Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:38 AM - Re: RPA Dress Code (DaBear)
2. 05:49 AM - You will never be able to fly lead in formation (MFilucci@aol.com)
3. 05:50 AM - Yak 55 landing light (Scott Kirk)
4. 06:33 AM - Re: You will never be able to fly lead in formation (Bill Geipel)
5. 06:37 AM - Re: Yak 55 landing light (Bill Geipel)
6. 06:38 AM - Flight Suits and stuff... (Tim Gagnon)
7. 06:40 AM - Re: So Cal FAST Clinic (Bill Geipel)
8. 06:53 AM - Re: Flight Suits and stuff... (Bill Geipel)
9. 07:01 AM - Re: You will never be able to fly lead in formation (A. Dennis Savarese)
10. 07:14 AM - Re: RPA Dress Code (ANDREWS)
11. 07:48 AM - Re: Paint prep (Barry Hancock)
12. 07:57 AM - Uniforms (MFilucci@aol.com)
13. 08:01 AM - RPA Dress Code (cjpilot710@aol.com)
14. 08:09 AM - Re: Re: Paint prep (John W. Cox)
15. 08:10 AM - Re: RPA Dress Code (cjpilot710@aol.com)
16. 08:14 AM - Frank (Tim Gagnon)
17. 08:27 AM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Ronald Kalemba)
18. 08:39 AM - Re: Re: Paint prep (Walter Lannon)
19. 10:00 AM - Walt's toy (Barry Hancock)
20. 10:15 AM - helmets (ron wasson)
21. 10:22 AM - Re: Paint prep (Cliff Umscheid)
22. 10:23 AM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Bill Geipel)
23. 10:26 AM - Re: Uniforms (Bill Geipel)
24. 10:32 AM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Bill Geipel)
25. 10:36 AM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Bill Geipel)
26. 10:52 AM - Flight suits aside (Barry Hancock)
27. 11:28 AM - Re: paint prep (Barry Hancock)
28. 11:28 AM - Re: paint prep (Barry Hancock)
29. 11:46 AM - Re: Flight suits aside (DaBear)
30. 12:31 PM - Re: Re: paint prep (Ernest Martinez)
31. 01:11 PM - Re: Paint prep (Mills, Bill)
32. 02:18 PM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
33. 02:18 PM - Re: You will never be able to fly lead in formation (Frank Haertlein)
34. 02:43 PM - Re: Yak 55 landing light (Scott Kirk)
35. 02:58 PM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Ernest Martinez)
36. 03:07 PM - Re: Yak 55 landing light (Ernest Martinez)
37. 03:53 PM - RPA Dress Code (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
38. 04:16 PM - Flying Lead (Frank Haertlein)
39. 04:52 PM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Frank Haertlein)
40. 05:35 PM - Re: You will never be able to fly lead in formation (DaBear)
41. 05:56 PM - Re: Flying Lead (A. Dennis Savarese)
42. 06:34 PM - Re: Flying Lead (Bill Geipel)
43. 06:42 PM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Bill Geipel)
44. 06:57 PM - Re: You will never be able to fly lead in formation (Frank Haertlein)
45. 07:06 PM - You will never be able to fly lead in formation (MFilucci@aol.com)
46. 07:18 PM - RPA Dress Code (MFilucci@aol.com)
47. 07:20 PM - One more thing.. (Tim Gagnon)
48. 08:15 PM - Re: Paint prep (Doug Sapp)
49. 08:19 PM - The reply button (Frank Stelwagon)
50. 10:45 PM - Re: RPA Dress Code (Gerald Sweidan)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RPA Dress Code |
--> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
Walt,
I miss flying with you! Hope you are doing well and enjoying your new toy.
Al DeVere
Walt Fricke wrote:
>--> 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 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: | You will never be able to fly lead in formation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: MFilucci@aol.com
In a message dated 2/23/05 11:14:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
yak52driver@earthlink.net writes:
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.
It's urban myth time boys and girls: there is no RPA or FAA rule that says
you have to hold an ATP certificate to lead a formation, even in airshows.
Wing qual'd pilots have led RPA mass forms at OSH, for instance. The T-34
Association and other signatories also have had Wing qual'd guys leading formations
in airshows. This whole elitist/ATP statement is pure nonsense.
Mike Filucci
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: | Yak 55 landing light |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
Has anybody ever successfully installed a landing light on a Yak 55 and if
so where? We tried putting one in the wingtip but it was too difficult to
form the acrylic to such a tight radius.
Thanks,
Scott
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: You will never be able to fly lead in formation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
Get'em Mikey! Good posting.
To flight suit or not to flight suit? I love democracy.
Who established the rule? Does any body know? Or is it a hold over from when FAST
got started.
I call for a vote of the membership. Optiional or Required.
E mail vote will work fine. I vote Optional. As of this exact moment,
I am the majority.
Walt and Mark are right.
I believe I posted a message a week ago stating that Flying formation in a YAK
is no different than a Cessna 150. a 2 seat trainer. The aerobat even has quick
release escape doors. Sorry to step on any egos here but image is only image.
I agree "Nomex" is a great product. Real nomex. You know the kind that after you
wash it enough the protection is GONE. So says the military.
Now my wife better get on board and dry clean or at least hand wash on rocks by
the stream or I'll bring her up on charges. "Captains Mast" In fact now I propose
we have a laundry committee to inspect laundry tags that are numbered. After
5 washes we pull your FAST card.
Even in the airline I fly for, (can I still be lead?) we voted out hats. Hats were
to be worn for safety. Right!! What it was really was that in an emergency,
the people would know who to follow. The guy in the hat. I thought the Captain
went down with the boat, so if you follow me, I ask you, how long can you tread
water? Pilots voted and hats are out. I am still a professional, (image)
and still safe. Well, as safe as I have ever been. No matter what I wear.
Yep, a good old fashion vote is what we need, and controversy. I love America.
Bill
----Original Message-----
From: MFilucci@aol.com
Subject: Yak-List: You will never be able to fly lead in formation
--> Yak-List message posted by: MFilucci@aol.com
In a message dated 2/23/05 11:14:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
yak52driver@earthlink.net writes:
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.
It's urban myth time boys and girls: there is no RPA or FAA rule that says
you have to hold an ATP certificate to lead a formation, even in airshows.
Wing qual'd pilots have led RPA mass forms at OSH, for instance. The T-34
Association and other signatories also have had Wing qual'd guys leading formations
in airshows. This whole elitist/ATP statement is pure nonsense.
Mike Filucci
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: Yak 55 landing light |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
I'm just curious. Why? I ask the same about FAA certification; Why? Just fly and
have fun. Single engine at night? I didn't like it in the military or civilian
life. Good set of strobes so we can see you.
However, the L-29 has a retractable light system that would probably fit in the
wing root area. It is fairly deep but would work.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kirk <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 55 landing light
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
Has anybody ever successfully installed a landing light on a Yak 55 and if
so where? We tried putting one in the wingtip but it was too difficult to
form the acrylic to such a tight radius.
Thanks,
Scott
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flight Suits and stuff... |
Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:36:59 -0500
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
Folks,
This has been an interesting read.
Flight Suits. Beyond the fire retardant (which are life limited as Mark said) benefits
of a flight suit, there are a few other "personal" benefits I see. One,
after over 2700 hours of wearing one, is that they are pretty comfortable. For
me, they are like a pair of pajama's (I must add that I am a C130 Loadmaster
and spend some time sleeping in the back the airplane and can attest to their
pajama like qualities.) Once it is really broken in, you sometimes forget your
wearing it. They keep you cool in the summer and cold in the winter. Whenever
I have flown in jeans or Dockers, they are really not that comfortable. The
other is the amount of pockets on the thing. Tons of places to stick stuff that
otherwise might be flying around the cockpit. Calf pockets; good place for
charts or checklist, formation briefing guide, comm card? Thigh pockets, puke
bags? Knife pocket, knife or canopy breaker? Breast pockets; wallet, wedding ring,
loose change, RPA membership card? Left sleeve pockets; pen and pencil? Plus
that Velcro covering the thing, good place to put some patches claiming your
membership in a very exclusive club (I am not talking about the RPA, but in
general.) I am required to wear one by regulation and as we most know, regulations
are usually written in blood. The military has decided that the wearing
of flight suits is required for safety and IMAGE (uniformity), but safety first.
