Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:29 AM - Poll on Political Representation (Frank)
2. 02:34 AM - RPA Poll on political representation (Frank)
3. 02:58 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Frank Haertlein)
4. 04:37 AM - Re: Air bottles (cgalley)
5. 04:44 AM - Re: Re: SWAK (cgalley)
6. 05:22 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (DaBear)
7. 05:31 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Fraser, Gus)
8. 05:51 AM - Re: Air bottles (A. Dennis Savarese)
9. 05:58 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Scott Kirk)
10. 06:01 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (A. Dennis Savarese)
11. 06:36 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (cgalley)
12. 06:41 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Jon Boede)
13. 06:47 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Jon Boede)
14. 06:56 AM - starting on nitrogen (was: Air bottles) (Brian Lloyd)
15. 06:58 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Brian Lloyd)
16. 07:08 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Brian Lloyd)
17. 07:11 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Brian Lloyd)
18. 07:14 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Brian Lloyd)
19. 07:22 AM - Re: RPA Poll on political representation (Brian Lloyd)
20. 07:36 AM - This list sucks (Ernest Martinez)
21. 07:58 AM - Re: SWAK (Edwin Curry)
22. 08:04 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Fraser, Gus)
23. 08:09 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (A. Dennis Savarese)
24. 08:37 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Brian Lloyd)
25. 08:44 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (cgalley)
26. 09:43 AM - Re: [CONTENT] POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Richard Basiliere)
27. 09:48 AM - Re: Air bottles (Richard Basiliere)
28. 09:50 AM - [CONTENT] Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Richard Basiliere)
29. 10:05 AM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Jon Boede)
30. 10:41 AM - Re: This list sucks (Roger Kemp)
31. 03:06 PM - Re: This list sucks (Craig Payne)
32. 03:52 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Frank Haertlein)
33. 03:59 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Frank Haertlein)
34. 04:19 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Frank Haertlein)
35. 04:26 PM - Re: Air bottles (A. Dennis Savarese)
36. 04:30 PM - Re: [CONTENT] Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (A. Dennis Savarese)
37. 04:30 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Frank Haertlein)
38. 04:47 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (A. Dennis Savarese)
39. 04:54 PM - Re: Re: This list sucks (Ernest Martinez)
40. 05:16 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (cgalley)
41. 05:33 PM - Re: Barry's Website (Barry Hancock)
42. 06:53 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Ron Davis)
43. 06:55 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Brian Lloyd)
44. 07:05 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Ron Davis)
45. 07:12 PM - Re: This list sucks (Ron Davis)
46. 07:15 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (Brian Lloyd)
47. 07:20 PM - N2 starting (JOE HOWSE)
48. 07:31 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (JOE HOWSE)
49. 10:46 PM - Re: NWOC Engine panel (Cliff Umscheid)
50. 11:10 PM - Whining about the rules (Frank Stelwagon)
51. 11:33 PM - Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS (fish@aviation-tech.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Poll on Political Representation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
[Question] Polling question
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=2809#2809
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: | RPA Poll on political representation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Please Vote
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=2810#2810
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: | POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Yakkers
AOPA......................
EAA.......................
NRA.......................
Warbirds of America ......
CJAA .....................
The Sierra Club ..........
CRPA .....................
AARP .....................
AMA ......................
AFL-CIO ..................
Sport Fisherman's Assoc...
American Hunter...........
NOW.......................
And a thousand other organizations.........
All have political representation to look out for their interests.
RPA ?????????
Vote in the following poll
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=776
If your warbird is more than 800 horsepower you may only take off and land
from your home airport.
If your warbird is a jet you may only take off and land from your home
airport.
You may not operate your aircraft more than 300 nautical miles from your
home airport.
You must submit a program letter every year.
To deviate from the above you must FAX the FAA for each instance.
These are actual FAA rule. I'm asking what FAA genius thought them up and
why?
Don't you want to change stupid rules like these?
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Yes, it is an OWT! It doesn't need to be repeated regardless of how the
oxygen is being used.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> As you say, all oxygen comes from the same lox bottle. But you will find
> many people believe otherwise.
> Why do you say welding oxygen has to be more pure? I'd guess that well
> over 90% of "welding oxygen" is used for cutting, where the quality hardly
> matters. Most of the rest would be used for brazing, and a small amount
> for gas welding.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>>
>> Ron, Your statement about welding oxygen might have been tongue in cheek
>> but the facts are Welding oxygen has to be the most pure of the three
>> common specs. Aviators breathing is next followed by I believe. medical.
>> In reality ALL oxygen at this time is fractionally distilled from liquid
>> air. We are talking temps over 100 BELOW zero. Not possible for any
>> water to be in any of the three, so that when used for medicinal
>> purposes, it is sometime bubbled thru a water bath for the patient. So
>> you can fill your supplemental oxygen from any of these three but
>> cheapest is the same as the most expensive. Welding oxygen works fine but
>> if Medicare is paying, get it from the medical house.
>>
>> Cy Galley
>> EAA Safety Programs Editor
>> Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
>> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
>>
>>
>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>> Air flows from high pressure to low, and there are spring loaded check
>>> valves throughout the filling systems that keep "equalized" pressure
>>> from ever really being equal. Even without them, no system fills the
>>> "empty" tank to a higher pressure than the supply (it's a physics thing)
>>> so it then starts flowing the other way.
>>>
>>> Your're right, you can't be too safe. That's why many people buy
>>> AVIATORS breathing oxygen instead of that nasty old welding oxygen
>>> (cynicism alert- if you're gullible stop reading now) which is full of
>>> water/oil/bugs/cat entrails.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: <fish@aviation-tech.com>
>>> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:36 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
>>>
>>>
>>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: fish@aviation-tech.com
>>>>
>>>> Yaksters,
>>>>
>>>> I can not beleive that a fire dept, will allow there cylinder to
>>>> connect to
>>>> your system. This is dangerous!
>>>>
>>>> Once the pressure equilizes, the air can possably backflow into there
>>>> tanks.
>>>> at this point there tanks are contaminated, and cannot be used for
>>>> breathing
>>>> air until they are checked and cleaned. That is why you leave some
>>>> pressure
>>>> in cylinders to keep them from becoming contaminated.
>>>>
>>>> I would also have some concern about filling tanks at a shop as the
>>>> same thing
>>>> can happen to their systems. Once the pressure equilizes form their
>>>> tanks to
>>>> yours, there system will become contaminated.
>>>>
>>>> I have heard to many stories about divers who had problems with thier
>>>> air air
>>>> (compressors need to be maintained also), which sometimes leads to
>>>> contaminated
>>>> air. That I would be rather error on the side of safety when it comes
>>>> to breating
>>>> air (compressed or Oxygen).
>>>>
>>>> Fly Safe
>>>> John fischer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>SCUBA to commie airplane adapters can be ordered from my former
>>>>>partner
>>>>> >at
>>>> L39ZAparts@hotmail.com unless the Kazakistan warrants caught up with
>>>> >him.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I defer to your experience, which is probably more recent than mine.
>>>>>In
>>>>> >the
>>>> mining industry, NIOSH allows only certified systems. Our safety
>>>> >engineers
>>>> determined that using a part (cylinder) from MSA on a >regulator from
>>>> Scott
>>>> constituted an uncertified "system". They were >fanatics about things
>>>> like
>>>> that, not like FAA un-approved parts regs.
>>>>>
>>>>>At another job, we changed from Scott to a German-built system,
>>>>> >Interspiro
>>>> perhaps. My recollection is that those fittings were >incompatible
>>>> with the
>>>> existing filling fittings, but I wouldn't swear to >it. It was many
>>>> years ago.
>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Richard Basiliere
>>>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:49 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI on the firefighter SCBA fittings. They are "all" standard GCA
>>>>> >Universal
>>>> threaded fittings. Survivair, Scott, MSA, all the same. If >we have a
>>>> big
>>>> "event" multiple agencies will be "invited" and we need to >be able to
>>>> fill
>>>> our bottles from other Fire Dept compressors or cascade >systems. I'd
>>>> love
>>>> to have the SCBA adapter to Russian airplane - the >SCBA bottles are a
>>>> dime
>>>> a dozen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully, rick b
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> L39parts@hotmail.com 1/8/2006 8:05:27 AM >>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Brown" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the US, firemen's SCBA bottle fittings vary with the manufacturer.
>>>>> >SCUBA
>>>>
>>>>> diving bottles use a standard fitting, but there are a lot of
>>>>> airports >in
>>>>
>>>>> the US that are a long ways from the ocean and quite possibly a long
>>>>> >ways
>>>>
>>>>> from a dive shop. Another problem is that most US airports don't
>>>>> have >a
>>>>
>>>>> fire department on the field.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Hans Oortman" <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
>>>>> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:14 PM
>>>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Air bottles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Hans Oortman" <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Guys,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The only thing we carry around during a trip in our Yak52 is a
>>>>> hose, >which
>>>>
>>>>> > I
>>>>> > had made especially for this purpose, with on one side an adapter
>>>>> >which
>>>>
>>>>> > goes
>>>>> > on the plane and on the other side an adapter with release valve
>>>>> >which
>>>>
>>>>> > goes
>>>>> > on a scuba dive bottle. In Europe this is a standardized connector,
>>>>> >i.e.,
>>>>
>>>>> > these scuba dive bottles have the same connector as all air bottles
>>>>> >used
>>>>
>>>>> > by
>>>>> > the fire brigades at airfields/airports and what have you.
>>>>> > There is always a nice fire fighter at an airport or airfield who
>>>>> >wants
>>>> to
>>>>> > give you a hand to charge your air bottle in the plane with one of
>>>>> >his.
>>>>
>>>>> > Be aware though: these bottles have 200 bars (and nowadays even 300
>>>>> >bars),
>>>>
>>>>> > so open them very slowly. We are using this method since years
>>>>> >already
>>>> and
>>>>> > it works perfectly.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hans
>>>>> > Yak52 pilot from Holland
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>>>> > Van: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>>> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] Namens Roger Doc Kemp
>>>>> > Verzonden: dinsdag 3 januari 2006 20:17
>>>>> > Aan: yak-list@matronics.com
>>>>> > Onderwerp: RE: Yak-List: Air bottles
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Doc Kemp"
>>>>> ><viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Gus,
>>>>> > Send me pictures of your tank. I am using a pony tank for backup.
>>>>> > viperdoc@mindspring.com
>>>>> > Doc
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> [Original Message]
>>>>> >> From: Fraser, Gus <gus.fraser@gs.com>
>>>>> >> To: yak-list@matronics.com <yak-list@matronics.com>
>>>>> >> Date: 1/3/2006 8:04:12 AM
>>>>> >> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Air bottles
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I used to carry the adapter around with me but recently I have
>>>>> >changed.
>>>> I
>>>>> >> now carry a paintball gun tank. It is a 4500 pound tank with a
>>>>> >regulator
>>>>
>>>>> > to
>>>>> >> 800psi on the output. Paintball is the fastest growing extreme
>>>>> >sport
>>>> in
>>>>> > the
>>>>> >> US and shops for this are popping up all over the place if I need
>>>>> a
>>>>> > refill.
