Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:05 AM - Helmets for Poor Boys (Craig Payne)
2. 04:46 AM - Re: Re: Yak 52 Fabric (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 05:06 AM - Re: Avionics Installation (Frank Haertlein)
4. 05:10 AM - Re: Re: Yak 52 Fabric (Frank Haertlein)
5. 05:15 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Frank Haertlein)
6. 05:28 AM - Re: Helmet questions (so much to choose from) (Tim Gagnon)
7. 05:41 AM - Re: CJ Weight and Balance calculator (DaBear)
8. 05:42 AM - Re: Re: Helmet questions (so much to choose from) (Hans Oortman)
9. 05:45 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Stephen Fox)
10. 06:21 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Fraser, Gus)
11. 06:21 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Fraser, Gus)
12. 06:38 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (cjpilot710@aol.com)
13. 06:39 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (A. Dennis Savarese)
14. 06:49 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Stephen Fox)
15. 07:17 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Brian Lloyd)
16. 07:18 AM - Re: CJ Weight and Balance calculator (Brian Lloyd)
17. 07:27 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Brian Lloyd)
18. 08:03 AM - Flight Suits again... (Drew Blahnick)
19. 08:22 AM - Re: Flight Suits again... (Fraser, Gus)
20. 08:24 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Tim Gagnon)
21. 09:15 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Roger Kemp)
22. 10:31 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Scooter)
23. 10:38 AM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Sarah Tobin)
24. 10:49 AM - Scooter spins. (Fraser, Gus)
25. 11:11 AM - Re: Flight Suits again... (Roger Kemp)
26. 11:30 AM - Re: liability (Sarah Tobin)
27. 11:52 AM - Re: Re: Flight suits, again..... (Roger Kemp)
28. 11:56 AM - Re: Flight Suits again... (Fraser, Gus)
29. 12:11 PM - Re: Scooter spins. (Scooter)
30. 12:24 PM - Re: Flight Suits again... (Roger Kemp)
31. 01:52 PM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (KingCJ6@AOL.COM)
32. 02:15 PM - Re: Flight suits, again..& boots (ByronMFox@aol.com)
33. 02:19 PM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Stephen Fox)
34. 02:27 PM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (ByronMFox@aol.com)
35. 03:09 PM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
36. 03:51 PM - RPA refuses to provide training to new pilots (Was: Flight Suits again...) (Brian Lloyd)
37. 03:54 PM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Frank Haertlein)
38. 03:59 PM - Re: Flight Suits again... (Brian Lloyd)
39. 04:01 PM - Re: Flight Suits again... (Brian Lloyd)
40. 04:02 PM - Re: Flight Suits again... (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
41. 04:22 PM - Re: Flight Suits again... (David McGirt)
42. 04:31 PM - Re: (Craig Payne)
43. 04:41 PM - CJ vent filters (Kelley Monroe)
44. 05:05 PM - Re: Re: (Frank Haertlein)
45. 05:05 PM - Re: Flight Suits again... (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
46. 05:31 PM - Re: Flight Suits again... (David McGirt)
47. 05:31 PM - Re: Flight Suits again... (David McGirt)
48. 05:31 PM - Re: CJ vent filters (Craig Payne)
49. 05:39 PM - Re: Flight suits, again..... (Brian Lloyd)
50. 05:45 PM - Re: Flight Suits again... (Brian Lloyd)
51. 05:52 PM - TICO (David McGirt)
52. 05:57 PM - Re: TICO (FamilyGage@aol.com)
53. 05:58 PM - [humor] Manly men wear Nomex (was: Flight Suits again...) (Brian Lloyd)
54. 07:22 PM - Flt Suits Again (Roger Kemp)
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: | Helmets for Poor Boys |
Hard Heads,
For those looking for helmet bargains on parts, etc, try flighthelmet.com for good
info. I also buy (and sell) helmet parts on Ebay, often a good source if you
have the patience.
Craig Payne
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: | Re: Yak 52 Fabric |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Yeah....it might increase the drag and slow it down.....or cause adverse yaw
or something........not!!! -)
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Bell" <yakflyr@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:03 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak 52 Fabric
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mike Bell" <yakflyr@comcast.net>
>
> Thanks to all for the on and off-line fabric advice. The "dollar" patches
> with a stitch over to the other side of the rudder seems to be a good fix
> for paint cracking. FWIW I recently attended the EAA weekend fabric class
> and asked the very experienced instructor if he had any suggestions and
> his was the same. The triangle patch sounds like a good idea too. Frank,
> the rivets instead of rib-stitching has a lot of appeal, and it's used on
> some certified aircraft. Do they stick up above the rib? I would hate to
> have something on a Yak-52 that's not totally flush with the airflow....