I think I will wear one..my choice.
Helmet. Current issue military helmets (HGU-55P or HGU-68) provide little protection
for your nugget. They are primarily there as a place to put your headphones,
boom mike, or oxygen mask and visor/NVG's. Will it stop a bullet, hell no.
If you bang your head on the canopy after a hard jink, it wont hurt. Will it
keep your comms where you want them in the high G environment? Sure. If you hit
your head on the vertical stab as your passing it after bailing out, you might
be recognizable when you hit the ground. Don't believe me, I can give you
the number of our life support shop and they can tell you.
Boots. Once again, I am required to wear them and do not mind. Mine are cold weather
boots with steel toes per my job. There are some nicer lightweight boots
that would fit the bill, but I prefer my heavy boots. Civilian flying, a nice
pair of the lightweights will be had. Its about protection.
Gloves. You fly without some sort of glove (preferably nomex) your crazy and asking
for it. They are not cheap but neither is a skin graft.
Parachutes. No question.
Silk scarf.....that's an ACC thing and as an AMC guy, I wont touch that! It did
have two benefits back in the day. One, too wipe oil off your goggles and later
to prevent neck chafing from the leather jackets.
I remember the discussion as to whether or not we were flying "warbirds". So if
these airplanes were flown by military pilots in a military environment, why
not do as the Romans do? What did they know that we don't or are we just better
than that?
I am a big proponent of adherence to uniform standards and therefore see no problem
with a group (of which I voluntarily joined) requiring that certain appearance
standards be maintained. If your out there doing your own thing and not
some RPA "sanctioned" event, fly naked. If your doing an airshow with some buddies,
why not all look the same? It would add to the show and make you "look"
more professional. There are tons of civilian teams that wear a uniform. Why,
image and appearance. We talk like a positive UNIFORM image is a bad thing. I
have been around tons of airshows on both sides of the fence and can tell you
that the people your performing for will look at you different (like it or not)
if you climb out your airplane looking like a homeless person. That is a simple
fact. Did you put on a hell of a show with some physics defying moves, maybe,
but the show is not over when you land. You might think your just a CJ-6 or
Yak guy, but too that kid next to the fence who shyly ask you for your autograph,
you're a God. I have been that kid and I am sure there are some of you that
were too.
If the RPA needs some help with the safety aspect of its operation and you think
things could be handled better, jump on in and help them out. As they grow in
size, they may very well become the voice of this group not unlike the T-34
guys.
We all have opinions on whether the requirements are about image or safety, mine
is both.
Damn, this looks like a Mark B post!
Tim Gagnon
N359FG
Yak-50
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: So Cal FAST Clinic |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
Barry,
I am going to try and make Red Star.. What actually goes on. (never been)
I am a FAST check pilot. If you need help, let me know.
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
Subject: Yak-List: 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!
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: Flight Suits and stuff... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
This sounds like an optional vote to me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Flight Suits and stuff...
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
Folks,
This has been an interesting read.
Flight Suits. Beyond the fire retardant (which are life limited as Mark said) benefits
of a flight suit, there are a few other "personal" benefits I see. One,
after over 2700 hours of wearing one, is that they are pretty comfortable. For
me, they are like a pair of pajama's (I must add that I am a C130 Loadmaster
and spend some time sleeping in the back the airplane and can attest to their
pajama like qualities.) Once it is really broken in, you sometimes forget your
wearing it. They keep you cool in the summer and cold in the winter. Whenever
I have flown in jeans or Dockers, they are really not that comfortable. The
other is the amount of pockets on the thing. Tons of places to stick stuff that
otherwise might be flying around the cockpit. Calf pockets; good place for
charts or checklist, formation briefing guide, comm card? Thigh pockets, puke
bags? Knife pocket, knife or canopy breaker? Breast pockets; wallet, wedding ring,
loose change, RPA membership card? Left sleeve !
pockets; pen and pencil? Plus that Velcro covering the thing, good place to put
some patches claiming your membership in a very exclusive club (I am not talking
about the RPA, but in general.) I am required to wear one by regulation and
as we most know, regulations are usually written in blood. The military has
decided that the wearing of flight suits is required for safety and IMAGE (uniformity),
but safety first. I think I will wear one..my choice.
Helmet. Current issue military helmets (HGU-55P or HGU-68) provide little protection
for your nugget. They are primarily there as a place to put your headphones,
boom mike, or oxygen mask and visor/NVG's. Will it stop a bullet, hell no.
If you bang your head on the canopy after a hard jink, it wont hurt. Will it
keep your comms where you want them in the high G environment? Sure. If you hit
your head on the vertical stab as your passing it after bailing out, you might
be recognizable when you hit the ground. Don't believe me, I can give you
the number of our life support shop and they can tell you.
Boots. Once again, I am required to wear them and do not mind. Mine are cold weather
boots with steel toes per my job. There are some nicer lightweight boots
that would fit the bill, but I prefer my heavy boots. Civilian flying, a nice
pair of the lightweights will be had. Its about protection.
Gloves. You fly without some sort of glove (preferably nomex) your crazy and asking
for it. They are not cheap but neither is a skin graft.
Parachutes. No question.
Silk scarf.....that's an ACC thing and as an AMC guy, I wont touch that! It did
have two benefits back in the day. One, too wipe oil off your goggles and later
to prevent neck chafing from the leather jackets.
I remember the discussion as to whether or not we were flying "warbirds". So if
these airplanes were flown by military pilots in a military environment, why
not do as the Romans do? What did they know that we don't or are we just better
than that?
I am a big proponent of adherence to uniform standards and therefore see no problem
with a group (of which I voluntarily joined) requiring that certain appearance
standards be maintained. If your out there doing your own thing and not
some RPA "sanctioned" event, fly naked. If your doing an airshow with some buddies,
why not all look the same? It would add to the show and make you "look"
more professional. There are tons of civilian teams that wear a uniform. Why,
image and appearance. We talk like a positive UNIFORM image is a bad thing. I
have been around tons of airshows on both sides of the fence and can tell you
that the people your performing for will look at you different (like it or not)
if you climb out your airplane looking like a homeless person. That is a simple
fact. Did you put on a hell of a show with some physics defying moves, maybe,
but the show is not over when you land. You might think your just a CJ-6 or
Yak guy, but too that kid next to the fence who sh!
yly ask you for your autograph, you're a God. I have been that kid and I am sure
there are some of you that were too.
If the RPA needs some help with the safety aspect of its operation and you think
things could be handled better, jump on in and help them out. As they grow in
size, they may very well become the voice of this group not unlike the T-34
guys.
We all have opinions on whether the requirements are about image or safety, mine
is both.
Damn, this looks like a Mark B post!
Tim Gagnon
N359FG
Yak-50
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: You will never be able to fly lead in formation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <DSAVARESE@ELMORE.RR.COM>
I vote OPTIONAL
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Geipel" <czech6@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: You will never be able to fly lead in formation
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
>
> Get'em Mikey! Good posting.
>
>
> To flight suit or not to flight suit? I love democracy.
>
> Who established the rule? Does any body know? Or is it a hold over from
when FAST got started.
>
> I call for a vote of the membership. Optiional or Required.
>
> E mail vote will work fine. I vote Optional. As of this exact
moment, I am the majority.
>
> Walt and Mark are right.
>
> I believe I posted a message a week ago stating that Flying formation in
a YAK is no different than a Cessna 150. a 2 seat trainer. The aerobat even
has quick release escape doors. Sorry to step on any egos here but image is
only image.
>
> I agree "Nomex" is a great product. Real nomex. You know the kind that
after you wash it enough the protection is GONE. So says the military.
>
> Now my wife better get on board and dry clean or at least hand wash on
rocks by the stream or I'll bring her up on charges. "Captains Mast" In fact
now I propose we have a laundry committee to inspect laundry tags that are
numbered. After 5 washes we pull your FAST card.