>>>>> >> The tank is about a foot long and about 4 inches around so takes
>>>>> up >
>>>>
>>>>> >> little
>>>>> >> space. I can send pictures if anyone is interested.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Gus
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> >> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>>> >> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon
>>>>> Boede
>>>>> >> Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 11:07 PM
>>>>> >> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>>>> >> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@email.net>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I have a SCUBA to "red star" hose that flies with my airplane... I
>>>>> >used
>>>>
>>>>> >> to
>>>>> >> be concerned about running out of air but then I discovered
>>>>> >something:
>>>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> When primed up good, when the weather is above 40F, hand-propping
>>>>> >the
>>>> CJ
>>>>> > is
>>>>> >> really quite easy. It WANTS to start.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Once you get over any trepidation about hand propping it, the
>>>>> SCUBA
>>>>> > fitting
>>>>> >> is really the backup to the backup. Carrying extra air around
>>>>> >hasn't
>>>>
>>>>> >> been
>>>>> >> something that would have "saved the day", at lease at so far,
>>>>> >after
>>>>
>>>>> >> 1,200
>>>>> >> hours.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Jon
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> > I have a standard type SCUBA bottle in my hangar and I carry
>>>>> the
>>>>> >> > SCUBA fitting with on a cross country for emergency. Not many
>>>>> >places
>>>>
>>>>> >> > you cannot borrow or rent a SCUBA bottle for an emergency. A
>>>>> >schraeder
>>>>
>>>>> >> > fitting is not necessary as the check valve in the system does
>>>>> >the
>>>>
>>>>> >> > same, the small amount of loss when you unhook the botle is not
>>>>> >worth
>>>>
>>>>> >> > the trouble. I tapped the fuselage fitting for AN816- 4 pipe
>>>>> >fitting
>>>>
>>>>> >> > and use matching fitting on the SCUBA hose then cap the fitting
>>>>> >to
>>>>
>>>>> >> > keeo
>>>>> >> the dirt out with AN929-4 cap.
>>>>> >> > However as Craig says hand propping is not that difficult. To
>>>>> >make
>>>> it
>>>>> >> > safer I bleed off all the air then chock the airplane as you
>>>>> >will
>>>>
>>>>> >> > have no brakes!
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to all
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Joe
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >nics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Listh>ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
>
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 |
|
Another similar product one can find at an automotive store is Loctite PST. Works
the same way and Loctite may make SWAK for Swagelok. Neither product should
be used on flared fittings. If they are damaged, they need to be replaced or
use an approved metal v-seal between the surfaces.
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: Desmor944@aol.com
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: SWAK
In a message dated 1/10/2006 6:08:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, rvfltd@televar.com
writes:
--> Yak-List message posted by: "doug sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Edwin, is this product hard setting or will it remain soft so that the
fitting can be easily removed without the aid of pipe wrenches and a swede?
A hard setting compound may do a great job in sealing but you will end up
hating yourself the day you have to remove the fitting for service. This is
the main reason why I recommend non hardening aviation grade permatex. I
wonder if the SWAK has the same characteristics.
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Doug,
I'm sitting with the SWAK product sheet in hand and it says;
"SWAK anaerobic pipe thread sealant with TFE provides reliable sealing on threaded
metal pipe and fittings. It also acts as a lubricant during assembly, preventing
galling or seizing of threads. SWAK is applied in a semi-liquid state.
When threaded components are assembled, it is deprived of air and hardens,
or cures, to form a reliable seal. If it is necessary to break the connection,
SWAK allows low break-away torque even when fully cured."
Temperature range is -65F to +350F Air, Aviation Gasoline, and Lubricating
Oil are specifically listed as compatible fluids.
Like all Swagelok products, you pay a little more and get the best. We use their
tubing, fittings, valves and hose (all available in metric sizes) exclusively
at our facilities. Our operations are an accelerated life cycle test for
these components. The main prime movers are 160,000 horsepower gas turbines
(think big turboprop) running 24/7 at 3,600 RPM. Each accumulates about 8,500
hours running time between annual inspections, with a major overhaul around the
40,000 hour mark. And for you airline types, at rated power these engines
burn about 100,000 pounds of fuel per hour!
Rich Desmond
CJ-6A
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
Frank,
You are very funny.
AOPA has over 300,000 members. They are one of the biggest "aviation
lobby" organizations. A key part of their lobby agenda is to get rid of
pop up TFRs and reduce/eliminate the ADIZ around DC. Now they are about
1% of the US population and they can't get movement.
RPA has approximately 300 members. We are about 0.000001% of the US
population. If you think we have ANY real lobby power with the federal
government, (without a couple million to buy a few congress critters),
you have received a serious head injury and you should immediately seek
advanced medical care. I don't know anyone who has a warbird, that
likes the current program letter issue, however it really isn't a big
deal to comply and fly where ever you want (For those non-jet warbirds)
by just sending the FAA a fax.
DaBear
Frank Haertlein wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
>Yakkers
>
>AOPA......................
>EAA.......................
>NRA.......................
>Warbirds of America ......
>CJAA .....................
>The Sierra Club ..........
>CRPA .....................
>AARP .....................
>AMA ......................
>AFL-CIO ..................
>Sport Fisherman's Assoc...
>American Hunter...........
>NOW.......................
>
>And a thousand other organizations.........
>
>All have political representation to look out for their interests.
>
>RPA ?????????
>
>Vote in the following poll
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=776
>
>
>If your warbird is more than 800 horsepower you may only take off and land
>from your home airport.
>
>If your warbird is a jet you may only take off and land from your home
>airport.
>
>You may not operate your aircraft more than 300 nautical miles from your
>home airport.
>
>You must submit a program letter every year.
>
>To deviate from the above you must FAX the FAA for each instance.
>
>These are actual FAA rule. I'm asking what FAA genius thought them up and
>why?
>
>Don't you want to change stupid rules like these?
>
>
>
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: | POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
Fax, come on this is the 21st century, I send an email.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DaBear
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
--> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
Frank,
You are very funny.
AOPA has over 300,000 members. They are one of the biggest "aviation lobby"
organizations. A key part of their lobby agenda is to get rid of pop up
TFRs and reduce/eliminate the ADIZ around DC. Now they are about 1% of the
US population and they can't get movement.
RPA has approximately 300 members. We are about 0.000001% of the US
population. If you think we have ANY real lobby power with the federal
government, (without a couple million to buy a few congress critters), you
have received a serious head injury and you should immediately seek advanced
medical care. I don't know anyone who has a warbird, that likes the current
program letter issue, however it really isn't a big deal to comply and fly
where ever you want (For those non-jet warbirds) by just sending the FAA a
fax.
DaBear
Frank Haertlein wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>--> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
>Yakkers
>
>AOPA......................
>EAA.......................
>NRA.......................
>Warbirds of America ......
>CJAA .....................
>The Sierra Club ..........
>CRPA .....................
>AARP .....................
>AMA ......................
>AFL-CIO ..................
>Sport Fisherman's Assoc...
>American Hunter...........
>NOW.......................
>
>And a thousand other organizations.........
>
>All have political representation to look out for their interests.
>
>RPA ?????????
>
>Vote in the following poll
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=776
>
>
>If your warbird is more than 800 horsepower you may only take off and
>land from your home airport.
>
>If your warbird is a jet you may only take off and land from your home
>airport.
>
>You may not operate your aircraft more than 300 nautical miles from
>your home airport.
>
>You must submit a program letter every year.
>
>To deviate from the above you must FAX the FAA for each instance.
>
>These are actual FAA rule. I'm asking what FAA genius thought them up
>and why?
>
>Don't you want to change stupid rules like these?
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Walt,
The M9F mag is a fixed mag and the engine timing on the M14, according to
the manual, is 14-16 degrees before TDC measured at the prop flange. On the
M14PF 400 HP engine, they typically have M9-35 magnetos which are
centrifigal advance/auto advance. Their timing is set based on the stamp in
the boss of the mag under the cover. Most all of the -35 mags I have seen
have 34,35,or 36 stamped in the boss and are timed in the 4 to 6 degree
range after TDC. Here's the chart that I use when setting the M9-35 mags.
23 2BTDC
24 2BTDC
25 1BTDC (Walt, as always, it right on the money even after too much
very good rye whiskey)
26 1BTDC
27 0
28 (1)ATDC
29 (1)ATDC
30 (2)ATDC
31 (2)ATDC
32 (3)ATDC
33 (4)ATDC
34 (4)ATDC
35 (5)ATDC
36 (5)ATDC
37(6)ATDC
I also completely agree with your analogy on N2 and starting.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
>
> Brian, Dennis;
>
> Not sure what this has to do with air bottles except maybe air vs nitrogen
> but here is my 2 cents worth; Please keep in mind that I just arrived home
> after an evening of pleasant conversation and too much very good rye
> whiskey.
>
> Ignition Timing;
> The Huosai with a 25 deg auto advance mag. is set to approx. 7 degs
> (CRANKSHAFT) BTDC or 7 X 0.787 PROPSHAFT. Too tired to fitgure it out.
> The M14P if you were using a 25 deg auto advance mag rather than the M9F
> would be set at approx. 1 deg (CRANKSHAFT) BTDC or 1 X 0.658 PROPSHAFT.
> (Hell, I can figure that out)
>
> Either engine will start using N2 provided that it starts in the first one
> or two attempts. After that there is no hope. The reason is that the
> starting charge (air or N2) is injected on the power stroke. Ignition
> takes place in a different cylinder which is picking up AIR from the
> intake system. If the start fails and all cylinders become contaminated
> with an excess of N2 then you might as well go and have a drink cause it
> ain't going to start no how.
>
> Cheers;
> Walt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
>>> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>>>
>>> Brian,
>>> That is most likely the case with the standard M14P which has M9F fixed
>>> timing magnetos that are timed at 14-16 degrees before TDC. On the
>>> Housai (if I'm not mistaken) and just like the M14PF, both have
>>> centrifugal advance mags and are timed after TDC, depending on the
>>> number stamped in the boss of the magneto under the cover.
>>
>> It thought that the centrifugal-advance mag was set to about 2 degrees
>> BTDC.
>>
>> But be that as it may, that is a mag timing issue and that doesn't have
>> any effect so long as the spark timing is not so retarded as to fire
>> after the air distributor injects air into that cylinder.
>>
>> The trick is that if the spark doesn't fire the cylinder the crank
>> rotates a bit more before the air is injected to turn the engine. If the
>> air is injected at or before the spark fires the cylinder it either
>> leans the mixture (air in the system) or eliminates the oxygen in the
>> cylinder (N2 in the system). If air is injected too early you can
>> compensate by overpriming the engine to deal with the extra air in the
>> cylinder. If you inject N2, no amount of fuel will solve the problem as
>> the N2 dilutes the O2 in the mixture until it won't support combustion.
>>
>> So the problem really is an air distributor timing problem. If you
>> retard the air injection your engine will start just fine with N2 in the
>> pneumatic system.