>
> --------
> Mike Bell
> Yak 52
> Elk Grove, CA
> yakflyr@comcastdotnet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=12567#12567
>
>
>
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: | Avionics Installation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Scott
Try the Aircraft Spruce and Specialty company. They had an avionics shop at
Chino but moved a few years ago. To where I don't know but they are still in
the SoCal area somewhere.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shinden33
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:13 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Avionics Installation
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Shinden33" <shinden33@earthlink.net>
Can anyone recommend a good avionics shop in So Cal, NV, AZ area. I am
looking to make a few minor additions to my '52
Scott
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 52 Fabric |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Mike
The rivets are low profile. The amount they stick up is hardly noticeable as
you tape over them just like you would with stitching. Any aerodynamic
affects I think are minimal.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Bell
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:03 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak 52 Fabric
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mike Bell" <yakflyr@comcast.net>
Thanks to all for the on and off-line fabric advice. The "dollar" patches
with a stitch over to the other side of the rudder seems to be a good fix
for paint cracking. FWIW I recently attended the EAA weekend fabric class
and asked the very experienced instructor if he had any suggestions and his
was the same. The triangle patch sounds like a good idea too. Frank, the
rivets instead of rib-stitching has a lot of appeal, and it's used on some
certified aircraft. Do they stick up above the rib? I would hate to have
something on a Yak-52 that's not totally flush with the airflow....
--------
Mike Bell
Yak 52
Elk Grove, CA
yakflyr@comcastdotnet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=12567#12567
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
John
If you really want to make flying "SAFE" then you shouldn't fly at all.
That's the only way I know of to not have an incident. I could also argue
that you should have an airbag installed. That would save allot of lives,
wouldn't it? Of course there are many other safety enhancements we could
impose on you........ So many in fact that it will make flying safe.....safe
because you won't be able to afford to go flying!
Regards
Frank
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: Helmet questions (so much to choose from) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
rvfltd(at)televar.com wrote:
> Tim,
> I really don't have a need for the O2 mask, personally I think it's a bit
> over the top for a Chang driver, but that's just me. What I do want is a
> helmet that is light weight and will offer good protection in case of a
> accident. I also would rather not have to install a Malcolm hood in order
> to wear it. What is out there for me to choose from?
>
> Always Yakin,
> Doug Sapp
>
> --
Doug,
As I had mentioned before, the 55P really offers little protection which sounds
like your main objective.
Try this helmet:
http://www.gallet.fr/index.php?id=398&L=0
http://www.aerobaticproshop.com/cgf-lh050---interior-screen-helmet.htm
They are not cheap but I have heard some good things about them. If this is something
you are going to wear quite a bit, spend the extra money to have it custom
fitted to your head! The HGU-55 I use at work is not and the thing is brutally
uncomfortable after a very short time of use and this is not in a high g
environment!!! This is standing there watching SpecOps jump out the back of my
airplane! I cannot imagine what it would feel like in a fighter!
Just my opinion..
Tim
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=12593#12593
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CJ Weight and Balance calculator |
Here is a version of what I use for W&B in the CJ. Note I use multiple
stations for the baggage compartment because I have an extended
compartment and control where the weight goes across those 3 stations.
If someone needs it modified for their stations, let me know.
DaBear
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: Helmet questions (so much to choose from) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Hans Oortman" <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
Doug
I use the HGU55 in my Yak52 since about 4 years. I purchased it from
Flightsuits in Ca. It has a build in electronic noise reduction, kevlar
shell with standard liner and a custom made chord with a plug 15 cms from
the helmet. The latter is for quick disconnection in case of a bail out.
They have done an excellent job at Flightsuits, it's not cheap but as with
everything else: you get what you pay for.
In case you have any questions, just email me.
Hans Oortman, MBA, Ph.D.,
De Braak 20
4761 XW Zevenbergen
Netherlands
Tel: +31 168 325467
Mob: +31 653 286022
Email: pa3arw@euronet.nl
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] Namens Tim Gagnon
Verzonden: donderdag 16 februari 2006 14:28
Aan: yak-list@matronics.com
Onderwerp: Yak-List: Re: Helmet questions (so much to choose from)
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
rvfltd(at)televar.com wrote:
> Tim,
> I really don't have a need for the O2 mask, personally I think it's a bit
> over the top for a Chang driver, but that's just me. What I do want is a
> helmet that is light weight and will offer good protection in case of a
> accident. I also would rather not have to install a Malcolm hood in order
> to wear it. What is out there for me to choose from?