>
> Even in the airline I fly for, (can I still be lead?) we voted out hats.
Hats were to be worn for safety. Right!! What it was really was that in an
emergency, the people would know who to follow. The guy in the hat. I
thought the Captain went down with the boat, so if you follow me, I ask you,
how long can you tread water? Pilots voted and hats are out. I am still a
professional, (image) and still safe. Well, as safe as I have ever been. No
matter what I wear.
>
> Yep, a good old fashion vote is what we need, and controversy. I love
America.
>
> Bill
>
>
> ----Original Message-----
> From: MFilucci@aol.com
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: You will never be able to fly lead in formation
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: MFilucci@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 2/23/05 11:14:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> yak52driver@earthlink.net writes:
>
> 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.
>
>
> It's urban myth time boys and girls: there is no RPA or FAA rule that
says
> you have to hold an ATP certificate to lead a formation, even in airshows.
> Wing qual'd pilots have led RPA mass forms at OSH, for instance. The T-34
> Association and other signatories also have had Wing qual'd guys leading
formations
> in airshows. This whole elitist/ATP statement is pure nonsense.
>
> Mike Filucci
>
>
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: RPA Dress Code |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "ANDREWS" <dandmaz@cox.net>
Mark,
You need to get a life, your Yak-50 it's too small. God made T-28s for
people like you.
Regards
Don Andrews
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich GS11 Mark G" <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Subject: Yak-List: RPA Dress Code
> --> 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 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: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
On Feb 23, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Yak-List Digest Server wrote:
> Is there any prep that is done to the alodined metal after the
> stripper has been washed off???
>
> Ernie
Ernie,
Having done part of one myself, I can tell you when you're finished
you'll most likely say "never again!" Between the noxious chemicals
burning your skin, lungs, and doing irreparable damage to many internal
organs, and the mess it makes, it's well worth the money to get it done
by a professional.
That being said, here is what I learned:
As you know, prep is the most important part of a paint job. Make sure
that the surface, especially around rivets, seams, and corners is
*completely* free of both paint and stripper. Then, to ensure a
superior mechanical bond, rough the entire surface with steel wool.
A good paint shop will not trust your work tho' (they don't want to fix
problems they didn't create), so don't be surprised if they still end
up charging you several thousand in prep work. It will still save you
money over doing nothing, but when you weigh that against the goo on
the ground and the goo going into your body.......
In any event, good luck! What's the new paint scheme gonna look like?
THAT is the fun part....
Cheers,
Barry
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: MFilucci@aol.com
In a message dated 2/24/05 9:33:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
czech6@earthlink.net writes:
Even in the airline I fly for, (can I still be lead?) we voted out hats.
Hats were to be worn for safety. Right!!
I'm trying to get our airline to let us fly in flip-flops, T-shirts (with
holes) and shorts -- why should we look any different than the passengers? After
all, as long as we get them to their destination safely and grease it on
(most of the time), why should we have to wear a uniform? It's only capability
and performance that matter and uniforms of any kind, even in non-combat
military ops are ridiculous. Hell, you can pin those Captain's bars onto a
T-shirt, can't you? Let's all put on a Jimmy Buffet CD and chill.
The real problem here is that some of you guys seem to have some genuine
emotional attachment to your friends and care about what happens to them -- big
mistake. You're Yak Drivers now, not wimps! If your wingman buddy gets his
arms burned off we simply give him a new call sign (Stubs) and move on. After
all, didn't Maverick eventually get over cooking his Goose and move on, leaving
Goose's widow and kids in the motorcycle dust when he rode off into the
sunset with his babe? After he gets out of the hospital, Stubs can ride in the
back pit anytime. After the flying day is done, we help him up onto a bar
stool and give him a beer (with a straw, of course). It seems only right and
proper, though, when it comes time for Stub's potty breaks, that the Lead Pilot
lend a helping hand (in a manner of speaking) --I can hear you Leads thinking
"I hope it's not number two!" Note: there is no requirement for an ATP
certificate in order to hold Stub's Oscar Meyer -- a designated Wing Pilot can
do
it.
I'm off to Margaritaville.
Mike
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: cjpilot710@aol.com
Once again the old adage "Leading pilots is like trying to herd cats".
"I am more professional than you!" syndrome.
"I know better because I got more time than you!" syndrome.
"I know better than you because I'm ex (Navy, Air Force, Army, Coast Guard,
or CAP)" syndrome.
"I know better than you because I flew (fighters, helicopters, gunships,
Hogs, Super Hogs, B-36, B-52s, O2, O1, L-4, L-5, L-39s, Mig-15s, 29s, DC-3s
B707, B777, etc etc etc) syndrome.
And it does not matter if two you share the same background, you will have
totally opposite opinions of the same problems.
You are the most fearlessly independent and obstinate group of people I've
ever had to deal with. I take that back. Try building a church, with group
of devote Christians.
The fact that the leadership in both FAST and RPA are made up of people just
like you makes me wonder how anything has been accomplished.
But I love ya.
One of the things I miss being retired from the airline, is be walking
though the terminal in my uniform, and a six or seven year old tike comes up and
ask if you're "our pilot". And how many times because I took just a few
seconds to talk to that kid, did I see the spark of an idea about a possible
future come into a young person's eye. And how that kids parent (some times a
#10
blond) would give you a real look of appreciation.
Project that to a local airshow. How is that kid going to pick you out from
all the other groundlings?
All the syndromes (our foibles) above, are because we are special people.
Because we fly we envy no other man. We respected those who have done things
we can only hope to emulate if the same situation presents it self.
I wear my flight suit because it tells every one around me that I belong to
this group, and that I am a special person. Yes the suit may keep my carcass
a little less chard if I *&
% up.
And somehow open toed sandals just don't go with a flight suit. Talk about
poor taste!
Those of you who know me know I wear a helmet that looks like an WW2 RAF
cranial container. Why? Because I believe that those who flew in the BoB were
the bravest in the most single pivotal point in aviation history. Pride
because English and native American blood run in my veins. It looks great at
airshows. Did I happen to mention that two years ago during a little session
of
"aggressive extended trail", I really believe it kept me from seeing stars
when I in countered some nasty vortex in someone slipstream?
Pretender? Yea verily I confess so. "But I do love it so."
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
ATP, CFII, SES, Flight Navigator, Airframe mechanic, 23,823.35 hr.
B-707,727,757,767, 777, 747, 747-400 -Flown DC-3, B-17, B-24J, AT-6/SNJ, T-33,
T-34,
T-41, Bell-47, 208A, Hiller 12b, R-22, J-3, 7AC-FC-EC, S-108-1, Pitts S1C,
PT-17-19-22-23, UPF-7, LA-4, Yak-52 and CJ-6. FAI-NAA record holder and have
made 7 parachute jumps (all round canopies).
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: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Barry, you might re-clarify the directive to use "steel" wool on aluminum
aircraft skin as a preprep step. Just a thought.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Hancock
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Paint prep
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
That being said, here is what I learned:
As you know, prep is the most important part of a paint job. Make sure
that the surface, especially around rivets, seams, and corners is
*completely* free of both paint and stripper. Then, to ensure a
superior mechanical bond, rough the entire surface with steel wool.
Cheers,
Barry
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: RPA Dress Code |
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Pretender? Yea verily I confess so. "But I do love it so."
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
ATP, CFII, SES, Flight Navigator, Airframe mechanic, 23,823.35 hr.
B-707,727,757,767, 777, 747, 747-400 -Flown DC-3, B-17, B-24J, AT-6/SNJ,
T-33, T-34,
T-41, Bell-47, 208A, Hiller 12b, R-22, J-3, 7AC-FC-EC, S-108-1, Pitts S1C,
PT-17-19-22-23, UPF-7, LA-4, Yak-52 and CJ-6. FAI-NAA record holder and
have
made 7 parachute jumps (all round canopies).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, before anyone points it out, 7 parachute jumps is stupid. But I was
young.