>>
>> In any case, that is how I see the system working. If I am wrong I would
>> love to know why. The nice thing about engines is that, if the timing is
>> right and they have a proper fuel/air mixture, they will run.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
>> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
>> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>>
>> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
>> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
>
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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
Frank,
I've thought about this subject a few times as well and thought the approach
for a rectification would be coming at it from a different angle. Bear with
this logic for a second. The EAA as with AOPA has had a hard time
convincing the powers to be that a medical is of little benefit for the
majority of non-commercial pilots out there, despite overwhelming evidence
in their favor. Getting the FAR's changed to remove medical requirements as
with your suggestion would be a major uphill battle. Part of the end around
approach is the new EAA Sport Pilot certificate which does not require a
pilot medical (with a few caveats). Now part of the idea is that a database
of evidence with time will be built under this new pilot certificate which
can be added to the database of evidence from the glider pilot sector, that
there is no difference in accident rate (caused my medical incapacitation)
between the medically certificatied pilot population and the non-medically
cetificated pilot population. Presumably backed with this evidence the
EAA/AOPA will have more clout in getting the Class III medical requirement
removed from the private pilot certificate.
Now using a similar approach, I would propose that instead of trying to
remove the current requirement that instead an effort be made to create
another Experimental category, perhaps "Experimental Proven". The
"Experimental" wording should bring the interest of the EAA. The new
category could use the rational that if an aircraft or perhaps aircraft type
has been inoperation without major structural incident for "X" number of
years then the design inherently by trial has proven itself and does not
need to go thru the rigirous FAA certication process etc. I would suggest
that after "X" number of years has passed, that anything in the
"Experimental Exhibition" category could be converted to the proposed
"Experimental Proven" category, and that the new category have no
restrictions beyond those in the Experimental Home Built category. My
thinking is that the EAA has experience pushing new certificates into
reality and perhaps that approach can be used to push a new Experimental
certification category into existance.
Regarding the need for the current rules, it has always been my take that
the rules were written not so much for safety reasons (which is the FAA's
charter) but instead to protect the current manufactures of US certified
aircraft from a flood of lower priced well designed aircraft from entering
the market and essentially putting them out of business. Want an example
(non-russian sorry), the Edge 540 is (arguably I'm sure by some) at the
moment the best and strongest unlimited aerobatic aircraft produced in the
USA and possibly the world. It's owners are flying under the "Experimental
Exhibition" category. The new price for an Edge 540 is far less than its
nearest "Certificated" competitor and if the "Experimental Exhibition" rules
were relaxed to those of the pre-moritorium aircraft, that certificatied
competitor would have a very tough time selling any aircraft with such a
cost differential. The same would hold true for the importation of the Yaks
etc.
Scott
----Original Message Follows----
From: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
--> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
Frank,
You are very funny.
AOPA has over 300,000 members. They are one of the biggest "aviation
lobby" organizations. A key part of their lobby agenda is to get rid of
pop up TFRs and reduce/eliminate the ADIZ around DC. Now they are about
1% of the US population and they can't get movement.
RPA has approximately 300 members. We are about 0.000001% of the US
population. If you think we have ANY real lobby power with the federal
government, (without a couple million to buy a few congress critters),
you have received a serious head injury and you should immediately seek
advanced medical care. I don't know anyone who has a warbird, that
likes the current program letter issue, however it really isn't a big
deal to comply and fly where ever you want (For those non-jet warbirds)
by just sending the FAA a fax.
DaBear
Frank Haertlein wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
>Yakkers
>
>AOPA......................
>EAA.......................
>NRA.......................
>Warbirds of America ......
>CJAA .....................
>The Sierra Club ..........
>CRPA .....................
>AARP .....................
>AMA ......................
>AFL-CIO ..................
>Sport Fisherman's Assoc...
>American Hunter...........
>NOW.......................
>
>And a thousand other organizations.........
>
>All have political representation to look out for their interests.
>
>RPA ?????????
>
>Vote in the following poll
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=776
>
>
>If your warbird is more than 800 horsepower you may only take off and land
>from your home airport.
>
>If your warbird is a jet you may only take off and land from your home
>airport.
>
>You may not operate your aircraft more than 300 nautical miles from your
>home airport.
>
>You must submit a program letter every year.
>
>To deviate from the above you must FAX the FAA for each instance.
>
>These are actual FAA rule. I'm asking what FAA genius thought them up and
>why?
>
>Don't you want to change stupid rules like these?
>
>
>
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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Really Ron? What does the FAA Order 8130.2F (or its predecessors) say with
regards to "..you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your program
letter or fax the FSDO." Are you saying that if you want to go visit your
grandmother and she lives outside of your 300 NM proficiency area, all you
have to do is either have "going to visit my grandmother in Anytown, USA" on
you annual program letter or send a FAX to your FSDO saying "going to visit
my grandmother in Anytown, USA"?
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> It's easy to make rules that apply to activities in the future and
> considerably harder, legally and public relations wise, to take away
> something that has already been granted. That's why yesterday's rules
> apply to yesterday's airplanes and today's rules apply to airplanes
> certified today and henceforth.
>
> The rules on certifying a plane include the operating limits that will
> apply to the plane. The rules on certifying a plane have nothing to do
> with planes that already have an airworthiness certificate. Could you
> quote a particular chapter and verse of the constitution that you think
> this violates?
>
> Besides that, you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your program
> letter or fax the FSDO.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:08 PM
> Subject: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Yakkers;
>> I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
>> restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
>> (pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited with FAA
>> restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What the hell
>> were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do they get off
>> letting some have all the freedoms they want while restricting others? It
>> seems like an unacceptable and unequal application of the law. I seem to
>> remember somewhere that all laws have to be equally administered or they
>> are
>> unconstitutional. And why put that restriction on us anyways? What pointy
>> headed bureaucrat thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA
>> members,
>> use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set of
>> regulations!
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> "All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
>> geographical
>> area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments to
>> that
>> letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the
>> aircraft's
>> home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
>> outside
>> of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training, or
>> checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the applicant's
>> program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate the
>> location and dates for this proficiency flying."
>>
>> OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the "special
>> ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact same
>> airplane.
>> What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us! What the hell
>> gives
>> them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes different?
>> F'in
>> bastards!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Sometimes it would pay to keep one's mouth shut. If the FAA sees too much
of this kind of talk, they might decide to "standardize" things by requiring
that all the pre-moratorium airplanes get recertificated to the new rules.
They definitely won't allow the new certifications to regress to the old
rules!
The new certifications were brought about primarily by people bringing all
the soviet bloc jets into the country. In fact, the sheer number of
airplanes in the exhibition category in recent years prompted the FAA to
refine the certification of these aircraft.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Yakkers;
> I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
> restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
> (pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited with FAA
> restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What the hell
> were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do they get off
> letting some have all the freedoms they want while restricting others? It
> seems like an unacceptable and unequal application of the law. I seem to
> remember somewhere that all laws have to be equally administered or they
> are
> unconstitutional. And why put that restriction on us anyways? What pointy
> headed bureaucrat thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA
> members,
> use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set of
> regulations!
>
> Frank
>
> "All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
> geographical
> area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments to
> that
> letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the aircraft's
> home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
> outside
> of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training, or
> checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the applicant's
> program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate the
> location and dates for this proficiency flying."
>
> OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the "special
> ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact same
> airplane.
> What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us! What the hell
> gives
> them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes different?
> F'in
> bastards!
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@email.net>
The stuff they did doesn't have any teeth in it anyway... with the jets
and the 800hp+ stuff, you can go anywhere so long as you let them know
you're going -- the wording says "notify". It doesn't say that they have
to approve or even acknowledge the notification. I need 48 hours notice
to go somewhere that's not on my annual program letter, but apparently I
can modify that program letter on NO notice, say even from a Blackberry
while on short final.
Many people in the FAA are also wondering what good all this clearly "make
work" paperwork does... I've been told that it will be "going away", but a
time frame is never given.
Jon
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> Really Ron? What does the FAA Order 8130.2F (or its predecessors) say
> with
> regards to "..you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your program
> letter or fax the FSDO." Are you saying that if you want to go visit your
> grandmother and she lives outside of your 300 NM proficiency area, all you
> have to do is either have "going to visit my grandmother in Anytown, USA"
> on
> you annual program letter or send a FAX to your FSDO saying "going to
> visit
> my grandmother in Anytown, USA"?
> Dennis
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
>>
>> It's easy to make rules that apply to activities in the future and
>> considerably harder, legally and public relations wise, to take away
>> something that has already been granted. That's why yesterday's rules
>> apply to yesterday's airplanes and today's rules apply to airplanes
>> certified today and henceforth.
>>
>> The rules on certifying a plane include the operating limits that will
>> apply to the plane. The rules on certifying a plane have nothing to do
>> with planes that already have an airworthiness certificate. Could you
>> quote a particular chapter and verse of the constitution that you think
>> this violates?
>>
>> Besides that, you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your program
>> letter or fax the FSDO.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:08 PM
>> Subject: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>>
>>
>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>>> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>>>
>>> Yakkers;
>>> I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
>>> restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
>>> (pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited with
>>> FAA
>>> restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What the
>>> hell
>>> were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do they get
>>> off
>>> letting some have all the freedoms they want while restricting others?
>>> It
>>> seems like an unacceptable and unequal application of the law. I seem
>>> to
>>> remember somewhere that all laws have to be equally administered or
>>> they
>>> are
>>> unconstitutional. And why put that restriction on us anyways? What
>>> pointy
>>> headed bureaucrat thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA
>>> members,
>>> use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set of
>>> regulations!
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> "All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
>>> geographical
>>> area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments to
>>> that
>>> letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the
>>> aircraft's
>>> home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
>>> outside
>>> of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training, or
>>> checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the applicant's
>>> program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate the
>>> location and dates for this proficiency flying."
>>>
>>> OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the
>>> "special
>>> ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact same
>>> airplane.
>>> What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us! What the hell
>>> gives
>>> them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes different?
>>> F'in
>>> bastards!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@email.net>
You know what happenend? "They" got together in a back room at AirVenture
about 12 years ago and the FAA said "We don't want these soviet jets
galavanting all over the country -- somebody make some rules to throw a
wrench in that." And so some arbitrary rules were agreed to by the
parties attending.
The jets have a 600nm limit on them... but there are jets everywhere --
there's not a single spot of ground in the CONUS that's not within 600nm
of some jet, so it did NOTHING in terms of safety. It did, however, calm
Cessna's fears about having to compete with cheap, well-built jets. :-)
Jon
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Sometimes it would pay to keep one's mouth shut. If the FAA sees too much
> of this kind of talk, they might decide to "standardize" things by
> requiring
> that all the pre-moratorium airplanes get recertificated to the new rules.
> They definitely won't allow the new certifications to regress to the old
> rules!
>
> The new certifications were brought about primarily by people bringing all
> the soviet bloc jets into the country. In fact, the sheer number of
> airplanes in the exhibition category in recent years prompted the FAA to
> refine the certification of these aircraft.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:08 PM
> Subject: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Yakkers;
>> I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
>> restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
>> (pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited with
>> FAA
>> restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What the
>> hell
>> were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do they get off
>> letting some have all the freedoms they want while restricting others?
>> It
>> seems like an unacceptable and unequal application of the law. I seem to
>> remember somewhere that all laws have to be equally administered or they
>> are
>> unconstitutional. And why put that restriction on us anyways? What
>> pointy
>> headed bureaucrat thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA
>> members,
>> use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set of
>> regulations!
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> "All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
>> geographical
>> area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments to
>> that
>> letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the
>> aircraft's
>> home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
>> outside
>> of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training, or
>> checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the applicant's
>> program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate the
>> location and dates for this proficiency flying."
