Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:46 AM - Re: Going after overzealous Feds (Bruce Thomas)
2. 07:14 AM - [non-aviation] voting (was: Going after overzealous Feds) (Brian Lloyd)
3. 07:17 AM - going after overzealous feds (serious -- not blather) (Brian Lloyd)
4. 08:00 AM - [list-issue] subject lines (Brian Lloyd)
5. 10:41 AM - Sean Carroll (Richard Goode)
6. 02:26 PM - Re: Going after overzealous Feds (Frank Haertlein)
7. 05:38 PM - Re: gear problem (doug sapp)
8. 07:09 PM - Re: Going after overzealous Feds (Ron Davis)
9. 07:09 PM - Rule 1 in aviation is fly the airplane. (Ron Davis)
10. 07:44 PM - Yak-52 Maintenance Class in California (Mike Bell)
11. 07:53 PM - Re: Rule 1 in aviation is fly the airplane. (Sarah Tobin)
12. 11:06 PM - Re: Rule 1 in aviation, Renamed Aviation Securtiy (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: | Re: Going after overzealous Feds |
John, in reply to your comments that 28% of eligible voters actually took the time
to vote staggers me;
are 72% of Americans not interested in WHO governs your country and makes foreign
policy.
This gives the lobbyists and self interest groups open slather.
We in the land of OZ (Australia) have since 1901 had compulsory voting in all elections;
local, state and
federal and while it is'nt perfect (about 5% donkey vote) it sure beats 28%. We
really get the government we deserve; perhaps you should consider asking that
great statesman Abraham Lincoln to come back and
rewrite a few things.
Regards Bruce Thomas 18T
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: | [non-aviation] voting (was: Going after overzealous Feds) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Bruce Thomas wrote:
> John, in reply to your comments that 28% of eligible voters actually
> took the time to vote staggers me;
It was a really bad turn-out but the trend keeps going downward.
> are 72% of Americans not interested in WHO governs your country and
> makes foreign policy.
You got that right. Thinking about how the country should operate takes
away from more important things, like the NFL and reality TV.
> This gives the lobbyists and self interest groups open slather.
Well, not really. You would be amazed at how many congresscritters
actually take their jobs seriously and try to do what they think is the
right thing for their constituency.
Special interest groups have the same access to their representatives
do. OTOH, their money is significant regardless of what the voter
turn-out is. The process of getting elected is very expensive. If a
group has somehow contributed $100,000 to someone's campaign, you can
bet that elected official going to listen when that group speaks. They
may choose not to go along with the desires of that group but at least
the official will listen.
> We in the land of OZ (Australia) have since 1901 had compulsory voting
> in all elections; local, state and
> federal and while it is'nt perfect (about 5% donkey vote) it sure beats
> 28%.
Explain to me how Compulsory = freedom? Someone once told me that one of
the clearest indications of freedom is the right to say "no, I won't."
Forcing people to do something against their will is the antithesis of
freedom. As soon as a government has compulsory anything, be it service,
taxes, identification, or even voting, there is less freedom. Even not
voting is a public statement.
It is certainly difficult for a politician to claim a "mandate" when
only 35% of the people vote.
> We really get the government we deserve; perhaps you should
> consider asking that great statesman Abraham Lincoln to come back and
> rewrite a few things.
You know, there is always more than one way to look at things. Some
people view Abraham Lincoln as a bad guy. He stood for federal power at
the expense of individual and states' rights. When the people of the
south speak of the "War of Northern Aggression" (the Civil War) there is
actually something to what they say. That war was substantially about
economics and control. Slavery was only an ancillary theme but you have
to get the masses behind you somehow if you want to get them to fight.
Most people aren't willing to fight and die for economic prosperity, at
least not directly.
You know, if you look at any event in history long enough and critically
enough you discover that there just are no good guys.
> Regards Bruce Thomas 18T
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
"Five percent of the people think.
Ten percent of the people think they think.