>
> Always Yakin,
> Doug Sapp
>
> --
Doug,
As I had mentioned before, the 55P really offers little protection which
sounds like your main objective.
Try this helmet:
http://www.gallet.fr/index.php?id=398&L=0
http://www.aerobaticproshop.com/cgf-lh050---interior-screen-helmet.htm
They are not cheap but I have heard some good things about them. If this is
something you are going to wear quite a bit, spend the extra money to have
it custom fitted to your head! The HGU-55 I use at work is not and the thing
is brutally uncomfortable after a very short time of use and this is not in
a high g environment!!! This is standing there watching SpecOps jump out the
back of my airplane! I cannot imagine what it would feel like in a fighter!
Just my opinion..
Tim
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=12593#12593
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: Flight suits, again..... |
On Feb 16, 2006, at 12:11 AM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> If I want to burn in my cockpit should there be a fire or not wear a
> parachute during formation flight, that is my right to choose. It does
> NOT affect your ability to fly your own airplane.
Ok I really wanted to stay out of this in the hopes it would just go
away and die a peaceful death, but like a insidious disease this
subject does not seem to want to die.
OK here's my question, first forget the RPA, are we sure that that
wearing a parachute would not be mandatory by FAR 91.307 paragraph
c? I know most times I have been in a form flight, especially in
extended trail, we exceed 60 degrees of bank and a nose up or nose
down of greater than thirty degrees, which according to the FAA
requires you to wear a chute. This doesn't even bring up whether the
FAA looks a formation flying as normal flight.
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: | Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
Getting back to the basis of this thread, that Spencer wrote a great article
about flight suits and how ineffective Nomex olive green suits are in a fire
situation, the basic point that Smash brought(without realizing what she was
about to do) up is that there are people flying around in the nice green
zoot suits. If the reason that RPA insists on the wearing of these zoot
suits is for fire protection then this reason is flawed.
Lets look at the reasons for wearing a suit that could possibly be the
driver here.
1. Fire protection, as Spencer shows if you believe this you are just
fooling yourself.
2. Keep all the crap together and out of the controls, I think that everyone
should have a strategy for removing fod hazards from the cockpit regardless
of what you fly or how you fly it, a suit is just one of many ways to get a
good result here. In my SP I have zippered secured pouches in the aircraft.
3. Getting lucky, as we have discovered that is a "phallus-y :)) ".
4. As a Uniform, this is the only reason I can find that has no detraction.
As Brian points out below rules that protect others make sense because you
could hurt someone else. However whatever you decide to do to yourself
should be up to you. I have tried to stay away from this issue in the past
because it really does not matter to me what rules are in place cause I just
don't do that stuff (although I think that my personal fire protection is
light years ahead of a green Nomex suit) that REQUIRES me to comply. But
now I am just interested to know, what is the real reason, inquiring minds
want to know ?? Can anyone remember or is just one of those "well damn it
that's how we've always done it, and if it was good enough in the past it is
good enough today" things ?
The government make more than enough rules for me but even they see this as
a valid point (motor cycle helmets excepted). For example, if I do
aerobatics I am required to wear an in date chute when carrying a passenger.
On my own it is left between me and my maker. Same with ELTs, single seat
configuration I don't need an ELT, two up I do, and guys that is the FAA,
please don't say that we have become more dogmatic that the FAA.
So as a person not affected by the outcome, and on behalf of all those for
who this is such a hot button topic:-
Please, as a fee paying RPA member, can I ask the management to re-assess
this issue given the recent findings by Spencer regarding the lack of
protective properties of these pretty green suits.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Bitterlich GS11 Mark G wrote:
> I also happen to believe that what I wear while flying MY aircraft is
> simply none of your business. I do not mean to sound impolite, just
> to the point.
>
> No matter how good OR bad your logic/arguments are .... it should
> always be my choice, and I should not have to justify that choice to you
or
> anyone else with the possible exception of the FAA.
Ah, Mark, you have hit the nail squarely on the head. I would add to it a
bit more of a general statement which I have been thinking about for some
time. Consider it to be somewhat of a libertarian manifesto as applied to
flying in general and RPA specifically.
