety". Saying that is like telling a
naked man standing in the sunshine to make sure he wears a hat.
You also said: "Along with this is an understanding that how seasoned
aviators address their safety and equip themselves will be emulated by new
aviators, if you take a visible step toward your safety and professional
approach to [war bird] aviation, so likely will they."
Drew, does the name CWO Wildfang ring a bell with you by any chance? He was
a Marine Silver Eagle, one of the last Enlisted Pilots, the only pilot to
ever land (and take-off) a C-130 Hercules aboard an aircraft carrier and a
man I was lucky enough to know. Along with that man and Col. Carr, they
represent the two most "seasoned" aviators that I think I (or anyone else)
will ever have a chance of knowing. When I would fly with Gunner Wildfang
at the Cherry Point Marine Aero Club and fly formation between our T-34B and
our Cherokee Six 300, neither of us wore Flight Suits, parachutes, or Nomex
anything. Flying in active duty military aircraft, we both did, and I still
do. However, flying aircraft with "N" numbers and not a BU no. is
something where even military pilots consider it to be 100% optional. As a
matter of fact, every single military pilot, down to the last man I know...
that flies airplanes with N numbers... regardless of type, do so WITHOUT
their flight suit on. These exact same people will ALWAYS wear their flight
suit to an airshow when they fly in. Doing so has ZERO to do with safety,
it has to do with being a military pilot or crew member. It's called:
"Bragging Rights" On a different note, a lot of Unlimited IAC pilots fly
in shorts and tee-shirt...... why? Because it gets HOT! Excuse me if I
(and any other sane person) believe that a member of the United States
Aerobatic Team isn't just as professional as a member of RPA.
FAST cards are needed to participate in some types of public events. The
FAA recognizes the FAST card. That means (and we agree) that the RPA is
indeed involved in the air-show business. That does not mean however that
one should have to become President of the RPA to address requirements that
by your own words exceed those specified by your source guidelines. And
honestly Drew, in my humble opinion, no organization that gives training
necessary for any kind of flight regime should have a freaking DRESS CODE.
Wearing a Flight Suit should be 100% optional. RPA's function should be to
teach how to fly formation flight techniques using the knowledge of and
emulating the precision practiced by, the United States Military.
Qualities that EARN respect, not imitate it.
Just my 2 cents, ... well in this case you got the whole dollar.
Sincerely,
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
--> Yak-List message posted by: Drew Blahnick <lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
Folks,
If you download the safety equipment and policy change letter from 1/2004,
it may clear things up, it attempts to explain why as well as what.
This may be the only public response I will send on this recent Yak List
communication, but if you email me directly I always respond.
Let me first say, being the President of the RPA during a time when the RPA
is literally being built or rebuilt from the ground up has been
enlightening. One area of responsability that will never go away is the
need to moderate views, desires, requirements, regulations and the urge to
"do the right thing" in to a livable policy for all. One that is certainly
legal for the association and individual aviator/member, and goes beyond
that to capture at least the minimum that I and the Board feel is good for
the RPA and for the majority of members. The RPA is not old; it's extremely
young; how we address these issues now will set the tone and standard years
from now when this organization is not 350 strong, but 1350 strong.
Many will not agree, and you have that right:
Basis of policy on personal equipment at RPA events was changed
significantly in early 2004. For the most part, the list of "mandatory"
items was reduced, although they remain as emphasized items. This was done
for a very specific reason:
In all the debate, the factions, and the arguments, the one thing that
remained surfaced above all arguments was this: the RPA should not get in to
the liability game of insuring your protection from injury. If you have a
mishap and your flight suit sleeves are rolled up and you had no gloves on
and you wore only a headset, and all this resulted in catastrophic injuries
such that your arms ended in burned off stubs and you have a plate in the
side of your head and can only enunciate "ga-ga" for the reminder of your
days, the RPA has to realize it can not take responsability for preventing
these personal injuries. That's not the game were in, thats not our role
and the RPA certainly has no assets, insurance, or legal power to defend
itself as the gardian of your wifes spouse.