Pappy
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 |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:12:59 -0500
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
Frank,
Is that YOUR Yak-52 for sale on Trade-a-Plane? I did a search of your tail number
(N9110M) and it comes back with a different owner? Some guy in West Virginia.
Tim
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: RPA Dress Code |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ronald Kalemba <emu21@sbcglobal.net>
Walt,
DITTO ! I agree with Al. Miss ya , Big Guy .
Ron Kalemba
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
>
> That being said, here is what I learned:
>
> As you know, prep is the most important part of a paint job. Make sure
> that the surface, especially around rivets, seams, and corners is
> *completely* free of both paint and stripper. Then, to ensure a
> superior mechanical bond, rough the entire surface with steel wool.
Barry;
Someone has given you some poor information, using steel wool on aluminium
alloy is a guaranteed method of producing intergrannular corrosion. Steel
wool has no application on an aircraft and should not even be allowed in the
hangar.
"Roughing" the surface is also completely unacceptable. This will destroy
the protection of both an anodized or an alclad surface.
This is the typical kind of "expert" advise you will get from an auto paint
shop.
Walt
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: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
>
> Walt,
>
> I miss flying with you! Hope you are doing well and enjoying your new
> toy.
>
> Al DeVere
He's not, but I am! :)
Barry
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: ron wasson <ronwasson@mindspring.com>
Helmets are not optional for me after watching a jump operation for 3
hours. A tattooed biker came riding up with no helmet, leather, or
even decent shoes. He trundles out to the plane 30 minutes later with a
nice helmet on. I asked later why the helmet jumping but none for the
bike. He said he had 300 plus jumps and three concussions from jumps
without a helmet. The helmet showed some large dings on it. Never been
hurt on the bike once. If a tattooed biker thinks it is required safety
equip then thats good enough for me.
Ron
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: Cliff Umscheid <netmaster15@juno.com> 495cf59d18f528d8185cdda92d416d4c49a53c85cdcd
Ernie,
If you use stripper and acid etch you are well advised to pull the wheels
and repack the bearings SAP thereafter. That residue gets into everything
when it is exposed to pressure washing or even just splashing.Anyone who
doubts its ability to permeate the nooks and cranies should try to
breathe the ambient air during useage . Robert Starnes advised you well
in his post.
Cliff Umscheid
(PST) Robert Starnes <a35plt@yahoo.com> writes:
> --> 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 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RPA Dress Code |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
Yea verily. You love it. So?? Is that an option or required. Some people may not
"feel the love".
-----Original Message-----
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: RPA Dress Code
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Pretender? Yea verily I confess so. "But I do love it so."
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
ATP, CFII, SES, Flight Navigator, Airframe mechanic, 23,823.35 hr.
B-707,727,757,767, 777, 747, 747-400 -Flown DC-3, B-17, B-24J, AT-6/SNJ,
T-33, T-34,
T-41, Bell-47, 208A, Hiller 12b, R-22, J-3, 7AC-FC-EC, S-108-1, Pitts S1C,
PT-17-19-22-23, UPF-7, LA-4, Yak-52 and CJ-6. FAI-NAA record holder and
have
made 7 parachute jumps (all round canopies).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, before anyone points it out, 7 parachute jumps is stupid. But I was
young.
Pappy
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
I love this guy!!
-----Original Message-----
From: MFilucci@aol.com
Subject: Yak-List: Uniforms
--> Yak-List message posted by: MFilucci@aol.com
In a message dated 2/24/05 9:33:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
czech6@earthlink.net writes:
Even in the airline I fly for, (can I still be lead?) we voted out hats.
Hats were to be worn for safety. Right!!
I'm trying to get our airline to let us fly in flip-flops, T-shirts (with
holes) and shorts -- why should we look any different than the passengers? After
all, as long as we get them to their destination safely and grease it on
(most of the time), why should we have to wear a uniform? It's only capability
and performance that matter and uniforms of any kind, even in non-combat
military ops are ridiculous. Hell, you can pin those Captain's bars onto a
T-shirt, can't you? Let's all put on a Jimmy Buffet CD and chill.
The real problem here is that some of you guys seem to have some genuine
emotional attachment to your friends and care about what happens to them -- big
mistake. You're Yak Drivers now, not wimps! If your wingman buddy gets his
arms burned off we simply give him a new call sign (Stubs) and move on. After
all, didn't Maverick eventually get over cooking his Goose and move on, leaving
Goose's widow and kids in the motorcycle dust when he rode off into the
sunset with his babe? After he gets out of the hospital, Stubs can ride in the
back pit anytime. After the flying day is done, we help him up onto a bar
stool and give him a beer (with a straw, of course). It seems only right and
proper, though, when it comes time for Stub's potty breaks, that the Lead Pilot
lend a helping hand (in a manner of speaking) --I can hear you Leads thinking
"I hope it's not number two!" Note: there is no requirement for an ATP
certificate in order to hold Stub's Oscar Meyer -- a designated Wing Pilot can
do
it.
I'm off to Margaritaville.
Mike
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: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
Still image not safety. You can into nasty slipstream in shorts and flip-flops
and flight suits.
I always wear mine in my jet. After all a jet engine is nothing but a fire looking
for a way out. Path of least resistence. By my yak is like any piston airplane
no better no worse. Mid airs from formation went be helped by nomex if one
wing lands 1 mile from the other.
I feel the love.
-----Original Message-----
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Yak-List: RPA Dress Code
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Once again the old adage "Leading pilots is like trying to herd cats".
"I am more professional than you!" syndrome.
"I know better because I got more time than you!" syndrome.
"I know better than you because I'm ex (Navy, Air Force, Army, Coast Guard,
or CAP)" syndrome.
"I know better than you because I flew (fighters, helicopters, gunships,
Hogs, Super Hogs, B-36, B-52s, O2, O1, L-4, L-5, L-39s, Mig-15s, 29s, DC-3s
B707, B777, etc etc etc) syndrome.
And it does not matter if two you share the same background, you will have
totally opposite opinions of the same problems.
You are the most fearlessly independent and obstinate group of people I've
ever had to deal with. I take that back. Try building a church, with group
of devote Christians.
The fact that the leadership in both FAST and RPA are made up of people just
like you makes me wonder how anything has been accomplished.
But I love ya.
One of the things I miss being retired from the airline, is be walking
though the terminal in my uniform, and a six or seven year old tike comes up and
ask if you're "our pilot". And how many times because I took just a few
seconds to talk to that kid, did I see the spark of an idea about a possible
future come into a young person's eye. And how that kids parent (some times a
#10
blond) would give you a real look of appreciation.
Project that to a local airshow. How is that kid going to pick you out from
all the other groundlings?
All the syndromes (our foibles) above, are because we are special people.
Because we fly we envy no other man. We respected those who have done things
we can only hope to emulate if the same situation presents it self.
I wear my flight suit because it tells every one around me that I belong to
this group, and that I am a special person. Yes the suit may keep my carcass
a little less chard if I *&
% up.
And somehow open toed sandals just don't go with a flight suit. Talk about
poor taste!
Those of you who know me know I wear a helmet that looks like an WW2 RAF
cranial container. Why? Because I believe that those who flew in the BoB were
the bravest in the most single pivotal point in aviation history. Pride
because English and native American blood run in my veins. It looks great at
airshows. Did I happen to mention that two years ago during a little session
of
"aggressive extended trail", I really believe it kept me from seeing stars
when I in countered some nasty vortex in someone slipstream?
Pretender? Yea verily I confess so. "But I do love it so."
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
ATP, CFII, SES, Flight Navigator, Airframe mechanic, 23,823.35 hr.
B-707,727,757,767, 777, 747, 747-400 -Flown DC-3, B-17, B-24J, AT-6/SNJ, T-33,
T-34,
T-41, Bell-47, 208A, Hiller 12b, R-22, J-3, 7AC-FC-EC, S-108-1, Pitts S1C,
PT-17-19-22-23, UPF-7, LA-4, Yak-52 and CJ-6. FAI-NAA record holder and have
made 7 parachute jumps (all round canopies).
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RPA Dress Code |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
Fox2!!
Was that a shot at the big guy?