Eighty-five percent of the people would rather die than think."
---Thomas A. Edison
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: | going after overzealous feds (serious -- not blather) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
OK, we have talked this thing to death. I can actually see something
useful that RPA could do. RPA could go to EAA and AOPA and find out how
they are dealing with this problem, i.e. overzealous feds overstepping
the bounds of their authority. Now there is something concrete and
useful. I don't have the wherewithal to mount an active campaign myself
but either EAA or AOPA could.
OTOH, I suspect they won't want to because it will probably close doors
they have open in the legislative side of things. What we are talking
about is tantamount to a pissing contest and politicians don't like to
be anywhere near those.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | [list-issue] subject lines |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
You know, we have a really diverse group of people on here. We all like
to fly and we love our eastern-bloc aircraft, but we also like the
chatter of hangar flying even if it has nothing to do with flying.
I would like to suggest a way to make it clear what people are talking
about so that those who aren't interested can go right on by without
feeling annoyed:
Use the subject line
In fact, I am going to make another recommendation -- that we use the
subject line to compartmentalize discussion. For instance, I have tried
to put "CJ6A" at the beginning of a subject line when I am going to talk
about CJ6A-specific information. Weight and balance is a perfect
example. W&B data on a CJ6A is not particularly useful to a Yak-50 owner.
Here are some examples of subject prefixes that might be useful:
Yak-52
Yak-50
Yak-55
CJ6A
pneumatic
procedures
aerobatics
formation
military
political
list-issue
If you put that at the front of your subject line everyone will get the
general feel for what you are going to say and can decide up front
whether they are interested.
The other part of this is subject drift. When we are no long talking
about the original subject, change the subject line. I try to do that by
including "(was: old subject)" at the end of the subject line so people
know this thread is topic drift from the old subject.
And for those of you who are getting the digest, you might want to
resubscribe to the individual message mode and then set up a filter so
that all Yak-list mail goes into a Yak-list mail box. That way you can
see all the messages separately so you can decide what to read without
them filling up your inbox.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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 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 |
|
I noted a few months ago a posting from Brian Lloyd having a problem getting Sean
Carroll to pay for an engine that had been sold to him.=20
I sold a number of Yak-9 parts to Sean Carroll, and equally have not been paid.
I also understand from John Wright in South Africa, that he had paid Sean for
various parts, but no parts had come and no refund.=20
I find it unlikely that we are the only three people who have been affected by
Sean's business methods, which, apart from anything else do seem to be somewhat
short sighted in such a small community.=20
Assuming that this is the case, and that there are others of you out there, could
I ask you to contact either Brian Lloyd or myself, on or off the list, so that
we can decide collectively how best to protect our interests.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Mob: +44 (0) 7768 610389
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
dangerous content by the http://www.invictawiz.com
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
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: | Going after overzealous Feds |
Bruce
It's OK, almost half those who do vote here vote for the donkey :)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Going after overzealous Feds
John, in reply to your comments that 28% of eligible voters actually took
the time to vote staggers me;
are 72% of Americans not interested in WHO governs your country and makes
foreign policy.
This gives the lobbyists and self interest groups open slather.
We in the land of OZ (Australia) have since 1901 had compulsory voting in
all elections; local, state and
federal and while it is'nt perfect (about 5% donkey vote) it sure beats 28%.
We really get the government we deserve; perhaps you should consider asking
that great statesman Abraham Lincoln to come back and
rewrite a few things.
Regards Bruce Thomas 18T
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 |
|
Terry, I am sure it is your diverter valves, somehow air is leaking into the
back side of the system. If someone has been messing with your emergency
air cock this will also cause the same or worse problem but that is easily
fixed by bleeding the air off the system.