What is left of the mandatory list was based on this process:
1. On meeting our source guidance, in this case the Federal Aviation
Regulations. We want to be an organization that is seen as in compliance
with all Federal Regulations and instills in our pilots the same. Most of
these regulations are designed to insure the safety of the public, we can
understand and respect that. I would like when the RPA shows up at an
airshow or has one of its annual regional events, that when the FSDO is
notified, or if an FAA Inspector is walking the ramp, he just sort of nods
to the RedStar group, "oh, its them, don't worry about those guys, their a
sharp outfit" and moves on.
This concept of first and foremost addressing issues to the source guidance
is a sound policy for this young organization - let me hit this before
moving on; even now we are having difficulty in fielding advanced military
flight / formation / BFM programs as individuals want to custom design the
programs to their personal whims and desires. To moderate the factions I
turn to the source guidance, in this case USAF & USN flight training
regulations & manuals, just as we did to help resolve the safety equipment
debate by sourcing the FARS when possible. To protect the foundation of
"policy and program" development for the future of the RPA (and it's a
bright future), I am urging the BoD to adopt the concept of "source
guidance" in all that we do to resolve such issues when possible.
2. Once that's achieved, we looked at where we could impact safety and
liability, in regards to how it effects those around you, both in the air
and on the ground. In this statement, I'm saying that the RPA has to look
at how you can effect others, not how the RPA can somehow prevent your own
death or injury by mandating a long list of protective gear. The concern is
how you effect others around you. From liability (organizers) to personal
injury.
3. Finally, we looked at personal equipment/uniform wear, as it reflects
our professional, competant image to the outside public, as well as
instilling a sense of professionalism and focus of attention to the group -
so critical at training events with new pilots. Along with this is an
understanding that how seasoned aviators adress their safety and equip
themselves will be emulated by new aviators, if you take a visible step
toward your safety and professional approach to [warbird] aviation, so
likely will they.
From this I recommended to the BoD the following;
Mandatory:
Flight Suits (4)
We are a young aviation organization thats unique to anything else out
there. If you saw the Flight Suite Inc. demonstration I don't need to go on
about its safety aspect, but its important enough in regards to the reasons
under #4 that we should maintain them. We also have other reasons that are
coming to the surface now that I can go in to later.
Protective Footwear (2 & 4)
Parachutes (1):
In sticking to the policy process, the RPA will meet the FARS. Because we
can not control every pilot who is flying extendid trail from exceeding
flight parameters that achieve the definition of "aerobatics", and we can't
police every cockpit that goes up if it has a passenger or not, we erred to
the consiervative and made parachutes mandatory for formation and advanced
tactical flight programs front and back (instructors will not get in the
aircraft unless they have or are provided a chute as well) . I will bring
up this policy and how it effects single seat aircraft at the BoD meeting
tonight.
On helmets (2):
Here again, although the right thing to do is much more than the RPA is
asking, when we apply the policy logic, helmets in BFM came out under #2.
Our concern with BFM and Fighting Wing work at events is keeping your
headset on your noggin during high-g/rapid g manuevering in close proximity
to another aircraft so you can hear these absolutely critical, and perhaps
directive, radio calls - the type of helmet is not mandated; the Livermore
group wears leather helmets that take up almost no more vertical height on
their chrome domes and keeps their headsets securely in place. And it gives
a little blunt force protection for these tight cockpits where your head is
inches from the plexiglass. I realize IAC folks do some pretty violent
head-snapping manuevers with a headset only, but we can't police every pilot
and you fly "danger close" [if I can use an old Gunship term] to another RPA
member...
These could change, run for the Board, run for President, and vote in the
next election. Make the officers tell you their views on such issues...
Thanks for listening, email me directly with feedback to
lacloudchaser@yahoo.com I may not download the list everytime...