1. You have the right to expect me to operate my aircraft in a manner that
does nothing to endanger you or affect your ability to fly your own
aircraft.
For example, you have the right to insist that I be qualified to fly on your
wing before you let me fly on your wing.
2. You do not have the right to tell me what to wear, what safety equipment
to use, what equipment to install in my aircraft, or even insist that I meet
FAA requirements. The latter is between me and the FAA.
If I want to burn in my cockpit should there be a fire or not wear a
parachute during formation flight, that is my right to choose. It does NOT
affect your ability to fly your own airplane.
I think talking about safety equipment and how best to protect oneself is a
GREAT use for the mailing list and for RPA. Requiring it at events is *NOT*!
--
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 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: | Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
John I have news for you that Nomex suit buys you 1.5 seconds of protection,
should reduce your insurance though !
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
fish@aviation-tech.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
--> Yak-List message posted by: fish@aviation-tech.com
Brian,
I would agree with you, except in our litigious society your family would
sue after your death. Their argument would be that we failed to protect you,
causing them harm!
I had a meeting with my insurance agent yesterday, and he said that my
insurance rates were going up, because the cost of defending me was going
up. He also said that I could no longer get some types of insurance.
About 20 years ago there was a debate in California over a motorcycle helmet
law. The most outspoken person (Gary Buesy), then had a motorcycle accident
and was in a coma. The next time the law was put to a vote it passed. So who
would like to be the first person roasted alive, to pass this law!
In military flying we have a saying that the Warnings are written in blood
(others have died so we don't have to make the same mistake).
Fly Safe
John Fischer
>--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>Bitterlich GS11 Mark G wrote:
>
>> I also happen to believe that what I wear while flying MY aircraft is
>> simply none of your business. I do not mean to sound impolite, just
>> to the point.
>>
>> No matter how good OR bad your logic/arguments are .... it should
>> always
>> be my choice, and I should not have to justify that choice to you or
>> anyone else with the possible exception of the FAA.
>
>Ah, Mark, you have hit the nail squarely on the head. I would add to it
>a bit more of a general statement which I have been thinking about for
>some time. Consider it to be somewhat of a libertarian manifesto as
>applied to flying in general and RPA specifically.
>
>1. You have the right to expect me to operate my aircraft in a manner
>that does nothing to endanger you or affect your ability to fly your
>own aircraft.
>
>For example, you have the right to insist that I be qualified to fly on
>your wing before you let me fly on your wing.
>
>2. You do not have the right to tell me what to wear, what safety
>equipment to use, what equipment to install in my aircraft, or even
>insist that I meet FAA requirements. The latter is between me and the FAA.
>
>If I want to burn in my cockpit should there be a fire or not wear a
>parachute during formation flight, that is my right to choose. It does
>NOT affect your ability to fly your own airplane.
>
>I think talking about safety equipment and how best to protect oneself
>is a GREAT use for the mailing list and for RPA. Requiring it at events
>is *NOT*!
>
>--
>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 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: Flight suits, again..... |
John
If you really want to make flying "SAFE" then you shouldn't fly at all.
That's the only way I know of to not have an incident. I could also argue
that you should have an airbag installed. That would save allot of lives,
wouldn't it? Of course there are many other safety enhancements we could
impose on you........ So many in fact that it will make flying safe.....safe
because you won't be able to afford to go flying!
Regards
Frank
:))))))) I remember years ago my first instructor Buck Greenfield #1888,
told me he once (for $400), flew a beat up old Jenny into the side of a barn
for a movie. He put pillows in around the cockpit to help protect him on
impact. He put just enough gas in the tanks to get the airplane up and around
the pattern and into the barn. It turned out to be still be to much fuel.
The Jenny caught fire and he like to have never got out because of the "Damn
pillows and their feathers".
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
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: Flight suits, again..... |
Aren't the words in 91.307 (c) "no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person
(other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds-
" the key wording as to whether you as the pilot flying solo; 1-must wear a parachute
if flying solo and 2- whether or not you can exceed the 60 degrees of
bank and 30 degrees of pitch without a parachute?
Looking for interpretations here.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Fox
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
On Feb 16, 2006, at 12:11 AM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
If I want to burn in my cockpit should there be a fire or not wear a
parachute during formation flight, that is my right to choose. It does
NOT affect your ability to fly your own airplane.
Ok I really wanted to stay out of this in the hopes it would just go away and
die a peaceful death, but like a insidious disease this subject does not seem
to want to die.