If you require them, I have all the small parts necessary to overhaul the
shuttle valves, or new valves if you want to go that way. Be VERY careful
when taking off the end cap as they are normally really tight and take a
bunch of torque to break them loose. Squeeze it to tight in the vise and
you will oblong the housing and the shuttle will not work properly, if it's
too loose it will spin in the vise and will "two block" the center fitting
and break it off. All is not lost as I have them also, but just go slowly
and you won't have a problem.
Another word of caution, check your desiccant air dryer, if you diverter
valves are nasty you most likely have a problem in you dryer. Give me a
call at 509-826-4610 if you have any questions.
Good luck
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Terry Lewis
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:32 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: gear problem
Has anyone seen this problem before?
The left main gear will not retract unless I go to neutral then pull the
handle up.
I have checked all of the shuttle valves in the left gear system.They
test OK. The actuator will extend at 45 psi when out of the aircraft with
no leaks. I changed the check valve on the firewall below the air filter
that was corroded. It needed to be changed but it was not a fix.I am running
out of ideas.
I am thinking I have a blockage in the return of the extend
pressure,however I haven't found it yet.
Terry Lewis
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Going after overzealous Feds |
interesting? Does that mean that most aussies did want guns banned? If most of
them wanted to get rid of them, why didn't each person just throw his away?
As for low voter turnout in the states: The USSR had high voter turnout, they
just didn't have anyone to vote for. In the US the choice is inveriably between
one ivy-league, aristocratic, son-of-a-lifelong politician, who never held
an honest job in his life, and another one of the same. Between one gun-grabbing
politician and another. Both will go duck-hunting at some critical phase
of the race. It really comes down to whether to vote for the clown with the pink
ties or the clown who says nu-q-ler. It's not that hard to do a tiny bit
to fight global warming by staying home that day (remember the WW II poster:
Is this trip really necessary?)
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Thomas
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Going after overzealous Feds
John, in reply to your comments that 28% of eligible voters actually took the
time to vote staggers me;
are 72% of Americans not interested in WHO governs your country and makes foreign
policy.
This gives the lobbyists and self interest groups open slather.
We in the land of OZ (Australia) have since 1901 had compulsory voting in all
elections; local, state and
federal and while it is'nt perfect (about 5% donkey vote) it sure beats 28%.
We really get the government we deserve; perhaps you should consider asking that
great statesman Abraham Lincoln to come back and
rewrite a few things.
Regards Bruce Thomas 18T
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: | Rule 1 in aviation is fly the airplane. |
So why doesn't the FFDO fly the plane and let the passengers kill the terrorists?
Even if the 100-300 passengers failed to subdue the five terrorists, the plane
would remain under control (e.g. NOT crash into a skyscraper) and all would
be well.
Or we could put two sky marshalls on the plane. It can't be done, you say? No
airliner takes off without two pilots and at least three flight attendants.
How is it possible to mandate that and not be able to mandate two sky marshals?
Cost? Cops come cheaper than airline pilots, so if the flight can afford two
pilots, how much would the trip total cost go up with two sky marshals? A
percent or two, maybe.
The FFDO program is as poorly conceived and implemented as the rest of the TSA's
post-911 panic reaction.
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: | Yak-52 Maintenance Class in California |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mike Bell" <yakflyr@comcast.net>
I would like to have Dennis Savarese put on a weekend Yak-52 maintenance class
in Northern California. To make it reasonable for him to travel this far we need
2 or 3 more interested owners/operators. I will volunteer my hangar and airplane
at Lodi (1O3) near Sacramento but there may be a better site, maybe even
in Socal if there is more interest down there. Contact Dennis or me if interested.
Dennis' website (Yak52 world) has an outline of what's covered.
--------
Mike Bell
Yak 52
Elk Grove, CA
yakflyr@comcastdotnet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=8830#8830
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: Rule 1 in aviation is fly the airplane. |
Actually your number of flt attendants is way off. Only 1 flt att is required
for each 30 seats. So, if you are on a CRJ, odds are you have 1 flt att only.