Drew
Drew Blahnick
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "David Stroud" <dstroud@rogers.com>
I think auto body supply houses will sell the acid etch. Normally comes in
quarts or gallons that you dilute about 3 to 1, apply with the Scotch Brite
pad, then rinse thoroughly will water before it drys. After that, don't touch
with bare hands etc. ( cotton gloves only ), then prime.
David Stroud, Ottawa, Canada
Christavia C-FDWS
F-24 C-FDAE in restoration
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Paint prep
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
>
> Ernie;
>
> The acid etch will not harm the anodizing in any way. This is an anodized
> surface NOT alodined. The correct material is phosphoric acid and is
> availabe at any aircraft parts & material supplier under various trade
> names. I think the Stitts product is called AlumaPrep, Check Aircraft
> Spruce. Theoretically, since it has no effect on anodizing, you may think it
> unnecessary but there will be scratches and otherwise damaged areas that
> need the treatment AND a light scrub with this and Scotch Brite will remove
> all traces of oil prior to priming for paint. Any corroded areas should be
> thoroughly scrubbed to remove all traces of discoloration. All the NON
> anodized areas should be treated with Alodine after etching.
>
> All of the above should be done imediately prior to priming for paint. The
> primary function of the phosphoric etch is to remove the aluminum oxide
> coating which will begin to re-form shortly after etching. The reason for
> Alodine (Chromic Acid) is to provide a coating that will prevent that
> oxidation and provide a good base for primer.
>
> Walt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest Martinez" <erniel29@gmail.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Paint prep
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Well too late, I power washed the stripper off. Why would I want to
> > acid etch the perfectly good alodined aluminum, only to re-alodine
> > it??
> >
> > Ernie
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | You will never be able to fly lead in formation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Barry said....
"On a personal note........contributions concerning issues within the
association are hovering around zilch..."
Barry, Barry, Barry, no need to get personal. Just put down your
inflatable rubber doll for a moment and develop a sense of humor.
Drew came right out and said it, to his credit.
"Finally, we looked at personal equipment/uniform wear, as it reflects
our professional, competent image to the outside public, as well as
instilling a sense of professionalism and focus of attention to the
group - so critical at training events with new pilots".
I was correct when I said....... "RPA isn't going to change the rules.
You see, it's more of an image "I'm a fighter Jock" kind of thing. You
can argue all you want but you can't argue against safety and that is
the stick they use to beat you over your pointed head".
The problem is there are many potential members out there who want
nothing to do with a para-military themed organization. Kind of like
your rule that says ONLY Airline Transport Pilots can EVER fly lead in
formation....no exceptions. That's like telling your members that no
matter how good they get, no matter how hard they try, they will never
get to the top. That's elitist and repugnant.
Main Entry: elitism
1 : belief in and advocacy of leadership or rule by an elite also :
leadership or rule by an elite *will be charged with being undemocratic,
or, worse, of advocating elitism - Cormac Philip*
2 : consciousness of being an elite, the elitism which is characteristic
of the administrative class in the national government - C.J.Friedrich*
What is RPA doing to be more inclusive to prospective members who want
little of the para-military theme? Zilch.....!
Get your flight suit boys... and join....I'm glad for ya. But don't try
to tell me it's all about safety.
Frank
N9110M
YAK-52
L71
PS I tried, I actually bought a flight suit and went to an RPA event.
Never felt so phony in my life. It just wasn't me or my kind of
organization. I prefer leather helmet, goggles, flying scarf, baggy
riding pants and black knee high boots. By-the-way, professionalism is
a matter of attitude not of the flight suit you wear.
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: RPA Dress Code |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Walt Fricke <walterfricke@yahoo.com>
I'm gonna go way out on a limb here......I agree wholeheartedly with Mark! There
are guys who wear parachutes and flightsuits that I will not share air with
and guys who I've never seen in flightsuits that I'd fly in COMBAT with, let
alone airshows. Randy comes to mind. ( by the way I am FAST CARD LEAD QUALIFIED
and military.... with 21 air medals and over 800 hours of combat...2/3'rds
of it in formations that I've been shot up in and out of, and a bad example on
this issue or so I've been told.)