OK here's my question, first forget the RPA, are we sure that that wearing a
parachute would not be mandatory by FAR 91.307 paragraph c? I know most times
I have been in a form flight, especially in extended trail, we exceed 60 degrees
of bank and a nose up or nose down of greater than thirty degrees, which according
to the FAA requires you to wear a chute. This doesn't even bring up whether
the FAA looks a formation flying as normal flight.
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: | Re: Flight suits, again..... |
On Feb 16, 2006, at 9:05 AM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> Aren't the words in 91.307 (c) "no pilot of a civil aircraft
> carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any
> intentional maneuver that exceeds=97 " the key wording as to whether
> you as the pilot flying solo; 1-must wear a parachute if flying
> solo and 2- whether or not you can exceed the 60 degrees of bank
> and 30 degrees of pitch without a parachute?
Dennis you are correct, as always :)
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: Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
fish@aviation-tech.com wrote:
> I would agree with you, except in our litigious society your family would sue
> after your death. Their argument would be that we failed to protect you, causing
> them harm!
So we step 'n fetchit before the fact because someone *might* get sued?
Remember how the liability laws for the manufacture of GA aircraft got
changed?
> I had a meeting with my insurance agent yesterday, and he said that my insurance
> rates were going up, because the cost of defending me was going up. He also
> said that I could no longer get some types of insurance.
Then you go without insurance. Your best insurance is to operate your
aircraft safely anyway.
> About 20 years ago there was a debate in California over a motorcycle helmet
> law. The most outspoken person (Gary Buesy), then had a motorcycle accident
> and was in a coma. The next time the law was put to a vote it passed. So who
> would like to be the first person roasted alive, to pass this law!
Pretty sad, eh?
> In military flying we have a saying that the Warnings are written in blood (others
> have died so we dont have to make the same mistake).
But we aren't in the military any more. We really do get to make the
decisions ourselves as they are our airplanes and our bodies. I am not
debating the value of protective gear. I am debating two things:
1. It is not clear that spending thousands of dollars protecting against
flash fire in the cockpit is the best use of resources.
(Opinion: spend that money on new hoses and you will probably go a long
way toward being safer.)
2. What gives you the right to tell me what to wear in my airplane? I
have to put up with crap from the assholes in the FAA. (Not all people
in the FAA are assholes but enough are to make my point valid.) I
shouldn't have to put up with it from my "friends".
A service organization like AOPA, EAA, and RPA are there to make my
flying experience better. They are there to provide information and
services and to facilitate communications. They are not there to act as
auxiliary gestapo.
You know, I have been thinking of ways to turn a Nomex flight suit into
a clown suit. It could be great fun, especially when the media shows up
to take pictures.
--
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 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: CJ Weight and Balance calculator |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
DaBear wrote:
> Here is a version of what I use for W&B in the CJ. Note I use multiple
> stations for the baggage compartment because I have an extended
> compartment and control where the weight goes across those 3 stations.
> If someone needs it modified for their stations, let me know.
Nice. Thanks!
--
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 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: Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Stephen Fox wrote:
> OK here's my question, first forget the RPA, are we sure that that
> wearing a parachute would not be mandatory by FAR 91.307 paragraph c? I
> know most times I have been in a form flight, especially in extended
> trail, we exceed 60 degrees of bank and a nose up or nose down of
> greater than thirty degrees, which according to the FAA requires you to
> wear a chute. This doesn't even bring up whether the FAA looks a
> formation flying as normal flight.
That does not matter. That is between the pilot not wearing a 'chute and
the FAA. If flight lead decides to play "crack-the-whip" and you go
along without a 'chute, that is YOUR decision. If a fed ramp-checks you
when you get down and instigates an enforcement action against you, that
is YOUR problem, not RPAs.
What you guys don't seem to be getting is that I am not saying that you
shouldn't wear a flight suit or a 'chute. I am saying that RPA should
not MAKE me wear a flight suit and a 'chute.
It is *MY* *CHOICE* *NOT* *YOURS*!!!
It is fine to recommend. It is fine to strongly recommend. It is fine to
teach that one should have all proper equipment when engaged in these
somewhat dangerous activities. It is fine to *insist* on proper training
before you will let someone participate because at that point they could
be a threat to others. Whether or not I wear a flight suit or parachute
is not a threat to anyone else, only me. I repeat:
It is *MY* *CHOICE* *NOT* *YOURS*!!!