>>
>> OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the "special
>> ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact same
>> airplane.
>> What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us! What the hell
>> gives
>> them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes different?
>> F'in
>> bastards!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | starting on nitrogen (was: Air bottles) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Walter Lannon wrote:
> Either engine will start using N2 provided that it starts in the first
> one or two attempts. After that there is no hope. The reason is that the
> starting charge (air or N2) is injected on the power stroke. Ignition
> takes place in a different cylinder which is picking up AIR from the
> intake system. If the start fails and all cylinders become contaminated
> with an excess of N2 then you might as well go and have a drink cause it
> ain't going to start no how.
The engine is an air pump.
The exhaust stroke pushes the N2 out of the cylinder into the exhaust
manifold thus leaving the cylinder to draw in a fresh charge of fuel/air
on the next intake stroke. There is no excess of N2 unless the engine is
really badly broken.
If what you said were true, the engine would never run because, "the
cylinders would become contaminated with an excess of..." exhaust.
There is something that came to me last night which puts the lie to
something I said yesterday. I said that the N2 would dilute the O2 in
the air until the mixture wouldn't fire and that turns out to not be the
case. The mass of O2 needed to combust with an appropriate mass of fuel
remains the same (partial pressure of O2 is fixed). We just inject an
excess of N2 but the stochastic mixture of O2 and fuel is already fixed.
The engine should fire just fine if a charge of N2 is injected into an
already stochastic mixture of air and fuel. Only the initial pressure
will be different. (We are back to PV=nRT but as applied to gas partial
pressure.)
So, the engine *should* start regardless of what gas is in the pneumatic
starting system. So why won't some engines start on N2? (I am not
arguing that some engines won't fire on N2 because enough people I trust
have clearly observed that some engines won't fire if the air system is
charged with N2.)
If an engine has a proper fuel/air mixture and a properly timed spark,
it *WILL* fire. There is no question about that. If it fires when the
system is charged with air then we know that the spark timing is OK. So
by my reasoning the introduction of N2 somehow changes the mixture. I
have just reasoned that N2 injected into the cylinder will change the
cylinder pressure but will not change the fuel/O2 mixture. Based on that
I am thinking that we are looking in the wrong place. It probably is not
a function the gas being injected into the cylinder at all but somehow
the gas, N2 in this case, displacing the air in the induction system. If
there were a leak path between the air distributor and the rest of the
induction system (say into the supercharger housing) the N2 would
displace the air in the induction system, forcing it back out through
the carb. This would purge the induction system of air leaving only N2
and fuel from the primer. Now the engine draws in the fuel/N2 mix which
will never fire.
Engines that don't suffer from this kind of leak will start on N2. Those
that have this leak will never start on N2.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Fraser, Gus wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
>
> Fax, come on this is the 21st century, I send an email.
IFF your FSDO will let you. The Sacramento FSDO used to insist on FAX.
Also, if they give you grief about not having sent them anything, the
little "successfully delivered" slip may save your butt.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Scott Kirk wrote:
> Now using a similar approach, I would propose that instead of trying to
> remove the current requirement that instead an effort be made to create
> another Experimental category, perhaps "Experimental Proven".
That is brilliant Scott! As I pointed out, you can't get a bureaucracy
to change its mind on something it has done in the past and then written
down. (Evidence: Bob Hoover.) But what you are proposing is new ruling
and new paper! That let's them off the hook.
> Regarding the need for the current rules, it has always been my take
> that the rules were written not so much for safety reasons (which is the
> FAA's charter) but instead to protect the current manufactures of US
> certified aircraft from a flood of lower priced well designed aircraft
> from entering the market and essentially putting them out of business.
That strikes me as correct. The rumor I heard about the current change
(post "moratorium") came about because Cessna was in fear of loss of
Caravan sales to the AN-2.
> Want an example (non-russian sorry), the Edge 540 is (arguably I'm sure
> by some) at the moment the best and strongest unlimited aerobatic
> aircraft produced in the USA and possibly the world. It's owners are
> flying under the "Experimental Exhibition" category. The new price for
> an Edge 540 is far less than its nearest "Certificated" competitor and
> if the "Experimental Exhibition" rules were relaxed to those of the
> pre-moritorium aircraft, that certificatied competitor would have a very
> tough time selling any aircraft with such a cost differential. The same
> would hold true for the importation of the Yaks etc.
OTOH, market forces would prevail. The price of the Edge 540 would go up
because the cost of certification would have to be added into the cost
of the airplane. Also its perceived value would go up so it could demand
a higher price. Its price would come into line with domestic competitors
and there would be a level playing field rather than a market skewed by
government meddling.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> Really Ron? What does the FAA Order 8130.2F (or its predecessors) say
> with regards to "..you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your
> program letter or fax the FSDO." Are you saying that if you want to go
> visit your grandmother and she lives outside of your 300 NM proficiency
> area, all you have to do is either have "going to visit my grandmother
> in Anytown, USA" on you annual program letter or send a FAX to your FSDO
> saying "going to visit my grandmother in Anytown, USA"?
No silly. That would be against the spirit of the rule. OTOH, if you are
careful about where you exhibit the airplane or fly it for proficiency
it is amazing how convenient it can be to stop off and see your
grandmother along the way.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
cgalley wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Sometimes it would pay to keep one's mouth shut. If the FAA sees too
> much of this kind of talk, they might decide to "standardize" things by
> requiring that all the pre-moratorium airplanes get recertificated to
> the new rules. They definitely won't allow the new certifications to
> regress to the old rules!
Philosophical question: so we shouldn't exercise our First Amendment
rights because we might piss off the government? Seems to me that would
be a restraint of speech. Something to think about.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RPA Poll on political representation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Frank wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Please Vote
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=2810#2810
The answer is 'no' because I don't know of anyone in the RPA who really
understands "doing business" on the hill. Even AOPA and EAA are
amazingly clue-challenged in this area and they have been doing it for a
long time.
RPA would likely do more harm than good.
Now if all the individuals went up and got their individual congress
critters involved there might be a chance. BTW, you did contribute $1000
to your congress critter's campaign, didn't you?
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
This is getting rediculous, I have had to delete 8 gazillion emails
from my machine in just the last 24 hours, on absolute bullshit. The
signal to noise ratio here is worse than at SETI.
Ernie
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Edwin Curry" <eacurry@ev1.net>
Doug,
We have done refurbishment to units after several years of service and found no
problems removing SWAK connections. It does harden some but remains soft enough
for easy removal. I do not have the data sheets on the product. I am sure that
the company will provide data sheets to you if you request.
Edwin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=2900#2900
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: | POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
My sent box and that of my email provider are a better source of
confirmation. If a fax is required then the regs should say that if they
don't specify a contact method they don't have a leg to stand on.
My FSDO is Teterboro, allegedly the worst behaved in the country, not my
words they are great with me. Trust me, the last thing these guys want to do
is have even more paper to file. Amongst other things they are human and as
such hate paperwork that they have to do.
To Frank,
As far as the regs go I have never seen it as a problem. This is the break
down as given to me by an FAA AW guy.
"You can fly for three reasons
1. Maintenance
2. Exhibition
3. Proficiency
Any flight that you do as PIC is, above all else, a contribution to your
proficiency."
And that was from the FAA !
Frank please remember there is a big old world out there and, if you
recognize it or not, here in the US we enjoy THE most freedom regarding
experimental aircraft, anywhere in the world.
I would agree that personal responsibility should be the overriding factor
in how we fly but the regs exist and they are what they are. If you don't
believe me just ask the British subscribers what it is like dealing with the
Campaign Against Aviation (commonly called the CAA).
It's kind of like sitting on the beach with a tequila and a hot chick and
complaining about the crabs.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Fraser, Gus wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
>
> Fax, come on this is the 21st century, I send an email.
IFF your FSDO will let you. The Sacramento FSDO used to insist on FAX.
Also, if they give you grief about not having sent them anything, the little
"successfully delivered" slip may save your butt.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
The operative word is "exhibit". From 8130.2F Change 1, "A certificate for
experimental exhibition must only be issued when an aircraft is to be used
for valid exhibition purposes. Included in those purposes are organized
airshows, organized air races, organized fly-in activities, organized
exhibitions, youth education events, shoppingmall/school/similar static
displays, organized aerobatic competition, sail plane fly-ins or competitive
races or meets, and movie or television productions."
Yes, Brian you're correct about being careful. But being careful does not
equate to "you can fly it anywhere you want by sending a FAX to your FSDO."
Proficiency flying is within your 300 NM limitation. Outside of the 300 NM
proficiency area, you are <suppose> to be attending a formal event such as a
fly-in, airshow, etc.
Does everyone comply with this? Heck no. The point is simply if you're
outside of your 300 nm proficiency area, be sure you're covered. Is it a
dumb rule? You bet. But it's still the rule under which our aircraft are
certificated.
FWIW
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
> A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
>> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>>
>> Really Ron? What does the FAA Order 8130.2F (or its predecessors) say
>> with regards to "..you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your
>> program letter or fax the FSDO." Are you saying that if you want to go
>> visit your grandmother and she lives outside of your 300 NM proficiency
>> area, all you have to do is either have "going to visit my grandmother
>> in Anytown, USA" on you annual program letter or send a FAX to your FSDO
>> saying "going to visit my grandmother in Anytown, USA"?
>
> No silly. That would be against the spirit of the rule. OTOH, if you are
> careful about where you exhibit the airplane or fly it for proficiency
> it is amazing how convenient it can be to stop off and see your
> grandmother along the way.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
>
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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Fraser, Gus wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
>
> My sent box and that of my email provider are a better source of
> confirmation. If a fax is required then the regs should say that if they
> don't specify a contact method they don't have a leg to stand on.
I agree but the FAA has never been strong on facts or fairness when
pursuing an enforcement action. Any time you do something involving
approval it is a lot easier to get their buy-in first and then proceed
their way. If they say they want it in FAX then it is easier to do it
that way than to try to convince them that email is better. Most PCs
have FAX software so sending a fax should not be any more difficult than
sending an email.
I have several things I want my local FSDO to buy off on. I am going in
and spend time talking to an inspector to get his road map before
proceeding.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
You well may be right, but how to you answer your wife's question... Do
these make me look FAT? If you answer truthfully, you might piss off your
wife! If you rattle the cage so to speak, you might piss off the others in
the group when "they" decide to make everyone the same and take away the
grandfathered permissions.
Since they control the rules, then the effort to change must be done with
diplomacy and tact. Name calling doesn't promote good relationships.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> cgalley wrote:
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>>
>> Sometimes it would pay to keep one's mouth shut. If the FAA sees too
>> much of this kind of talk, they might decide to "standardize" things by
>> requiring that all the pre-moratorium airplanes get recertificated to
>> the new rules. They definitely won't allow the new certifications to
>> regress to the old rules!
>
> Philosophical question: so we shouldn't exercise our First Amendment
> rights because we might piss off the government? Seems to me that would
> be a restraint of speech. Something to think about.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
Please...my SU-29 is pre-moratorium - I say again please - do not screw
things up for those of us more fortunate.