That's a good part of the reason I've decided to unplug from flying with a bunch
of guys I really enjoy being around.....except for the psuedo GI Joe stuff.
When the T-28 guys get this "professional", I'll go back to a cub.
Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil> wrote:
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G
Drew, I am writing this reply both to the YAK list and to you personally.
You are an elected official of the RPA, and as such are a public figure like
it or not.
It is clear that to some, the issue of safety gear required by the RPA is
like opening Pandora's box. You have seen public comments that discuss this
issue on the YAK List, and I have about another 10 or so, that were written
to me privately that address the comments I posted (most from tall folks
with the same problems I have, but other "normal" people too).
Let me make a few points clear about my previous mailing to the YAK list. I
was not calling into question RPA's safety policies in general, but instead
how they caused specific prejudice against those few of us that could not
meet them due to the hand of God, and not personal opinion or desire. I
retain that point of few by offering you one specific safety question to
answer:
Is it safer to have untrained pilots fly formation or ACM, or to properly
train pilots in these techniques who do not wear your mandated safety
equipment? The whole thing boils down to exactly that, because in the final
analysis what matters most is not how professional you look, but how
professionally you fly. Not how well you impress the FAA with written
words, but how well you impress the guy flying just feet away from you, and
the fact that you both land airplanes that you can WALK and not PARACHUTE
away from.
Repeating what I just said... for some, meeting your requirements is not a
matter of CHOICE. What do you say specifically to those people? "Tough
luck, you were born too big, come back when you can modify yourself or your
aircraft to meet our requirements?" Respectfully Drew, that is not a very
professional answer and I politely object to anyone that might ever say it.
Now...... on to what everyone ELSE was discussing, "What should every well
adorned Pilot wear to an Air Show?", and the 'RPA's requirements in general'
debate, which is really just an answer to the question I just posed.
Your post was extremely well written and presented, my compliments. I
applaud your comments that direct RPA to meet all source guidance,
specifically the Federal Aviation Regulations. Your comments seem to echo
my own in this regard completely.
Next you said:" the RPA has to look at how you can effect others, not how
the RPA can somehow prevent your own death or injury by mandating a long
list of protective gear." Again Drew... right on the mark. I could
not agree more, your comments also concur with everyone who wrote me
directly by the way. RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
You really hit the nail on the head when you said: "the RPA should not get
in to the liability game of insuring your protection from injury. If you
have a mishap and your flight suit sleeves are rolled up and you had no
gloves on and you wore only a headset, and all this resulted in catastrophic
injuries such that your arms ended in burned off stubs and you have a plate
in the side of your head and can only enunciate "ga-ga" for the reminder of
your days, the RPA has to realize it can not take responsibility for
preventing these personal injuries. That's not the game were in, that's not
our role and the RPA certainly has no assets, insurance, or legal power to
defend itself as the guardian of your wife's spouse. "
GREAT WORDS... I also might add that the FAA is also not in the business of
taking responsibility for what you wear while flying an aircraft, and in my
honest humble opinion probably does not care one whit whether the RPA does,
or does not, either! The only exception being... doing Aerobatics with
someone else in the aircraft. Period.
So Drew... with all this said, when it comes to RPA's requirement for
wearing Flight Suits, shoes, helmets, and parachutes (in single seat, or
single piloted aircraft) the only real reason you require it is... well...
let's be candid. IMAGE.
I am not trying to start a pie-throwing contest here, but it would be best
to admit that when it walks like a duck, quack's like a duck, looks like a
duck, then folks... by Gosh, it probably IS A DUCK! Calling it something
else is just an open invitation for debate.
Requiring flight suits for safety without checking for nomex content is as
far as safety goes... useless.