So let me understand, If you can't wear a hemut and should-um-up pads, you can't
fly formation? And you certainly can't own a Yak. Or did I miss somthin'.
-----Original Message-----
From: ANDREWS <dandmaz@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: RPA Dress Code
--> Yak-List message posted by: "ANDREWS" <dandmaz@cox.net>
Mark,
You need to get a life, your Yak-50 it's too small. God made T-28s for
people like you.
Regards
Don Andrews
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich GS11 Mark G" <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Subject: Yak-List: RPA Dress Code
> --> 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 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: | Flight suits aside |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
> This whole elitist/ATP statement is pure nonsense.
>
> Mike Filucci
You know, I have to follow up on that:
I am 37 years old, have been flying for a mere 5 years and have just a
little under 1000 hours total flight time. I am one of the most junior
people on this list and in the RPA. My aviation credentials cannot
hold a candle to even the median experience level in this group.
That being said I have been involved with the association for 5 years,
run All Red Star, numerous Advanced Tactical Clinics, and serve you all
on the RPA board of directors.
Every single guy that comes to instruct at these events is older, more
highly qualified, and probably a better pilot (hey, I do have *some*
ego :) ).
I am wing qualified and have flown lead at air shows.
Would a truly elitist group allow such a thing? After all, I'm young,
relatively inexperienced, have butted heads with powers that be on
certain issues, etc.
My fellow board members (voted on by you all - or at least you had that
opportunity) include:
Al Devere - about the same boat as me.
Harry Dutson - no military or commercial aviation flying experience
Charlie Lynch - no military or commercial aviation flying experience
"Elitist" is a nice, alarming word that catches people's attention and
stirs up emotion. Certain powerful political groups use this tactic to
propigate class warfare very effectively. However, it doesn't hold
water when you look at the facts.
That you disagree with an association policy is one thing, that you
would use ad hominem attacks is only a disservice to everyone.
Barry
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
Walt, et. al.,
> That being said, here is what I learned:
>
> As you know, prep is the most important part of a paint job. Make
sure
> that the surface, especially around rivets, seams, and corners is
> *completely* free of both paint and stripper. Then, to ensure a
> superior mechanical bond, rough the entire surface with steel wool.
>
> Barry;
>
> Someone has given you some poor information, using steel wool on
> aluminium
> alloy is a guaranteed method of producing intergrannular corrosion.
> Steel
> wool has no application on an aircraft and should not even be allowed
> in the
> hangar.
>
> "Roughing" the surface is also completely unacceptable. This will
> destroy
> the protection of both an anodized or an alclad surface.
> This is the typical kind of "expert" advise you will get from an auto
> paint
> shop.
>
> Walt
I love this list. You are dead right, Walt, I meant to say "Scotch
brite" not "steel wool"....the devil is in the details...."my bad" as
they say on the basketball court.
Sprinkle me with a little love, tho', Walt. My comments about an
uncontaminated surface have merit. BTW, the information does not come
from an auto paint shop, but Aero Crafters of Chino, who does some of
the finest work around. That being said they don't work on many Yaks
and CJs...
I've said it privately and I'll say it publicly, we're blessed to have
the wealth of knowledge of people like you to filter information
through....
Cheers,
Barry
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
Walt, et. al.,
> That being said, here is what I learned:
>
> As you know, prep is the most important part of a paint job. Make
sure
> that the surface, especially around rivets, seams, and corners is
> *completely* free of both paint and stripper. Then, to ensure a
> superior mechanical bond, rough the entire surface with steel wool.
>
> Barry;
>
> Someone has given you some poor information, using steel wool on
> aluminium
> alloy is a guaranteed method of producing intergrannular corrosion.
> Steel
> wool has no application on an aircraft and should not even be allowed
> in the
> hangar.
>
> "Roughing" the surface is also completely unacceptable. This will
> destroy
> the protection of both an anodized or an alclad surface.
> This is the typical kind of "expert" advise you will get from an auto
> paint
> shop.
>
> Walt
I love this list. You are dead right, Walt, I meant to say "Scotch
brite" not "steel wool"....the devil is in the details...."my bad" as
they say on the basketball court.
Sprinkle me with a little love, tho', Walt. My comments about an
uncontaminated surface have merit. BTW, the information does not come
from an auto paint shop, but Aero Crafters of Chino, who does some of
the finest work around. That being said they don't work on many Yaks
and CJs...
I've said it privately and I'll say it publicly, we're blessed to have
the wealth of knowledge of people like you to filter information
through....
Cheers,
Barry
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight suits aside |
--> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
Hey, OLD GUY!
Barry Hancock wrote:
>You know, I have to follow up on that:
>
>I am 37 years old, have been flying for a mere 5 years and have just a
>little under 1000 hours total flight time. I am one of the most junior
>people on this list and in the RPA. My aviation credentials cannot
>hold a candle to even the median experience level in this group.
>
>That being said I have been involved with the association for 5 years,
>run All Red Star, numerous Advanced Tactical Clinics, and serve you all
>on the RPA board of directors.
>
>Every single guy that comes to instruct at these events is older, more
>highly qualified, and probably a better pilot (hey, I do have *some*
>ego :) ).
>
>
Yes you do. :-)
>I am wing qualified and have flown lead at air shows.
>
>Would a truly elitist group allow such a thing? After all, I'm young,
>relatively inexperienced, have butted heads with powers that be on
>certain issues, etc.
>
>My fellow board members (voted on by you all - or at least you had that
>opportunity) include:
>
>Al Devere - about the same boat as me.
>
>
I take offense at that. I don't have near the hours you do, nor the
time in the big stuff like you. I'm the most junior guy here.
>Harry Dutson - no military or commercial aviation flying experience
>
>
>Charlie Lynch - no military or commercial aviation flying experience
>
>
>"Elitist" is a nice, alarming word that catches people's attention and
>stirs up emotion. Certain powerful political groups use this tactic to
>propigate class warfare very effectively. However, it doesn't hold
>water when you look at the facts.
>
>That you disagree with an association policy is one thing, that you
>would use ad hominem attacks is only a disservice to everyone.
>
>
>
Wanted to see the above in print, one more time.
Hey folks, nice to see the discussion, but lets keep it polite.
Al DeVere
Note: any appearance to actually agree with Barry Hancock in public is
purely coincidental. :-D
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Thanks for all the tips.
Yes this is my first time painting an airplane, but I am getting
tutilage from a neighbor who restores T-6's and does very nice paint
work. I mentioned the acid etching and alodining, and he said that he
is getting me a "Self Etching" primer. He said because of the quality
and condition of the metal surface that a good wash with soap, water
and the scotch brite pads should do just fine.
The stipper I used is "Klean Strip Aircraft Remover", which is water
soluable, the directions on the can also say that a water wash is
sufficient. It did say, that for best results in areas of seams to use
a steam wash.
My question is, will I be alright with the self etching primer, and
skip the acid etch/alodine process??
Ernie
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:24:58 -0800, Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
>
> Walt, et. al.,
>
> > That being said, here is what I learned:
> >
> > As you know, prep is the most important part of a paint job. Make
> sure
> > that the surface, especially around rivets, seams, and corners is
> > *completely* free of both paint and stripper. Then, to ensure a
> > superior mechanical bond, rough the entire surface with steel wool.
>
> >
> > Barry;
> >
> > Someone has given you some poor information, using steel wool on
> > aluminium
> > alloy is a guaranteed method of producing intergrannular corrosion.
> > Steel
> > wool has no application on an aircraft and should not even be allowed
> > in the
> > hangar.
> >
> > "Roughing" the surface is also completely unacceptable. This will
> > destroy
> > the protection of both an anodized or an alclad surface.
> > This is the typical kind of "expert" advise you will get from an auto
> > paint
> > shop.
> >
> > Walt
>
> I love this list. You are dead right, Walt, I meant to say "Scotch
> brite" not "steel wool"....the devil is in the details...."my bad" as
> they say on the basketball court.
>
> Sprinkle me with a little love, tho', Walt. My comments about an
> uncontaminated surface have merit. BTW, the information does not come
> from an auto paint shop, but Aero Crafters of Chino, who does some of
> the finest work around. That being said they don't work on many Yaks
> and CJs...