My yak-52 and my Yak 55 were post moratoriums - big deal - send the
Program Letter each year and a fax to the FSDO prior to escaping the
300nm circle - so what?
Ok, so it would be just as little a deal for me to do the Letter and
the faxes but...I CHOSE to purchase a pre-moratorium ship.
As far as Grandfathering goes you "mature" guys want to come to some 18
year old for your Tailwheel endorsement?, Complex (what is that...)?,
You airline dudes - your High Altitude endorsement? Grandfathering is a
way of life here in the US/FAA world.
Thanks for the forum to vent.
Respectfully,
Lt. RB
>>> yak52driver@earthlink.net 1/10/2006 7:08:46 PM >>>
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Yakkers;
I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
(pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited with
FAA
restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What the
hell
were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do they get
off
letting some have all the freedoms they want while restricting others?
It
seems like an unacceptable and unequal application of the law. I seem
to
remember somewhere that all laws have to be equally administered or
they are
unconstitutional. And why put that restriction on us anyways? What
pointy
headed bureaucrat thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA
members,
use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set of
regulations!
Frank
"All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
geographical
area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments to
that
letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the
aircraft's
home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
outside
of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training, or
checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the
applicant's
program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate the
location and dates for this proficiency flying."
OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the
"special
ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact same
airplane.
What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us! What the hell
gives
them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes different?
F'in
bastards!
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 |
|
Remember 79% of what you are breathing right now is N2
>>> wlannon@cablerocket.com 1/11/2006 12:25:21 AM >>>
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walter Lannon"
<wlannon@cablerocket.com>
Brian, Dennis;
Not sure what this has to do with air bottles except maybe air vs
nitrogen
but here is my 2 cents worth; Please keep in mind that I just arrived
home
after an evening of pleasant conversation and too much very good rye
whiskey.
Ignition Timing;
The Huosai with a 25 deg auto advance mag. is set to approx. 7 degs
(CRANKSHAFT) BTDC or 7 X 0.787 PROPSHAFT. Too tired to fitgure it out.
The M14P if you were using a 25 deg auto advance mag rather than the
M9F
would be set at approx. 1 deg (CRANKSHAFT) BTDC or 1 X 0.658 PROPSHAFT.
(Hell, I can figure that out)
Either engine will start using N2 provided that it starts in the first
one
or two attempts. After that there is no hope. The reason is that the
starting charge (air or N2) is injected on the power stroke. Ignition
takes
place in a different cylinder which is picking up AIR from the intake
system. If the start fails and all cylinders become contaminated with
an
excess of N2 then you might as well go and have a drink cause it ain't
going
to start no how.
Cheers;
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
> A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
>> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>>
>> Brian,
>> That is most likely the case with the standard M14P which has M9F
fixed
>> timing magnetos that are timed at 14-16 degrees before TDC. On the
>> Housai (if I'm not mistaken) and just like the M14PF, both have
>> centrifugal advance mags and are timed after TDC, depending on the
>> number stamped in the boss of the magneto under the cover.
>
> It thought that the centrifugal-advance mag was set to about 2
degrees
> BTDC.
>
> But be that as it may, that is a mag timing issue and that doesn't
have
> any effect so long as the spark timing is not so retarded as to fire
> after the air distributor injects air into that cylinder.
>
> The trick is that if the spark doesn't fire the cylinder the crank
> rotates a bit more before the air is injected to turn the engine. If
the
> air is injected at or before the spark fires the cylinder it either
> leans the mixture (air in the system) or eliminates the oxygen in
the
> cylinder (N2 in the system). If air is injected too early you can
> compensate by overpriming the engine to deal with the extra air in
the
> cylinder. If you inject N2, no amount of fuel will solve the problem
as
> the N2 dilutes the O2 in the mixture until it won't support
combustion.
>
> So the problem really is an air distributor timing problem. If you
> retard the air injection your engine will start just fine with N2 in
the
> pneumatic system.
>
> In any case, that is how I see the system working. If I am wrong I
would
> love to know why. The nice thing about engines is that, if the timing
is
> right and they have a proper fuel/air mixture, they will run.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things .
. .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
Yes
>>> dsavarese@elmore.rr.com 1/11/2006 7:01:26 AM >>>
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
<dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Really Ron? What does the FAA Order 8130.2F (or its predecessors) say
with
regards to "..you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your
program
letter or fax the FSDO." Are you saying that if you want to go visit
your
grandmother and she lives outside of your 300 NM proficiency area, all
you
have to do is either have "going to visit my grandmother in Anytown,
USA" on
you annual program letter or send a FAX to your FSDO saying "going to
visit
my grandmother in Anytown, USA"?
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> It's easy to make rules that apply to activities in the future and
> considerably harder, legally and public relations wise, to take away
> something that has already been granted. That's why yesterday's
rules
> apply to yesterday's airplanes and today's rules apply to airplanes
> certified today and henceforth.
>
> The rules on certifying a plane include the operating limits that
will
> apply to the plane. The rules on certifying a plane have nothing to
do
> with planes that already have an airworthiness certificate. Could
you
> quote a particular chapter and verse of the constitution that you
think
> this violates?
>
> Besides that, you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your
program
> letter or fax the FSDO.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:08 PM
> Subject: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Yakkers;
>> I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
>> restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
>> (pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited
with FAA
>> restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What the
hell
>> were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do they get
off
>> letting some have all the freedoms they want while restricting
others? It
>> seems like an unacceptable and unequal application of the law. I
seem to
>> remember somewhere that all laws have to be equally administered or
they
>> are
>> unconstitutional. And why put that restriction on us anyways? What
pointy
>> headed bureaucrat thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA
>> members,
>> use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set
of
>> regulations!
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> "All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
>> geographical
>> area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments
to
>> that
>> letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the
>> aircraft's
>> home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
>> outside
>> of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training,
or
>> checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the
applicant's
>> program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate
the
>> location and dates for this proficiency flying."
>>
>> OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the
"special
>> ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact same
>> airplane.
>> What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us! What the
hell
>> gives
>> them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes
different?
>> F'in
>> bastards!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
>
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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@email.net>
What spirit?
The problem with 8130.2x is that it has a hidden agenda. When you don't
spell out the intent of your rules (because spelling it out would make
clear that you're up to monkey business) you wind up with rules with lots
of loopholes.
They tried to tack things down all around the edges instead of coming
right out and saying, "These rules are intended to hobble and
inconvenience."
So I don't think that stopping by your grandmother's violates the spirit
of the rule -- since nobody really knows what that spirit is. And I don't
take hints. :-)
Jon
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
>> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>>
>> Really Ron? What does the FAA Order 8130.2F (or its predecessors) say
>> with regards to "..you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your
>> program letter or fax the FSDO." Are you saying that if you want to go
>> visit your grandmother and she lives outside of your 300 NM proficiency
>> area, all you have to do is either have "going to visit my grandmother
>> in Anytown, USA" on you annual program letter or send a FAX to your FSDO
>> saying "going to visit my grandmother in Anytown, USA"?
>
> No silly. That would be against the spirit of the rule. OTOH, if you are
> careful about where you exhibit the airplane or fly it for proficiency
> it is amazing how convenient it can be to stop off and see your
> grandmother along the way.
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: This list sucks |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Roger Kemp <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Shack,
DVD
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
>Sent: Jan 11, 2006 9:35 AM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: This list sucks
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
>
>This is getting rediculous, I have had to delete 8 gazillion emails
>from my machine in just the last 24 hours, on absolute bullshit. The
>signal to noise ratio here is worse than at SETI.
>
>Ernie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: This list sucks |
Ernie,
Just subscribe to the Digest and you only get one email/day. In between you can
surf messages with "Browse Current List".
Over the last year or so, I used this list to:
- Get another prop hub and some busted up blades to play with.
- Get a Crowder Spinner (fixed and mounted now)
- Find a replacement ZY-1500 voltage regulator.
- Get another Chinese AH.
- Obtain Upper and Lower cowlings to play with.
- Sell some *stuff* for airplanes.
- Fill in lots of blank spots in my knowledge "space".
Put up with a little *stuff* to get to the good...kinda like marriage but don't
quote me.
Craig Payne
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Ron, you're right when you said........ "Besides that, you can go anywhere
you want if you put it on your program
letter or fax the FSDO".
You're right, I can go anywhere I want "provided I submit a FAX to the FAA".
But it's a hassle to have to do it all the time. I don't like it but most of
all don't see what purpose it serves. What good does it do for the FAA to
get all these FAX's all the time? I've yet to hear a good explanation for
this requirement.
Frank
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: | POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
OK, OK, Brian, I get your point. I hope you had a good laugh? I just wish
there was something more I could do about the situation. It just tweaks my
hide to have to deal with it while others don't. I'm glad they have a
reasonable set of operating rules. Now how can I get those too? Or am I just
pissin' in the wind here?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Frank Haertlein wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
> --> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Yakkers;
> I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
> restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
> (pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited with FAA
> restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule?
Stupidity.
> What the hell
> were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking?
Hahahahahaha. Thinking bureaucrats. Now that is funny! There is no thought
to it at all and therefore it makes complete sense.
You see, the paperwork already existed. Paperwork is God. You cannot change
existing paperwork. OTOH, you can do anything you want to NEW paperwork. Why
is this confusing to you?
> Where do they get off
> letting some have all the freedoms they want while restricting others?
Because it is their ball and we have let them make the rules.
> It
> seems like an unacceptable and unequal application of the law.
Remember, you are talking administrative law rather than Constitutional or
statutory law. It doesn't have to be equal.
> I seem to
> remember somewhere that all laws have to be equally administered or
> they are unconstitutional.
It *is* being equally administered. All newly imported aircraft are given
the same treatment with exactly the same LoL.
> And why put that restriction on us anyways? What pointy headed
> bureaucrat thought of that one and why?
I don't know who but I can answer "why". Because they felt like it. And
because they have to have something different from "certificated" aircraft.
Otherwise why would anyone bother with certification?
> I suggest we, as RPA members,
> use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set of
> regulations!
Oh please Frank. No more. I will probably die of a heart attack if you make
me laugh any harder.
>
> Frank
>
> "All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
> geographical area described in the applicant's program letter and any
> amendments to that letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical
> miles of the aircraft's home base airport. An exception is permitted
> for proficiency flying outside of the area stated above for organized
> formation flying, training, or checkout in conjunction with a specific
> event listed in the applicant's program letter (or amendments). The
> program letter should indicate the location and dates for this
> proficiency flying."
No problem. Drop a note to your FSDO in a fax and go flying. Or change your
program letter as often as you like and ship it off to your FSDO. Have your
program letter list shows all over the country. That way, no matter where
you are, you are always 'enroute' to a show.
> OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the
> "special ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact
> same airplane.
Hey Frank, consider automatic weapons. On one someone paid the tax and got
the stamp before the FOPA of 1986 went into effect. That owner may legally
own and operate that automatic weapon. The exact same weapon, one serial
number different, but for which the tax was not paid, is now illegal and
possession of it is a felony -- a *BIG* felony ... unless you work for the
government. (Ever wonder why the government doesn't have to adhere to its
own laws?) And there is no way to *ever* be able to make that second,
*identical*, automatic weapon legal. That one is even funnier than our
airworthiness certificates.
> What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us! What the hell
> gives them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes
> different? F'in bastards!