Requiring ANY sort of worn equipment, whether it be flight suit, shoes,
socks, helmets, regardless.. is useless without a total program.
Requiring Parachutes means you also need to be CHECKING those parachutes for
Re-Pack dates, size / weight ratios etc. Failing to do that makes the
requirement no real test, just a "feel good / Look Good" policy, and nothing
else.
All of the above then are requirements that help IMAGE and nothing else.
I concur that any type of system that holds your headset in place is a good
thing. I hesitate to call these devices a "Helmet", but I concur that they
are a good thing, and yours truly along with about every IAC member that I
know of, wear them too. I also concur that these specific devices add
little to nothing in the way of overall height. So, no one really has any
issues with the head-phone restrainer 'thing'... or with wearing sneakers,
so that leaves us with just flight suits and parachutes.
Parachutes are the strict purview of the FAA. The fact that the RPA follows
FAA regulations is of course a good thing. The RPA should not go any
further in that department than the FAA does. Your own words echo that...
why not have your rules follow it too? To do less strikes of hypocrisy.
Sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth.
And ... coming to the end now.. that just leaves the ambiguous Flightsuit.
And excuse me Drew, I did not start this line of discussion looking for a
shoot-out at sun up. To be 100% candid, I opened this line of discussion
hoping to bring some reason to a rule that could show prejudice towards tall
people... namely... ME! In fact, I would dearly love to have a FAST card,
but the only way to obtain same is to fly in either my YAK-50, or something
like a Cherokee 140... and wearing a chute in a 140 is like .. well.. not
very realistic. However... after reading all the comments written to me
personally, and your own comments written publicly.... I have to go a
little bit on the attack... please excuse me.
The RPA may be all about flying at airshows, but the actual training is
applicable to everyone doing or contemplating ACM or formation flight. That
said, there simply is no way on this green Earth that a person should be
prevented from receiving this training simply because he or she declines to
wear a flight suit. Your issues of image apply only to those giving the
training, not receiving it.
If you want to specify that RPA members giving training to others must wear
a flight suit, well... that issue can be addressed separately, if and when
it ever surfaces.
You said: "Finally, we looked at personal equipment/uniform wear, as it
reflects our professional, competent image to the outside public, as well as
instilling a sense of professionalism and focus of attention to the group -
so critical at training events with new pilots."
Excuse me SIR. Wearing a flight suit is not a matter of professionalism,
or competency. What it is.. what it TRULY REALLY IS......... is an
imitation of what military pilots do, and by ASSOCIATION TO THAT GROUP OF
PEOPLE, an imitation of THEIR professionalism and THEIR safety and NOT your
own. Wearing it may indeed convince many people that you are in fact
connected in some way with the military. To REQUIRE it to be worn... well,
I am not sure what to really call that. It sure as blazes is not an issue
that you can point to and call "safety". Saying that is like telling a
naked man standing in the sunshine to make sure he wears a hat.
You also said: "Along with this is an understanding that how seasoned
aviators address their safety and equip themselves will be emulated by new
aviators, if you take a visible step toward your safety and professional
approach to [war bird] aviation, so likely will they."
Drew, does the name CWO Wildfang ring a bell with you by any chance? He was
a Marine Silver Eagle, one of the last Enlisted Pilots, the only pilot to
ever land (and take-off) a C-130 Hercules aboard an aircraft carrier and a
man I was lucky enough to know. Along with that man and Col. Carr, they
represent the two most "seasoned" aviators that I think I (or anyone else)
will ever have a chance of knowing. When I would fly with Gunner Wildfang
at the Cherry Point Marine Aero Club and fly formation between our T-34B and
our Cherokee Six 300, neither of us wore Flight Suits, parachutes, or Nomex
anything. Flying in active duty military aircraft, we both did, and I still
do. However, flying aircraft with "N" numbers and not a BU no. is
something where even military pilots consider it to be 100% optional. As a
matter of fact, every single military pilot, down to the last man I know...
that flies airplanes with N numbers... regardless of type, do so WITHOUT
their flight suit on. These exact same people will ALWAYS wear their flight
suit to an airshow when they fly in. Doing so has ZERO to do with safety,
it has to do with being a military pilot or crew member. It's called:
"Bragging Rights" On a different note, a lot of Unlimited IAC pilots fly
in shorts and tee-shirt...... why? Because it gets HOT! Excuse me if I
(and any other sane person) believe that a member of the United States
Aerobatic Team isn't just as professional as a member of RPA.