>
> I've said it privately and I'll say it publicly, we're blessed to have
> the wealth of knowledge of people like you to filter information
> through....
>
> Cheers,
>
> Barry
>
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mills, Bill" <Bill.Mills@Avnet.com>
I will definitely confirm that Cliff. After my painter got done, I had
to totally put in new bearings (that were new when I started the paint
job). Good advice!
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 Cliff Umscheid
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Paint prep
--> Yak-List message posted by: Cliff Umscheid <netmaster15@juno.com>
--> 495cf59d18f528d8185cdda92d416d4c49a53c85cdcd
Ernie,
If you use stripper and acid etch you are well advised to pull the
wheels and repack the bearings SAP thereafter. That residue gets into
everything when it is exposed to pressure washing or even just
splashing.Anyone who doubts its ability to permeate the nooks and
cranies should try to breathe the ambient air during useage . Robert
Starnes advised you well in his post.
Cliff Umscheid
(PST) Robert Starnes <a35plt@yahoo.com> writes:
> --> 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 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Don, you are 100% correct. Not only do I need to get a life, I also need to
get a better job. The truth is that for the majority of my life I needed to
get an airplane. Then I got a divorce. Now I have an airplane. My life is
now just beginning!
I dearly love my 50, but yes... I drool thinking about a T-28.
Thanks for the great advice.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: ANDREWS [mailto:dandmaz@cox.net]
Subject: Re: Yak-List: RPA Dress Code
--> Yak-List message posted by: "ANDREWS" <dandmaz@cox.net>
Mark,
You need to get a life, your Yak-50 it's too small. God made T-28s for
people like you.
Regards
Don Andrews
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich GS11 Mark G" <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Subject: Yak-List: RPA Dress Code
> --> 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 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | You will never be able to fly lead in formation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
M Fillucci
During my first visit to Red Stars I was told that unless you had an ATP
(or maybe it was a commercial with 10000 hours or something like that)
that you could never become lead. It was part of the training class.
Have things changed now to where an ordinary person can someday hope to
become lead?
Frank
N9110M
YAK-52
L71
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MFilucci@aol.com
Subject: Yak-List: You will never be able to fly lead in formation
--> Yak-List message posted by: MFilucci@aol.com
In a message dated 2/23/05 11:14:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
yak52driver@earthlink.net writes:
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.
It's urban myth time boys and girls: there is no RPA or FAA rule that
says
you have to hold an ATP certificate to lead a formation, even in
airshows.
Wing qual'd pilots have led RPA mass forms at OSH, for instance. The
T-34
Association and other signatories also have had Wing qual'd guys leading
formations
in airshows. This whole elitist/ATP statement is pure nonsense.
Mike Filucci
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 55 landing light |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
Why was relatively simple, late return from a competition. I've got the
Whelan combo position lights/strobes installed so its already night legal (a
landing light is not required for night legality reasons) but would be nice
to see during the landing. I'm trying to stay away from cutting into the
wing to keep its structural strength completely intact so was looking if
others may have considered other options such as mounting on the gear, next
to the doghouse etc.
Scott
----Original Message Follows----
From: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 55 landing light
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
I'm just curious. Why? I ask the same about FAA certification; Why? Just fly
and have fun. Single engine at night? I didn't like it in the military or
civilian life. Good set of strobes so we can see you.
However, the L-29 has a retractable light system that would probably fit in
the wing root area. It is fairly deep but would work.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kirk <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 55 landing light
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
Has anybody ever successfully installed a landing light on a Yak 55 and if
so where? We tried putting one in the wingtip but it was too difficult to
form the acrylic to such a tight radius.
Thanks,
Scott
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RPA Dress Code |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
My L-29 is rather roomy, and relatively cheap..........until you start
the engine that is :)
Ernie
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:20:41 -0500, Bitterlich GS11 Mark G
<BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
>
> Don, you are 100% correct. Not only do I need to get a life, I also need to
> get a better job. The truth is that for the majority of my life I needed to
> get an airplane. Then I got a divorce. Now I have an airplane. My life is
> now just beginning!
>
> I dearly love my 50, but yes... I drool thinking about a T-28.
>
> Thanks for the great advice.
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ANDREWS [mailto:dandmaz@cox.net]
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: RPA Dress Code
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "ANDREWS" <dandmaz@cox.net>
>
> Mark,
> You need to get a life, your Yak-50 it's too small. God made T-28s for
> people like you.
>
> Regards
> Don Andrews
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bitterlich GS11 Mark G" <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: RPA Dress Code
>
> > --> 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 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 55 landing light |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
My L-29 has a nose wheel light that should probably fit on the yak.
Someone had removed my original landing light, so this is all I have.
I have to admit, I've never used it at night.
I think Lo-Presti makes a moon beam or something to that effect which
is small enough to mount on the front of the nose wheel leg.
Ernie
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:42:31 -0500, Scott Kirk <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
>
> Why was relatively simple, late return from a competition. I've got the
> Whelan combo position lights/strobes installed so its already night legal (a
> landing light is not required for night legality reasons) but would be nice
> to see during the landing. I'm trying to stay away from cutting into the
> wing to keep its structural strength completely intact so was looking if
> others may have considered other options such as mounting on the gear, next
> to the doghouse etc.
>
> Scott
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 55 landing light
> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:36:24 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
>
> I'm just curious. Why? I ask the same about FAA certification; Why? Just fly
> and have fun. Single engine at night? I didn't like it in the military or
> civilian life. Good set of strobes so we can see you.
>
> However, the L-29 has a retractable light system that would probably fit in
> the wing root area. It is fairly deep but would work.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kirk <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak 55 landing light
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
>
> Has anybody ever successfully installed a landing light on a Yak 55 and if
> so where? We tried putting one in the wingtip but it was too difficult to
> form the acrylic to such a tight radius.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Just for everyone's pleasure I thought I would fuel the fire a little more
by mentioning that in the United States Military there are a lot of
occasions where HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AT A TIME fly formation without a flight
suit or wearing a parachute.
When and where?
Transports and tankers. We put 60 people into a KC-130 and fly it with any
number of tactical aircraft IN FORMATION all over the world... tanking all
the way. KC-10's... same thing. KC-135's..... Same thing. DC-9's....
loaded with Marines... flying form with F-18's into the break over Wake
Island. When was the last time you rolled into the break in a DC-9? Film at
11.
That said, I think if it is good enough for the United States Military, that
possibly RPA might be able to amend it's stance for formation flight
training and use the above as a good precedent and possibly not feel too bad
about it.
R/S,
Mark Bitterlich
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Barry
If my information about flying lead proves incorrect then I'll offer an
apology for my elitist statements. I remember during Red Stars 2004
someone said lead can only be flown by ATP's or some such nonsense. I
thought that was elitist. Maybe the person who told me that was
mis-informed?
Frank
N9110M
YAK-52
L71
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Hancock
Subject: Yak-List: Flight suits aside
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
> This whole elitist/ATP statement is pure nonsense.
>
> Mike Filucci
You know, I have to follow up on that:
I am 37 years old, have been flying for a mere 5 years and have just a
little under 1000 hours total flight time. I am one of the most junior
people on this list and in the RPA. My aviation credentials cannot
hold a candle to even the median experience level in this group.
That being said I have been involved with the association for 5 years,
run All Red Star, numerous Advanced Tactical Clinics, and serve you all
on the RPA board of directors.
Every single guy that comes to instruct at these events is older, more
highly qualified, and probably a better pilot (hey, I do have *some*
ego :) ).
I am wing qualified and have flown lead at air shows.
Would a truly elitist group allow such a thing? After all, I'm young,
relatively inexperienced, have butted heads with powers that be on
certain issues, etc.
My fellow board members (voted on by you all - or at least you had that
opportunity) include:
Al Devere - about the same boat as me.
Harry Dutson - no military or commercial aviation flying experience
Charlie Lynch - no military or commercial aviation flying experience
"Elitist" is a nice, alarming word that catches people's attention and
stirs up emotion. Certain powerful political groups use this tactic to
propigate class warfare very effectively. However, it doesn't hold
water when you look at the facts.