So, get a bill passed. Statutory law trumps administrative law. Or get
arrested and fight it out in court. At that point the judicial branch can
take notice and potentially change the interpretation or even strike down
the administrative law as unconstitutional. Lots of hard work.
FWIW Frank, I agree with you 100%. The only thing is, if I didn't laugh I
would cry.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: | POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
DaBear
I can appreciate what you are saying. Consider the events that happened to
me last week. Someone called a buddy of mine and asked him to do some
formation work with him. My buddy called me and asked if I wanted to go too.
Well, his buddy called his other buddy who called his other buddy and before
you know it there were 9 YAKS all gathered together for some formation
flying practice. It turned into an unplanned mini formation clinic (I had a
great time by-the-way --- met my first woman YAK-52 owner there, just wish
she were single :) In a sense this was an EVENT that I had no knowledge of
happening until I got there. How could I have included this on my program
letter and how would it have benefited the FAA to know this? What the hell
are they going to do with this knowledge? What if we all decided to go to
the next airport 301 nautical miles away from home and the Podunk airport we
were at didn't have a FAX? I can live with the restriction but it is a
dammed hassle.....I'd rather do without it.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DaBear
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
--> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
Frank,
You are very funny.
AOPA has over 300,000 members. They are one of the biggest "aviation lobby"
organizations. A key part of their lobby agenda is to get rid of pop up
TFRs and reduce/eliminate the ADIZ around DC. Now they are about 1% of the
US population and they can't get movement.
RPA has approximately 300 members. We are about 0.000001% of the US
population. If you think we have ANY real lobby power with the federal
government, (without a couple million to buy a few congress critters), you
have received a serious head injury and you should immediately seek advanced
medical care. I don't know anyone who has a warbird, that likes the current
program letter issue, however it really isn't a big deal to comply and fly
where ever you want (For those non-jet warbirds)
by just sending the FAA a fax.
DaBear
Frank Haertlein wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>--> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
>Yakkers
>
>AOPA......................
>EAA.......................
>NRA.......................
>Warbirds of America ......
>CJAA .....................
>The Sierra Club ..........
>CRPA .....................
>AARP .....................
>AMA ......................
>AFL-CIO ..................
>Sport Fisherman's Assoc...
>American Hunter...........
>NOW.......................
>
>And a thousand other organizations.........
>
>All have political representation to look out for their interests.
>
>RPA ?????????
>
>Vote in the following poll
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=776
>
>
>If your warbird is more than 800 horsepower you may only take off and
>land from your home airport.
>
>If your warbird is a jet you may only take off and land from your home
>airport.
>
>You may not operate your aircraft more than 300 nautical miles from
>your home airport.
>
>You must submit a program letter every year.
>
>To deviate from the above you must FAX the FAA for each instance.
>
>These are actual FAA rule. I'm asking what FAA genius thought them up
>and why?
>
>Don't you want to change stupid rules like these?
>
>
>
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 |
|
Yes that is true, but I prefer not to mix what I breath with 100LL and then light
my cigar! -)
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Basiliere
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
Remember 79% of what you are breathing right now is N2
>>> wlannon@cablerocket.com 1/11/2006 12:25:21 AM >>>
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
Brian, Dennis;
Not sure what this has to do with air bottles except maybe air vs nitrogen
but here is my 2 cents worth; Please keep in mind that I just arrived home
after an evening of pleasant conversation and too much very good rye
whiskey.
Ignition Timing;
The Huosai with a 25 deg auto advance mag. is set to approx. 7 degs
(CRANKSHAFT) BTDC or 7 X 0.787 PROPSHAFT. Too tired to fitgure it out.
The M14P if you were using a 25 deg auto advance mag rather than the M9F
would be set at approx. 1 deg (CRANKSHAFT) BTDC or 1 X 0.658 PROPSHAFT.
(Hell, I can figure that out)
Either engine will start using N2 provided that it starts in the first one
or two attempts. After that there is no hope. The reason is that the
starting charge (air or N2) is injected on the power stroke. Ignition takes
place in a different cylinder which is picking up AIR from the intake
system. If the start fails and all cylinders become contaminated with an
excess of N2 then you might as well go and have a drink cause it ain't going
to start no how.
Cheers;
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Air bottles
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
>
> A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
>> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>>
>> Brian,
>> That is most likely the case with the standard M14P which has M9F fixed
>> timing magnetos that are timed at 14-16 degrees before TDC. On the
>> Housai (if I'm not mistaken) and just like the M14PF, both have
>> centrifugal advance mags and are timed after TDC, depending on the
>> number stamped in the boss of the magneto under the cover.
>
> It thought that the centrifugal-advance mag was set to about 2 degrees
> BTDC.
>
> But be that as it may, that is a mag timing issue and that doesn't have
> any effect so long as the spark timing is not so retarded as to fire
> after the air distributor injects air into that cylinder.
>
> The trick is that if the spark doesn't fire the cylinder the crank
> rotates a bit more before the air is injected to turn the engine. If the
> air is injected at or before the spark fires the cylinder it either
> leans the mixture (air in the system) or eliminates the oxygen in the
> cylinder (N2 in the system). If air is injected too early you can
> compensate by overpriming the engine to deal with the extra air in the
> cylinder. If you inject N2, no amount of fuel will solve the problem as
> the N2 dilutes the O2 in the mixture until it won't support combustion.
>
> So the problem really is an air distributor timing problem. If you
> retard the air injection your engine will start just fine with N2 in the
> pneumatic system.
>
> In any case, that is how I see the system working. If I am wrong I would
> love to know why. The nice thing about engines is that, if the timing is
> right and they have a proper fuel/air mixture, they will run.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3Dsp; - List Contribution =3D &nb">http://www.matronics.com/con=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
Smart ass! :-) You're one of the lucky pre-moratorium guys. So don't rub it in.
:-)
Dennis
----- Original Messae -----
From: Richard Basiliere
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: [CONTENT] Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
Yes
>>> dsavarese@elmore.rr.com 1/11/2006 7:01:26 AM >>>
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Really Ron? What does the FAA Order 8130.2F (or its predecessors) say with
regards to "..you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your program
letter or fax the FSDO." Are you saying that if you want to go visit your
grandmother and she lives outside of your 300 NM proficiency area, all you
have to do is either have "going to visit my grandmother in Anytown, USA" on
you annual program letter or send a FAX to your FSDO saying "going to visit
my grandmother in Anytown, USA"?
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> It's easy to make rules that apply to activities in the future and
> considerably harder, legally and public relations wise, to take away
> something that has already been granted. That's why yesterday's rules
> apply to yesterday's airplanes and today's rules apply to airplanes
> certified today and henceforth.
>
> The rules on certifying a plane include the operating limits that will
> apply to the plane. The rules on certifying a plane have nothing to do
> with planes that already have an airworthiness certificate. Could you
> quote a particular chapter and verse of the constitution that you think
> this violates?
>
> Besides that, you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your program
> letter or fax the FSDO.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:08 PM
> Subject: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Yakkers;
>> I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
>> restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
>> (pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited with FAA
>> restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What the hell
>> were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do they get off
>> letting some have all the freedoms they want while restricting others? It
>> seems like an unacceptable and unequal application of the law. I seem to
>> remember somewhere that all laws have to be equally administered or they
>> are
>> unconstitutional. And why put that restriction on us anyways? What pointy
>> headed bureaucrat thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA
>> members,
>> use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set of
>> regulations!
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> "All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
>> geographical
>> area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments to
>> that
>> letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the
>> aircraft's
>> home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
>> outside
>> of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training, or
>> checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the applicant's
>> program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate the
>> location and dates for this proficiency flying."
>>
>> OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the "special
>> ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact same
>> airplane.
>> What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us! What the hell
>> gives
>> them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes different?
>> F'in
>> bastards!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3Dnbsp; &--> http://www.m=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Cy
You said..... "In fact, the sheer number of
airplanes in the exhibition category in recent years prompted the FAA to
refine the certification of these aircraft."
That may be true but I'm going to ask you WHY? And I want an answer!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of cgalley
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
--> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Sometimes it would pay to keep one's mouth shut. If the FAA sees too much
of this kind of talk, they might decide to "standardize" things by requiring
that all the pre-moratorium airplanes get recertificated to the new rules.
They definitely won't allow the new certifications to regress to the old
rules!
The new certifications were brought about primarily by people bringing all
the soviet bloc jets into the country. In fact, the sheer number of
airplanes in the exhibition category in recent years prompted the FAA to
refine the certification of these aircraft.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Yakkers;
> I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
> restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
> (pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited with
> FAA restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What
> the hell were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do
> they get off letting some have all the freedoms they want while
> restricting others? It seems like an unacceptable and unequal
> application of the law. I seem to remember somewhere that all laws
> have to be equally administered or they are unconstitutional. And why
> put that restriction on us anyways? What pointy headed bureaucrat
> thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA members,
> use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set of
> regulations!
>
> Frank
>
> "All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
> geographical
> area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments to
> that
> letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the aircraft's
> home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
> outside
> of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training, or
> checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the applicant's
> program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate the
> location and dates for this proficiency flying."
>
> OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the
> "special ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact
> same airplane. What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us!
> What the hell gives
> them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes different?
> F'in
> bastards!
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Frank,
Good explanation or not, it's in your ops limits. None of us like it. And
unless you own a pre-moratorium aircraft, if you follow the rule, unless
you're attending a formal event to exhibit the airplane as defined in the
8130.2F or its predecessors, you're not suppose to be flying outside of the
300NM proficiency area. Just sending a fax to the FSDO saying your flying
to such and such airport doesn't quite follow the rule.
You certainly don't have to believe what I say. So call your FSDO inspector
and discuss it with him and see what he says. Ask for his interpretation of
the section of 8130.2x pertaining to certification of aircraft in the
exhibition category (the paragraph I quoted in a previous message in this
thread) and be sure to specify Group III, under 800 horsepower.
Lastly, contact EAA's Warbirds of America and speak to someone in government
affairs and ask them for their interpretation on the subject.
Dennis
--- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Ron, you're right when you said........ "Besides that, you can go anywhere
> you want if you put it on your program
> letter or fax the FSDO".
>
> You're right, I can go anywhere I want "provided I submit a FAX to the
> FAA".
> But it's a hassle to have to do it all the time. I don't like it but most
> of
> all don't see what purpose it serves. What good does it do for the FAA to
> get all these FAX's all the time? I've yet to hear a good explanation for
> this requirement.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: This list sucks |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Thanks Craig.
You know how to soothe me :)
Ernie
On 1/11/06, Craig Payne <cpayne@joimail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ernie,
>
> Just subscribe to the Digest and you only get one email/day. In between you
> can surf messages with "Browse Current List".
>
> Over the last year or so, I used this list to:
>
> - Get another prop hub and some busted up blades to play with.
> - Get a Crowder Spinner (fixed and mounted now)
> - Find a replacement ZY-1500 voltage regulator.
> - Get another Chinese AH.
> - Obtain Upper and Lower cowlings to play with.
> - Sell some *stuff* for airplanes.
> - Fill in lots of blank spots in my knowledge "space".
>
> Put up with a little *stuff* to get to the good...kinda like marriage but
> don't quote me.