Granted terrorist haven't hijacked sm a/c, but what is to stop them from doing
so...might even be easier w/ less people...that is why the 9-11 terrorist chose
those particular flts...low pax rates at that hour to those destinations.
The FAM program is actually being scaled back too. There are not enough FAMs
to be on board even 1/10th of the flt that are in the US at any time. During
the daylight hours in this country, we (NORAD/FAA) are tracking more than 20K
a/c that are sqk'n and on flt plans. Granted many are charter, etc, but you
can imagine that the majority are part 21 and in no concievable way could there
be a FAM on each flt.
I am all for arming the pilots with tazers and/or guns. Many pilots have refused
and it is not madatory, but I can tell you that I can't imagine any prior
military pilot, that is used to carrying an M9 into combat, wouldn't under current
conditions, want to carry a gun. We, as servants of uncle sam are all required
to maintain quals in the M9 and/or M16 every 1-3 years. I am quite sure
that these pilots that are FFDOs are rigorously trained in the tactics of using
their weapons as well as appropriate actions to take, i.e. when to leave
the secure cockpit and risk going into the cabin and thereby risking cockpit breaching.
They are not going to end up like the dudes on 9-11 and get their throats
slashed trying to do their job. I say we give them a fighting chance and
let them protect their lives, their pax and their aircraft.
The FAM portion of the TSA is the real failure. Bored guys, riding around for
16 hours a day on an a/c or sitting in a terminal, trying to blend in, mandatory
to stay awake, ugh...no thanks!
Smash
Ron Davis <L39parts@hotmail.com> wrote:
So why doesn't the FFDO fly the plane and let the passengers kill the
terrorists? Even if the 100-300 passengers failed to subdue the five terrorists,
the plane would remain under control (e.g. NOT crash into a skyscraper) and
all would be well.
Or we could put two sky marshalls on the plane. It can't be done, you say?
No airliner takes off without two pilots and at least three flight attendants.
How is it possible to mandate that and not be able to mandate two sky marshals?
Cost? Cops come cheaper than airline pilots, so if the flight can afford
two pilots, how much would the trip total cost go up with two sky marshals?
A percent or two, maybe.
The FFDO program is as poorly conceived and implemented as the rest of the TSA's
post-911 panic reaction.
---------------------------------
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: Rule 1 in aviation, Renamed Aviation Securtiy |
--> Yak-List message posted by: fish@aviation-tech.com
Ron,
If we were not so afraid of being politically correct, there would be plenty
of money for Air Marshals. We are spending all of our money, scrutinizing people
who are not going to hijack airplanes (Dick Butkis, Ray Charles, Ect. . . ).
Yes I saw these people singled out for extra scrutiny when I was working security
at LAX.
The FFDO program is probably one of the cheapest programs we have, with real
potential at accomplishing something. At least we are not targeting innocent
individuals with the FFDO program.
If we concentrated our resources on the profile (yes a nasty word) of terrorist,
we could have half the security and prevent acts of terrorism. We also need
to stop Muslims from coming to this country until we find a better way of telling
who is coming to kill us! (show me where the constitution says I have to let
someone in to this country to kill me!!!!).
Israel does their Security right; they have learned over the last 30 years of
dealing with terrorist.
Fly Safe
John Fischer
>
>So why doesn't the FFDO fly the plane and let the passengers kill the >terrorists?
Even if the 100-300 passengers failed to subdue the five >terrorists, the plane
would remain under control (e.g. NOT crash into a >skyscraper) and all would
be well.
>
>Or we could put two sky marshalls on the plane. It can't be done, you >say?
No airliner takes off without two pilots and at least three flight >attendants.
How is it possible to mandate that and not be able to >mandate two sky marshals?
Cost? Cops come cheaper than airline pilots, >so if the flight can afford
two pilots, how much would the trip total >cost go up with two sky marshals?
A percent or two, maybe.
>
>The FFDO program is as poorly conceived and implemented as the rest of >the
TSA's post-911 panic reaction.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|