That you disagree with an association policy is one thing, that you
would use ad hominem attacks is only a disservice to everyone.
Barry
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Optional
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: You will never be able to fly lead in formation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
Frank,
The national FAST standard is Commercial rating, and 1,000 hours.
Al DeVere
Frank Haertlein wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
>M Fillucci
>
>During my first visit to Red Stars I was told that unless you had an ATP
>(or maybe it was a commercial with 10000 hours or something like that)
>that you could never become lead. It was part of the training class.
>Have things changed now to where an ordinary person can someday hope to
>become lead?
>
>Frank
>N9110M
>YAK-52
>L71
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>MFilucci@aol.com
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: You will never be able to fly lead in formation
>
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: MFilucci@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 2/23/05 11:14:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>yak52driver@earthlink.net writes:
>
>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.
>
>
>It's urban myth time boys and girls: there is no RPA or FAA rule that
>says
>you have to hold an ATP certificate to lead a formation, even in
>airshows.
>Wing qual'd pilots have led RPA mass forms at OSH, for instance. The
>T-34
>Association and other signatories also have had Wing qual'd guys leading
>formations
>in airshows. This whole elitist/ATP statement is pure nonsense.
>
>Mike Filucci
>
>
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <DSAVARESE@ELMORE.RR.COM>
Frank,
I extracted the current Lead Qualifications from the manual. Here they are.
Lead Pilot Qualifications 1. Commercial pilot or equivalent 2. 1000 hours
total time 3. Current 3rd class medical 4. Minimum 300 hours complex
aircraft time 5. 75 hours logged formation flight time 6. 1 year as a FAST
Wing pilot 7. 15 hours and a minimum of 10 flights in a four-ship formation
8. Qualified and logged formation take-off and landings (landing optional in
a conventional-gear aircraft) 9. Flight test recommended by a current Lead
or Check Pilot 10. Applicant must lead a four-ship formation during the
flight test 11. Member of at least one signatory organization 12. Pass the
checkride
II. Waiver Policy The National FAST Board is not prone to approving waivers,
this is a simple fact of life. However, heres how its done using the
procedures in Appendix E of the FF&P: The waiver recommendation is requested
on behalf of the pilot, by a signatory Lead or Check Pilot. Before the
checkride is given, the check pilot must contact the chairman of FAST who
will confer with at least two other members (signatories) of the committee
to determine the need or advisability of waiving the requirements. If
approved, the waiver will be granted and then the checkride can be
accomplished. It is important to note that the waiver must be granted prior
to the checkride. It is the policy of the RPA that request for waiver
submitted on behalf of our members be reviewed by the RPA, as we will likely
be one of the two board members reviewing your waiver. Requests should be
submitted by the requesting check or lead pilot via e-mail to:
FAST@flyredstar.org.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Flying Lead
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Barry
> If my information about flying lead proves incorrect then I'll offer an
> apology for my elitist statements. I remember during Red Stars 2004
> someone said lead can only be flown by ATP's or some such nonsense. I
> thought that was elitist. Maybe the person who told me that was
> mis-informed?
>
> Frank
> N9110M
> YAK-52
> L71
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Hancock
> To: YAK USA LIST
> Subject: Yak-List: Flight suits aside
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
>
> > This whole elitist/ATP statement is pure nonsense.
> >
> > Mike Filucci
>
> You know, I have to follow up on that:
>
> I am 37 years old, have been flying for a mere 5 years and have just a
> little under 1000 hours total flight time. I am one of the most junior
> people on this list and in the RPA. My aviation credentials cannot
> hold a candle to even the median experience level in this group.
>
> That being said I have been involved with the association for 5 years,
> run All Red Star, numerous Advanced Tactical Clinics, and serve you all
> on the RPA board of directors.
>
> Every single guy that comes to instruct at these events is older, more
> highly qualified, and probably a better pilot (hey, I do have *some*
> ego :) ).
>
> I am wing qualified and have flown lead at air shows.
>
> Would a truly elitist group allow such a thing? After all, I'm young,
> relatively inexperienced, have butted heads with powers that be on
> certain issues, etc.
>
> My fellow board members (voted on by you all - or at least you had that
> opportunity) include:
>
> Al Devere - about the same boat as me.
> Harry Dutson - no military or commercial aviation flying experience
> Charlie Lynch - no military or commercial aviation flying experience
>
>
> "Elitist" is a nice, alarming word that catches people's attention and
> stirs up emotion. Certain powerful political groups use this tactic to
> propigate class warfare very effectively. However, it doesn't hold
> water when you look at the facts.
>
> That you disagree with an association policy is one thing, that you
> would use ad hominem attacks is only a disservice to everyone.
>
> Barry
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
Can we be done with this conversation? What a novel concept...read the manual!
-----Original Message-----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <DSAVARESE@elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Flying Lead
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <DSAVARESE@ELMORE.RR.COM>
Frank,
I extracted the current Lead Qualifications from the manual. Here they are.
Lead Pilot Qualifications 1. Commercial pilot or equivalent 2. 1000 hours
total time 3. Current 3rd class medical 4. Minimum 300 hours complex
aircraft time 5. 75 hours logged formation flight time 6. 1 year as a FAST
Wing pilot 7. 15 hours and a minimum of 10 flights in a four-ship formation
8. Qualified and logged formation take-off and landings (landing optional in
a conventional-gear aircraft) 9. Flight test recommended by a current Lead
or Check Pilot 10. Applicant must lead a four-ship formation during the
flight test 11. Member of at least one signatory organization 12. Pass the
checkride
II. Waiver Policy The National FAST Board is not prone to approving waivers,
this is a simple fact of life. However, heres how its done using the
procedures in Appendix E of the FF&P: The waiver recommendation is requested
on behalf of the pilot, by a signatory Lead or Check Pilot. Before the
checkride is given, the check pilot must contact the chairman of FAST who
will confer with at least two other members (signatories) of the committee
to determine the need or advisability of waiving the requirements. If
approved, the waiver will be granted and then the checkride can be
accomplished. It is important to note that the waiver must be granted prior
to the checkride. It is the policy of the RPA that request for waiver
submitted on behalf of our members be reviewed by the RPA, as we will likely
be one of the two board members reviewing your waiver. Requests should be
submitted by the requesting check or lead pilot via e-mail to:
FAST@flyredstar.org.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Flying Lead
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Barry
> If my information about flying lead proves incorrect then I'll offer an
> apology for my elitist statements. I remember during Red Stars 2004
> someone said lead can only be flown by ATP's or some such nonsense. I
> thought that was elitist. Maybe the person who told me that was
> mis-informed?
>
> Frank
> N9110M
> YAK-52
> L71
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Hancock
> To: YAK USA LIST
> Subject: Yak-List: Flight suits aside
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
>
> > This whole elitist/ATP statement is pure nonsense.
> >
> > Mike Filucci
>
> You know, I have to follow up on that:
>
> I am 37 years old, have been flying for a mere 5 years and have just a
> little under 1000 hours total flight time. I am one of the most junior
> people on this list and in the RPA. My aviation credentials cannot
> hold a candle to even the median experience level in this group.
>
> That being said I have been involved with the association for 5 years,
> run All Red Star, numerous Advanced Tactical Clinics, and serve you all
> on the RPA board of directors.
>
> Every single guy that comes to instruct at these events is older, more
> highly qualified, and probably a better pilot (hey, I do have *some*
> ego :) ).
>
> I am wing qualified and have flown lead at air shows.
>
> Would a truly elitist group allow such a thing? After all, I'm young,
> relatively inexperienced, have butted heads with powers that be on
> certain issues, etc.
>
> My fellow board members (voted on by you all - or at least you had that
> opportunity) include:
>
> Al Devere - about the same boat as me.
> Harry Dutson - no military or commercial aviation flying experience
> Charlie Lynch - no military or commercial aviation flying experience
>
>
> "Elitist" is a nice, alarming word that catches people's attention and
> stirs up emotion. Certain powerful political groups use this tactic to
> propigate class warfare very effectively. However, it doesn't hold
> water when you look at the facts.