FAST cards are needed to participate in some types of public events. The
FAA recognizes the FAST card. That means (and we agree) that the RPA is
indeed involved in the air-show business. That does not mean however that
one should have to become President of the RPA to address requirements that
by your own words exceed those specified by your source guidelines. And
honestly Drew, in my humble opinion, no organization that gives training
necessary for any kind of flight regime should have a freaking DRESS CODE.
Wearing a Flight Suit should be 100% optional. RPA's function should be to
teach how to fly formation flight techniques using the knowledge of and
emulating the precision practiced by, the United States Military.
Qualities that EARN respect, not imitate it.
Just my 2 cents, ... well in this case you got the whole dollar.
Sincerely,
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
--> Yak-List message posted by: Drew Blahnick
Folks,
If you download the safety equipment and policy change letter from 1/2004,
it may clear things up, it attempts to explain why as well as what.
This may be the only public response I will send on this recent Yak List
communication, but if you email me directly I always respond.
Let me first say, being the President of the RPA during a time when the RPA
is literally being built or rebuilt from the ground up has been
enlightening. One area of responsability that will never go away is the
need to moderate views, desires, requirements, regulations and the urge to
"do the right thing" in to a livable policy for all. One that is certainly
legal for the association and individual aviator/member, and goes beyond
that to capture at least the minimum that I and the Board feel is good for
the RPA and for the majority of members. The RPA is not old; it's extremely
young; how we address these issues now will set the tone and standard years
from now when this organization is not 350 strong, but 1350 strong.
Many will not agree, and you have that right:
Basis of policy on personal equipment at RPA events was changed
significantly in early 2004. For the most part, the list of "mandatory"
items was reduced, although they remain as emphasized items. This was done
for a very specific reason:
In all the debate, the factions, and the arguments, the one thing that
remained surfaced above all arguments was this: the RPA should not get in to
the liability game of insuring your protection from injury. If you have a
mishap and your flight suit sleeves are rolled up and you had no gloves on
and you wore only a headset, and all this resulted in catastrophic injuries
such that your arms ended in burned off stubs and you have a plate in the
side of your head and can only enunciate "ga-ga" for the reminder of your
days, the RPA has to realize it can not take responsability for preventing
these personal injuries. That's not the game were in, thats not our role
and the RPA certainly has no assets, insurance, or legal power to defend
itself as the gardian of your wifes spouse.
What is left of the mandatory list was based on this process:
1. On meeting our source guidance, in this case the Federal Aviation
Regulations. We want to be an organization that is seen as in compliance
with all Federal Regulations and instills in our pilots the same. Most of
these regulations are designed to insure the safety of the public, we can
understand and respect that. I would like when the RPA shows up at an
airshow or has one of its annual regional events, that when the FSDO is
notified, or if an FAA Inspector is walking the ramp, he just sort of nods
to the RedStar group, "oh, its them, don't worry about those guys, their a
sharp outfit" and moves on.
This concept of first and foremost addressing issues to the source guidance
is a sound policy for this young organization - let me hit this before
moving on; even now we are having difficulty in fielding advanced military
flight / formation / BFM programs as individuals want to custom design the
programs to their personal whims and desires. To moderate the factions I
turn to the source guidance, in this case USAF & USN flight training
regulations & manuals, just as we did to help resolve the safety equipment
debate by sourcing the FARS when possible. To protect the foundation of
"policy and program" development for the future of the RPA (and it's a
bright future), I am urging the BoD to adopt the concept of "source
guidance" in all that we do to resolve such issues when possible.