>
>
> Craig Payne
>
>
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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Whoa! I did some research and now you are demanding a reason? Get Real! I
thought I did you a favor. Thanks a bunch!
As I remember the FAA wanted to stop ALL importation of all third world
non-certified airplanes. The EAA got the ban lifted with restrictions. With
out the restrictions, no imports, period.
You should thank those that made it possible for you to have your plane.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Cy
>
> You said..... "In fact, the sheer number of
> airplanes in the exhibition category in recent years prompted the FAA to
> refine the certification of these aircraft."
>
> That may be true but I'm going to ask you WHY? And I want an answer!
>
> Frank
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of cgalley
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:36 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Sometimes it would pay to keep one's mouth shut. If the FAA sees too much
> of this kind of talk, they might decide to "standardize" things by
> requiring
>
> that all the pre-moratorium airplanes get recertificated to the new rules.
> They definitely won't allow the new certifications to regress to the old
> rules!
>
> The new certifications were brought about primarily by people bringing all
> the soviet bloc jets into the country. In fact, the sheer number of
> airplanes in the exhibition category in recent years prompted the FAA to
> refine the certification of these aircraft.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:08 PM
> Subject: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Yakkers;
>> I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
>> restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
>> (pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited with
>> FAA restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What
>> the hell were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do
>> they get off letting some have all the freedoms they want while
>> restricting others? It seems like an unacceptable and unequal
>> application of the law. I seem to remember somewhere that all laws
>> have to be equally administered or they are unconstitutional. And why
>> put that restriction on us anyways? What pointy headed bureaucrat
>> thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA members,
>> use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set of
>> regulations!
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> "All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
>> geographical
>> area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments to
>> that
>> letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the
>> aircraft's
>> home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
>> outside
>> of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training, or
>> checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the applicant's
>> program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate the
>> location and dates for this proficiency flying."
>>
>> OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the
>> "special ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact
>> same airplane. What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us!
>> What the hell gives
>> them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes different?
>> F'in
>> bastards!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Barry's Website |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
>
>
> Anyone know Barry Hancocks website address.?
>
> Joe
Indeed, www.cj6.com. That is assuming, of course, you're not talking
about www.worldwidewarbird.com, www.sharedsquadrons.com,
www.allredstar.com, or www.westcoastformation.com
;)
The first four have been created by Diego del Pozo...a VERY talented
guy. If you need web work done, I'm happy to recommend him....
Cheers,
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
Three hours without falling out of the sky is a " rigirous (sic) FAA
certication process"? Having a designated examiner measure the height of
your N numbers is a " rigirous (sic) FAA certication process"? Sure it's
fun to whine about the rules, but have you every talked to a foreigner about
what they have to go through to fly a non-certified plane? The poor
frosted-brain Canadians go through far more than you do and they're the envy
of Europeans who typically spend two years getting permission to fly a
homebuilt. Send the fax and then go where you want to go. Of course it's
stupid, but it's not that difficult to comply.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
>
> Frank,
>
> I've thought about this subject a few times as well and thought the
> approach for a rectification would be coming at it from a different angle.
> Bear with this logic for a second. The EAA as with AOPA has had a hard
> time convincing the powers to be that a medical is of little benefit for
> the majority of non-commercial pilots out there, despite overwhelming
> evidence in their favor. Getting the FAR's changed to remove medical
> requirements as with your suggestion would be a major uphill battle. Part
> of the end around approach is the new EAA Sport Pilot certificate which
> does not require a pilot medical (with a few caveats). Now part of the
> idea is that a database of evidence with time will be built under this new
> pilot certificate which can be added to the database of evidence from the
> glider pilot sector, that there is no difference in accident rate (caused
> my medical incapacitation) between the medically certificatied pilot
> population and the non-medically cetificated pilot population. Presumably
> backed with this evidence the EAA/AOPA will have more clout in getting the
> Class III medical requirement removed from the private pilot certificate.
>
> Now using a similar approach, I would propose that instead of trying to
> remove the current requirement that instead an effort be made to create
> another Experimental category, perhaps "Experimental Proven". The
> "Experimental" wording should bring the interest of the EAA. The new
> category could use the rational that if an aircraft or perhaps aircraft
> type has been inoperation without major structural incident for "X" number
> of years then the design inherently by trial has proven itself and does
> not need to go thru the rigirous FAA certication process etc. I would
> suggest that after "X" number of years has passed, that anything in the
> "Experimental Exhibition" category could be converted to the proposed
> "Experimental Proven" category, and that the new category have no
> restrictions beyond those in the Experimental Home Built category. My
> thinking is that the EAA has experience pushing new certificates into
> reality and perhaps that approach can be used to push a new Experimental
> certification category into existance.
>
> Regarding the need for the current rules, it has always been my take that
> the rules were written not so much for safety reasons (which is the FAA's
> charter) but instead to protect the current manufactures of US certified
> aircraft from a flood of lower priced well designed aircraft from entering
> the market and essentially putting them out of business. Want an example
> (non-russian sorry), the Edge 540 is (arguably I'm sure by some) at the
> moment the best and strongest unlimited aerobatic aircraft produced in the
> USA and possibly the world. It's owners are flying under the
> "Experimental Exhibition" category. The new price for an Edge 540 is far
> less than its nearest "Certificated" competitor and if the "Experimental
> Exhibition" rules were relaxed to those of the pre-moritorium aircraft,
> that certificatied competitor would have a very tough time selling any
> aircraft with such a cost differential. The same would hold true for the
> importation of the Yaks etc.
>
> Scott
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:24:23 -0500
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
>
> Frank,
>
> You are very funny.
>
> AOPA has over 300,000 members. They are one of the biggest "aviation
> lobby" organizations. A key part of their lobby agenda is to get rid of
> pop up TFRs and reduce/eliminate the ADIZ around DC. Now they are about
> 1% of the US population and they can't get movement.
>
> RPA has approximately 300 members. We are about 0.000001% of the US
> population. If you think we have ANY real lobby power with the federal
> government, (without a couple million to buy a few congress critters),
> you have received a serious head injury and you should immediately seek
> advanced medical care. I don't know anyone who has a warbird, that
> likes the current program letter issue, however it really isn't a big
> deal to comply and fly where ever you want (For those non-jet warbirds)
> by just sending the FAA a fax.
>
> DaBear
>
>
> Frank Haertlein wrote:
>
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
> >
> >Yakkers
> >
> >AOPA......................
> >EAA.......................
> >NRA.......................
> >Warbirds of America ......
> >CJAA .....................
> >The Sierra Club ..........
> >CRPA .....................
> >AARP .....................
> >AMA ......................
> >AFL-CIO ..................
> >Sport Fisherman's Assoc...
> >American Hunter...........
> >NOW.......................
> >
> >And a thousand other organizations.........
> >
> >All have political representation to look out for their interests.
> >
> >RPA ?????????
> >
> >Vote in the following poll
> >
> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=776
> >
> >
> >If your warbird is more than 800 horsepower you may only take off and
> >land
> >from your home airport.
> >
> >If your warbird is a jet you may only take off and land from your home
> >airport.
> >
> >You may not operate your aircraft more than 300 nautical miles from your
> >home airport.
> >
> >You must submit a program letter every year.
> >
> >To deviate from the above you must FAX the FAA for each instance.
> >
> >These are actual FAA rule. I'm asking what FAA genius thought them up and
> >why?
> >
> >Don't you want to change stupid rules like these?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
>
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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Frank Haertlein wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Ron, you're right when you said........ "Besides that, you can go anywhere
> you want if you put it on your program
> letter or fax the FSDO".
>
> You're right, I can go anywhere I want "provided I submit a FAX to the FAA".
> But it's a hassle to have to do it all the time. I don't like it but most of
> all don't see what purpose it serves. What good does it do for the FAA to
> get all these FAX's all the time? I've yet to hear a good explanation for
> this requirement.
The guys at my FSDO said they throw them away. OTOH, they contacted ME
when I was late getting my program letter to them one January.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
We have been through this before and you can't seem to grasp that FAA order
8130.2F only applies to people who want an airworthiness certificate. It
has no legal standing whatsoever for people who have an airworthiness
certificate. The ops limits apply to an aircraft holding an airworthiness
certificate. FAA orders specify what goes on the ops limits when you get
them, but changing the orders doesn't change what the previously-certified
planes can do.
And yes I can go see my grandmother if I send the FAA a fax because there is
an "event" that happens to be taking place whereever she lives whenever I
want to go. Events are what experimental-exhibition planes are for. If
you're not any better at finding "events" than you are at interpreting the
regs, then I presume your flying is considerably more limited than mine.
The only real limitation is that you can't go to foreign countries and
that's an ICAO thing rather than an FAA thing.
Lazarus Long was right.
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> Really Ron? What does the FAA Order 8130.2F (or its predecessors) say
> with regards to "..you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your
> program letter or fax the FSDO." Are you saying that if you want to go
> visit your grandmother and she lives outside of your 300 NM proficiency
> area, all you have to do is either have "going to visit my grandmother in
> Anytown, USA" on you annual program letter or send a FAX to your FSDO
> saying "going to visit my grandmother in Anytown, USA"?
> Dennis
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
>>
>> It's easy to make rules that apply to activities in the future and
>> considerably harder, legally and public relations wise, to take away
>> something that has already been granted. That's why yesterday's rules
>> apply to yesterday's airplanes and today's rules apply to airplanes
>> certified today and henceforth.
>>
>> The rules on certifying a plane include the operating limits that will
>> apply to the plane. The rules on certifying a plane have nothing to do
>> with planes that already have an airworthiness certificate. Could you
>> quote a particular chapter and verse of the constitution that you think
>> this violates?
>>
>> Besides that, you can go anywhere you want if you put it on your program
>> letter or fax the FSDO.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:08 PM
>> Subject: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>>
>>
>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>>> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>>>
>>> Yakkers;
>>> I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
>>> restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
>>> (pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited with
>>> FAA
>>> restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What the
>>> hell
>>> were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do they get off
>>> letting some have all the freedoms they want while restricting others?
>>> It
>>> seems like an unacceptable and unequal application of the law. I seem to
>>> remember somewhere that all laws have to be equally administered or they
>>> are
>>> unconstitutional. And why put that restriction on us anyways? What
>>> pointy
>>> headed bureaucrat thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA
>>> members,
>>> use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set of
>>> regulations!
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> "All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
>>> geographical
>>> area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments to
>>> that
>>> letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the
>>> aircraft's
>>> home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
>>> outside
>>> of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training, or
>>> checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the applicant's
>>> program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate the
>>> location and dates for this proficiency flying."
>>>
>>> OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the "special
>>> ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact same
>>> airplane.
>>> What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us! What the hell
>>> gives
>>> them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes different?
>>> F'in
>>> bastards!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
>
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: | Re: This list sucks |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
If you don't have time to waste, why are on the internet?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Martinez" <erniel29@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:35 AM
Subject: Yak-List: This list sucks
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
>
> This is getting rediculous, I have had to delete 8 gazillion emails
> from my machine in just the last 24 hours, on absolute bullshit. The
> signal to noise ratio here is worse than at SETI.
>
> Ernie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
cgalley wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Whoa! I did some research and now you are demanding a reason? Get
> Real! I thought I did you a favor. Thanks a bunch!