>
> That you disagree with an association policy is one thing, that you
> would use ad hominem attacks is only a disservice to everyone.
>
> Barry
>
>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RPA Dress Code |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel <czech6@earthlink.net>
Drew,
All kidding aside I would like to know how this became policy. (Flight suits)
It is obvious that many members are not convinced that flight suits should be required.
I would also think an official RPA vote be called regarding the issue.
Do it here or on the RPA web site.
Of course I don't remember how to log on. Its easier just to get to this site.
Thank you.
Bill
Message 44
| 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>
Yaksters
Al just posted that to fly lead you need a commercial +1000. How about
PPL +1000 or even 10,000? I guess that's not good enough for the all
knowing elitist bastards who wrote the rule.
For the past 18 years my avionics related day job has helped develop the
instruments and technology that lets you commit safe commercial or
military flight in all weather conditions yet I'm too stupid to ever fly
lead because I don't have a commercial? Well...F#(& You!
Frank
N9110M
YAK-52
L71
Message 45
| 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: MFilucci@aol.com
In a message dated 2/24/05 5:19:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
yak52driver@earthlink.net writes:
During my first visit to Red Stars I was told that unless you had an ATP
(or maybe it was a commercial with 10000 hours or something like that)
that you could never become lead. It was part of the training class.
Have things changed now to where an ordinary person can someday hope to
become lead?
Frank,
You've seen the postings on the Lead Pilot qualifications, extracted from
the national FAST documents (also available on the RPA website for download) so
you know that , yes, an "ordinary" guy can become a Lead Pilot. Yes, guys
with a military background have a leg up -- they've been there, done that, but
some of the RPA's best Lead Pilots are not mil guys -- they started from
scratch in the FAST program just as you are doing.
Mike
Message 46
| 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: MFilucci@aol.com
In a message dated 2/24/05 6:54:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil writes:
That said, I think if it is good enough for the United States Military, that
possibly RPA might be able to amend it's stance for formation flight
training and use the above as a good precedent and possibly not feel too bad
about it.
Mark is absolutely right here. Hell, I feel just as comfortable flying three
feet away from a guy who does this for a hobby, sometimes once a year, as I
did when I was in my AF squadron flying with the same guys on a daily basis
who did this for a living. Crank up the blender, I'll have another margarita,
please.
Mike
Message 47
| 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: | One more thing.. |
Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:19:01 -0500
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
Frank,
First, thanks for answering my question about your airplane being for sale. Second,
as to your airplane. This is a quote from a portion of a post you made "You
see, it's more of an image "I'm a fighter Jock" and "The problem is there are
many potential members out there who want nothing to do with a para-military
themed organization."
While you have a beautiful airplane, and you do, I find it interesting that the
paint scheme on your airplane appears to be of fighter aircraft origins, somewhere
along the lines of a Lavochkin or LaGG fighter. Regardless, it has a very
military and more importantly "fighter" tone to it. I am not positive but
I do not think any Yak-52, CJ-6 or Yak-50 were adorned with such a paint scheme.
Now, most are being painted as such and I have no problem with it. When it
comes time to paint my airplane (and trust me I need too) I will paint it in a
military (fighter) paint scheme.
I find that interesting considering the statements and the general tone of your
comments listed above and those contained in your post. If you were so adverse
to the "Para-military themed organization" and "fighter jock" mentality, why
have an airplane painted to represent just that? Why not the paint scheme the
airplanes originally had? Why not the classic red and white as others have done?
Is it possible an image thing?
For me, I will openly admit that I would love to have flown fighters but flying
an attack helicopter would be cool too..so I chose the Army. God intervened and
I was injured and that shot was taken away. After years of trying to clear
up my medical status , I re-entered the military and got as close as I could to
be involved with military aircraft. I think the tactics involved in fighter
aviation and the constant thought process that is required makes those who are
lucky enough to fly them, very interesting. The geometry involved, competitiveness,
and the folks I have recently met, will certainly help me get as close
as I will ever come to feeling what it is like. Since I will probably not be
able to afford a P-51 or that MiG-29 that Worldwide Warbirds has for sale (How
much by the way Barry), my little Yak-50 will have to do. Will I wear my collar
up on my flight suit up and some cool Ray-Ban Aviators, nope. Will I wear
what I feel is appropriate gear for the activity, yep. Will I get some ribbing
for it by some, sure, but it is my arse and mine alone.
But that's just me....
Tim
Message 48
| 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: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Guys, if you are stripping your aircraft, and it's still assembled, you will
most likely need to replace all your bearings by the time you get ready to
go to the paint shop. Stripper by nature is designed to cut grease and oil
so the stripper and water will get into the bearings and in just a short
while reduce them to nasty little balls of rust. The only remedy is to
strip the aircraft with the surfaces removed and use heavy foil tape to
cover the bearings, or just figure on replacing them all before your
reinstall the surfaces. If you still have the stock Chinese bearings they
are more than likely ready to be changed anyway. Most good paint shops
would not even think about painting your CJ fully assembled, so you will
have to take them off sooner or later. If you choose to remove the surfaces
and go the foil tape route, give me a call and I'll send you enough foil
tape to do the job, no charge, I have a huge roll of it and I don't mind
sharing. I just made a cutter out of a piece of tubing and cut quarter
sized circles to put on each side.
If you need the new bearings, I have them in stock. After my last shipment
from China I can say that I have almost every bearing in the airframe. Even
the hard to find aileron belcrank bearing.
Also, if my vote is worth anything I would like to vote "optional" on the
current flight suit/helmet issue. Who is keeping the tally?
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mills, Bill
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Paint prep
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mills, Bill" <Bill.Mills@Avnet.com>
I will definitely confirm that Cliff. After my painter got done, I had
to totally put in new bearings (that were new when I started the paint
job). Good advice!
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 Cliff Umscheid
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Paint prep
--> Yak-List message posted by: Cliff Umscheid <netmaster15@juno.com>
--> 495cf59d18f528d8185cdda92d416d4c49a53c85cdcd
Ernie,
If you use stripper and acid etch you are well advised to pull the
wheels and repack the bearings SAP thereafter. That residue gets into
everything when it is exposed to pressure washing or even just
splashing.Anyone who doubts its ability to permeate the nooks and
cranies should try to breathe the ambient air during useage . Robert
Starnes advised you well in his post.
Cliff Umscheid
(PST) Robert Starnes <a35plt@yahoo.com> writes:
> --> 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 49
| 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: | The reply button |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Stelwagon" <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>
Gee guys can't you understand that hitting the reply is not the way on the List.
Then we have to read every message over and over. Just generate a new message
when you comment.
Frank CJ6-A N23021
Message 50
| 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: "Gerald Sweidan" <gerald.sweidan@sweidan.co.za>
Aahhh ..but no I3 I see - or even.... C150.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Yak-List: RPA Dress Code
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Once again the old adage "Leading pilots is like trying to herd cats".
"I am more professional than you!" syndrome.
"I know better because I got more time than you!" syndrome.
"I know better than you because I'm ex (Navy, Air Force, Army, Coast
Guard,
or CAP)" syndrome.
"I know better than you because I flew (fighters, helicopters, gunships,
Hogs, Super Hogs, B-36, B-52s, O2, O1, L-4, L-5, L-39s, Mig-15s, 29s,
DC-3s
B707, B777, etc etc etc) syndrome.
Pretender? Yea verily I confess so. "But I do love it so."
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
ATP, CFII, SES, Flight Navigator, Airframe mechanic, 23,823.35 hr.
B-707,727,757,767, 777, 747, 747-400 -Flown DC-3, B-17, B-24J,
AT-6/SNJ, T-33, T-34,
T-41, Bell-47, 208A, Hiller 12b, R-22, J-3, 7AC-FC-EC, S-108-1, Pitts
S1C,
PT-17-19-22-23, UPF-7, LA-4, Yak-52 and CJ-6. FAI-NAA record holder
and have
made 7 parachute jumps (all round canopies).
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! --
|