2. Once that's achieved, we looked at where we could impact safety and
liability, in regards to how it effects those around you, both in the air
and on the ground. In this statement, I'm saying that the RPA has to look
at how you can effect others, not how the RPA can somehow prevent your own
death or injury by mandating a long list of protective gear. The concern is
how you effect others around you. From liability (organizers) to personal
injury.
3. Finally, we looked at personal equipment/uniform wear, as it reflects
our professional, competant image to the outside public, as well as
instilling a sense of professionalism and focus of attention to the group -
so critical at training events with new pilots. Along with this is an
understanding that how seasoned aviators adress their safety and equip
themselves will be emulated by new aviators, if you take a visible step
toward your safety and professional approach to [warbird] aviation, so
likely will they.
From this I recommended to the BoD the following;
Mandatory:
Flight Suits (4)
We are a young aviation organization thats unique to anything else out
there. If you saw the Flight Suite Inc. demonstration I don't need to go on
about its safety aspect, but its important enough in regards to the reasons
under #4 that we should maintain them. We also have other reasons that are
coming to the surface now that I can go in to later.
Protective Footwear (2 & 4)
Parachutes (1):
In sticking to the policy process, the RPA will meet the FARS. Because we
can not control every pilot who is flying extendid trail from exceeding
flight parameters that achieve the definition of "aerobatics", and we can't
police every cockpit that goes up if it has a passenger or not, we erred to
the consiervative and made parachutes mandatory for formation and advanced
tactical flight programs front and back (instructors will not get in the
aircraft unless they have or are provided a chute as well) . I will bring
up this policy and how it effects single seat aircraft at the BoD meeting
tonight.
On helmets (2):
Here again, although the right thing to do is much more than the RPA is
asking, when we apply the policy logic, helmets in BFM came out under #2.
Our concern with BFM and Fighting Wing work at events is keeping your
headset on your noggin during high-g/rapid g manuevering in close proximity
to another aircraft so you can hear these absolutely critical, and perhaps
directive, radio calls - the type of helmet is not mandated; the Livermore
group wears leather helmets that take up almost no more vertical height on
their chrome domes and keeps their headsets securely in place. And it gives
a little blunt force protection for these tight cockpits where your head is
inches from the plexiglass. I realize IAC folks do some pretty violent
head-snapping manuevers with a headset only, but we can't police every pilot
and you fly "danger close" [if I can use an old Gunship term] to another RPA
member...
These could change, run for the Board, run for President, and vote in the
next election. Make the officers tell you their views on such issues...
Thanks for listening, email me directly with feedback to
lacloudchaser@yahoo.com I may not download the list everytime...
Drew
Drew Blahnick
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: | So Cal FAST Clinic |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
Gang,
Registration is now open for the April 1-3 FAST clinic at Paso Robles.
Great primer for All Red Star (May 11-15)...if you need an excuse!
Go to:
http://www.flyredstar.org/EventsDesc.aspx?EventID=RPA138 to register
for the event.
Event details to follow when I quit chasing my own tail....
Barry
Barry Hancock
Western Regional Coordinator
RedStar Pilots Association
(949) 300-5510
www.flyredstar.org
"Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes"
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: | So Cal FAST Clinic |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
Gang,
Registration is now open for the April 1-3 FAST clinic at Paso Robles.
Great primer for All Red Star (May 11-15)...if you need an excuse!
Go to:
http://www.flyredstar.org/EventsDesc.aspx?EventID=RPA138 to register
for the event.
Event details to follow when I quit chasing my own tail....
Barry
Barry Hancock
Western Regional Coordinator
RedStar Pilots Association
(949) 300-5510
www.flyredstar.org
"Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes"
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: RPA Dress Code |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Isaiahmccole@aol.com
i like to fly from the sky out of a plan into a train. if you would like to
call me we are leaving friday
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! --
|