>
> As I remember the FAA wanted to stop ALL importation of all third world
> non-certified airplanes. The EAA got the ban lifted with restrictions.
> With out the restrictions, no imports, period.
>
> You should thank those that made it possible for you to have your plane.
Cy, funny as it seems but with this I have to agree with Frank. In the
case of firearms and flying (and probably a lot of other stuff that I
don't pay attention to) there is a steady erosion of "privileges".
Organizations like the EAA, AOPA, and NRA act as if they have won
something when the feds take away 100% and then negotiate back 90% when
in fact the reality is that we have lost, not gained anything. It seems
that minimizing loss is perceived as some kind of win. And the
assumption on the part of the governmental agencies is that they have
the right to do this.
The government of the United States of America was created to "serve"
the needs of the people. That is what the Constitution says. But if you
deal with the various agencies it is their belief that we serve them.
Case in point: the California DOT is thinking about closing Cameron Park
airport where I have my airplane. Why? Because there are trees and
things that impinge on the 20:1 zone. This is supposed to be a safety
issue. Except there has never been an accident at this airport. It
doesn't matter that there is clear evidence that there is no problem.
The rules are the rules with no appeal. The people in the DOT don't care.
So the FAA wanted to stop all importation of foreign aircraft. Maybe we
should be able to throw them in jail infringing on our rights and
privileges.
There is a very interesting book that deals with this topic historically
only as applied to firearms instead of aircraft (although GA does appear
prominently). I strongly recommend "Unintended Consequences" by John
Ross. Interesting reading.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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 |
|
The M14P might be slightly different. Although I have started with N2 pressure,
the air distributor slide valve has a port that delivers purge pressure at
the end of the exhaust stroke to cylinders 4,5,6 and 7 to clear any oil accumulation.
.
Perhaps some N2 could linger in the cylinder and contaminate the mixture in those
cylinders
This not the case with the Huosai engine
Joe
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: JOE HOWSE <joeh@shaw.ca>
This poor frosted brain Canadian has NO geographical
restriction as to where I can fly with my
Canadian registered CJ6 in Canada and for any reason!
Furthermore, I have been getting SFA ( special flight authority ) to fly
into the US for airshows etc.
just by asking for a general area, eg. US northwest for 6 month periods.
Joe
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> Three hours without falling out of the sky is a " rigirous (sic) FAA
> certication process"? Having a designated examiner measure the height of
> your N numbers is a " rigirous (sic) FAA certication process"? Sure it's
> fun to whine about the rules, but have you every talked to a foreigner
> about what they have to go through to fly a non-certified plane? The poor
> frosted-brain Canadians go through far more than you do and they're the
> envy of Europeans who typically spend two years getting permission to fly
> a homebuilt. Send the fax and then go where you want to go. Of course
> it's stupid, but it's not that difficult to comply.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Scott Kirk" <pilot8kcab@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Frank,
>>
>> I've thought about this subject a few times as well and thought the
>> approach for a rectification would be coming at it from a different
>> angle. Bear with this logic for a second. The EAA as with AOPA has had a
>> hard time convincing the powers to be that a medical is of little benefit
>> for the majority of non-commercial pilots out there, despite overwhelming
>> evidence in their favor. Getting the FAR's changed to remove medical
>> requirements as with your suggestion would be a major uphill battle.
>> Part of the end around approach is the new EAA Sport Pilot certificate
>> which does not require a pilot medical (with a few caveats). Now part of
>> the idea is that a database of evidence with time will be built under
>> this new pilot certificate which can be added to the database of evidence
>> from the glider pilot sector, that there is no difference in accident
>> rate (caused my medical incapacitation) between the medically
>> certificatied pilot population and the non-medically cetificated pilot
>> population. Presumably backed with this evidence the EAA/AOPA will have
>> more clout in getting the Class III medical requirement removed from the
>> private pilot certificate.
>>
>> Now using a similar approach, I would propose that instead of trying to
>> remove the current requirement that instead an effort be made to create
>> another Experimental category, perhaps "Experimental Proven". The
>> "Experimental" wording should bring the interest of the EAA. The new
>> category could use the rational that if an aircraft or perhaps aircraft
>> type has been inoperation without major structural incident for "X"
>> number of years then the design inherently by trial has proven itself and
>> does not need to go thru the rigirous FAA certication process etc. I
>> would suggest that after "X" number of years has passed, that anything in
>> the "Experimental Exhibition" category could be converted to the proposed
>> "Experimental Proven" category, and that the new category have no
>> restrictions beyond those in the Experimental Home Built category. My
>> thinking is that the EAA has experience pushing new certificates into
>> reality and perhaps that approach can be used to push a new Experimental
>> certification category into existance.
>>
>> Regarding the need for the current rules, it has always been my take that
>> the rules were written not so much for safety reasons (which is the FAA's
>> charter) but instead to protect the current manufactures of US certified
>> aircraft from a flood of lower priced well designed aircraft from
>> entering the market and essentially putting them out of business. Want
>> an example (non-russian sorry), the Edge 540 is (arguably I'm sure by
>> some) at the moment the best and strongest unlimited aerobatic aircraft
>> produced in the USA and possibly the world. It's owners are flying under
>> the "Experimental Exhibition" category. The new price for an Edge 540 is
>> far less than its nearest "Certificated" competitor and if the
>> "Experimental Exhibition" rules were relaxed to those of the
>> pre-moritorium aircraft, that certificatied competitor would have a very
>> tough time selling any aircraft with such a cost differential. The same
>> would hold true for the importation of the Yaks etc.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> ----Original Message Follows----
>> From: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:24:23 -0500
>>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
>>
>> Frank,
>>
>> You are very funny.
>>
>> AOPA has over 300,000 members. They are one of the biggest "aviation
>> lobby" organizations. A key part of their lobby agenda is to get rid of
>> pop up TFRs and reduce/eliminate the ADIZ around DC. Now they are about
>> 1% of the US population and they can't get movement.
>>
>> RPA has approximately 300 members. We are about 0.000001% of the US
>> population. If you think we have ANY real lobby power with the federal
>> government, (without a couple million to buy a few congress critters),
>> you have received a serious head injury and you should immediately seek
>> advanced medical care. I don't know anyone who has a warbird, that
>> likes the current program letter issue, however it really isn't a big
>> deal to comply and fly where ever you want (For those non-jet warbirds)
>> by just sending the FAA a fax.
>>
>> DaBear
>>
>>
>> Frank Haertlein wrote:
>>
>> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>> >
>> >Yakkers
>> >
>> >AOPA......................
>> >EAA.......................
>> >NRA.......................
>> >Warbirds of America ......
>> >CJAA .....................
>> >The Sierra Club ..........
>> >CRPA .....................
>> >AARP .....................
>> >AMA ......................
>> >AFL-CIO ..................
>> >Sport Fisherman's Assoc...
>> >American Hunter...........
>> >NOW.......................
>> >
>> >And a thousand other organizations.........
>> >
>> >All have political representation to look out for their interests.
>> >
>> >RPA ?????????
>> >
>> >Vote in the following poll
>> >
>> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=776
>> >
>> >
>> >If your warbird is more than 800 horsepower you may only take off and
>> >land
>> >from your home airport.
>> >
>> >If your warbird is a jet you may only take off and land from your home
>> >airport.
>> >
>> >You may not operate your aircraft more than 300 nautical miles from your
>> >home airport.
>> >
>> >You must submit a program letter every year.
>> >
>> >To deviate from the above you must FAX the FAA for each instance.
>> >
>> >These are actual FAA rule. I'm asking what FAA genius thought them up
>> >and
>> >why?
>> >
>> >Don't you want to change stupid rules like these?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
>
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: | Re: NWOC Engine panel |
Mike,
Please advise location and time of NWOC , Feb. 23--26. Thanks
Cliff
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:40:08 EST MFilucci@aol.com writes:
Yaksters,
There will be an "engines" panel discussion at the National Warbird
Operators Conference this year. If anyone would like to represent the Yak
community (and is knowledgeable about the CJ and Yak engines), please
contact me off-list for details.
NWOC is being held in Orlando, FL this year, February 23-26.
Regards,
Mike
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 |
|
| Subject: | Whining about the rules |
God this is getting to be a joke. You knew what the rules were when you bought
the plane. If you think they are wrong start working to change them or quit
whining about them.
Frank
CJ6-A N23021
Message 51
| 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: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
--> Yak-List message posted by: fish@aviation-tech.com
Frank & Group,
The thing to do is to join organizations like RPA, CJAA, EAA & AOPA.
If all RPA members are menbers of EAA, the RPA could set EAA Policy and prority.
Then if all EAA members were members of AOPA, the EAA could help sway AOPA proirity.
It becomes a snowball effect where the numbers look larger then they are. (Example
RPA's (300 members) are also members of EAA. They then help set EAA policy and
goals using the clout of EAA (5000, members), to influnance AOPA (300,000 members)
goals and clout.)
That is how small groups get there laws passed against the majority who does
not care or pay attention. Politicians worry about numbers of people who vote(last
election less then 30% of registered voters, voted).
Fly Safe
John Fischer
>> ----Original Message Follows----
>> From: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS
>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:24:23 -0500
>>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
>>
>> Frank,
>>
>> You are very funny.
>>
>> AOPA has over 300,000 members. They are one of the biggest "aviation
>> lobby" organizations. A key part of their lobby agenda is to get rid of
>> pop up TFRs and reduce/eliminate the ADIZ around DC. Now they are about
>> 1% of the US population and they can't get movement.
>>
>> RPA has approximately 300 members. We are about 0.000001% of the US
>> population. If you think we have ANY real lobby power with the federal
>> government, (without a couple million to buy a few congress critters),
>> you have received a serious head injury and you should immediately seek
>> advanced medical care. I don't know anyone who has a warbird, that
>> likes the current program letter issue, however it really isn't a big
>> deal to comply and fly where ever you want (For those non-jet warbirds)
>> by just sending the FAA a fax.
>>
>> DaBear
>>
>>
>> Frank Haertlein wrote:
>>
>> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
>> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>> >
>> >Yakkers
>> >
>> >AOPA......................
>> >EAA.......................
>> >NRA.......................
>> >Warbirds of America ......
>> >CJAA .....................
>> >The Sierra Club ..........
>> >CRPA .....................
>> >AARP .....................
>> >AMA ......................
>> >AFL-CIO ..................
>> >Sport Fisherman's Assoc...
>> >American Hunter...........
>> >NOW.......................
>> >
>> >And a thousand other organizations.........
>> >
>> >All have political representation to look out for their interests.
>> >
>> >RPA ?????????
>> >
>> >Vote in the following poll
>> >
>> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=776
>> >
>> >
>> >If your warbird is more than 800 horsepower you may only take off and
>> >land
>> >from your home airport.
>> >
>> >If your warbird is a jet you may only take off and land from your home
>> >airport.
>> >
>> >You may not operate your aircraft more than 300 nautical miles from your
>> >home airport.
>> >
>> >You must submit a program letter every year.
>> >
>> >To deviate from the above you must FAX the FAA for each instance.
>> >
>> >These are actual FAA rule. I'm asking what FAA genius thought them up and
>> >why?
>> >
>> >Don't you want to change stupid rules like these?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|