--
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 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: | Flight Suits again... |
Just to make sure this discussion does not distort the RedStar Pilots Associations
policy, it's easy to get this discussion twisted to look like your association
says you must wear a flight suit always - thats nonsense, the board never
voted for that and never would - that's your decision.
The RPA as a collective organization does not make you wear a flight suit in
your personal flying - in formation training/display sorties at RPA formation
training events/clinics it does require a flight suit by the flight members. This
policy is upheld by our flight leads at events/clinics, thats many of you,
as they have final say who they have in their flights. Thats a pretty small
window for that policy and when I head to events like Waycross this year I publicly
ask the flight members about their support of this event policy, the feedback
is supportive as the right thing to do. Beyond that, the collective groups
discussions on the proven safety benefits of wearing a flight suit in good
condition during our flying is a healthy one.
Folks, the completely new website is open that resolved the navigation issues,
it has full online courseware written by members on Mass Formation, Tactical
Formation, as well as a flight training documents library, members links site,
FAST currency roster posted, CFI Roster posted, new By-Laws posted, there's
now a site for treasury reports and meeting minutes. Thanks to all the volunteers,
I hope the site better serves the pilot group. I suspect their is some
words that need correcting and if you experience any other web issues, email us
at admin@flyredstar.org and someone will jump on it, it goes to about 5 diff
folks....
Drew
Drew Blahnick
305.803.8158
Time: 05:57:22 PM PST US
From: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
Smash, you really don't want to open this discussion. Trust me.
But.. you
kind of already did. Oh well.... My fault, not yours.
Ok.
This whole thing really boils down to a very simple fact, and it has
very
little .. if anything... to do with safety. It instead is an issue
where
one group of people is trying to tell another group of people what to
do.
One group of people thinks that they have the right to do this.
Another group of people do not agree with THAT assumption AT ALL.
It is.... in the end.... as simple as that.
As far as what you wear while flying your personal aircraft... well,
that is
your business and I will defend to the death your right to make those
decisions.
I also happen to believe that what I wear while flying MY aircraft is
simply
none of your business. I do not mean to sound impolite, just to the
point.
No matter how good OR bad your logic/arguments are .... it should
always be
my choice, and I should not have to justify that choice to you or
anyone
else with the possible exception of the FAA.
Regards,
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sarah Tobin
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
I disagree with you guys that are saying that a flt suit is only good
for
picking up chicks. Having worn a flight suit for the past 9 years, I
have
come to know them quite well. Doc can probably back me up on this
one...a
viper dude had his giblets roasted because he wore silk boxers on a
flight
that ended poorly, but the rest of his body was fine. Point is, that
it
isn't fire *proof*, but it is fire retardant. Had he been wearing
cotton
drawers the story would be different.
I always wear cotton everything, and I mean everything when I fly my
plane
OR when I am on any airliner. Why not give you the added chance of
survival? I don't wear a flt suit to acro competitions cuz I can't
bring
myself to look like a dork wearing a flt suit when I am off duty....but
I
think in an org like RPA that it isn't a bad idea. Go thru the smoke
course
in OKC if you get a chance. They give you a gnd course on what happens
in a
survivable airline crash and how the plastic melts on you. They show
you
what happens to ladies that wear nylons on flights and dudes in
polyester
pants...ick. Then they fill the cabin with 'chocolate smoke' and let
you
see the limited vis in such a situation. Anyway, I go on, but the
point
is...never compromise on safety! :)
Smash
---------------------------------
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: | Flight Suits again... |
So Drew, just to put this to bed for the last time, if someone shows up at
an RPA event and decides to fly naked can they ?
As I have said personally I think that protection far in advance of the
green suit is a good idea for the reasons I stated earlier (bubble canopy,
long down and welded gear)
Gus
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Drew Blahnick
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
Just to make sure this discussion does not distort the RedStar Pilots
Associations policy, it's easy to get this discussion twisted to look like
your association says you must wear a flight suit always - thats nonsense,
the board never voted for that and never would - that's your decision.
The RPA as a collective organization does not make you wear a flight suit in
your personal flying - in formation training/display sorties at RPA
formation training events/clinics it does require a flight suit by the
flight members. This policy is upheld by our flight leads at events/clinics,
thats many of you, as they have final say who they have in their flights.
Thats a pretty small window for that policy and when I head to events like
Waycross this year I publicly ask the flight members about their support of
this event policy, the feedback is supportive as the right thing to do.
Beyond that, the collective groups discussions on the proven safety benefits
of wearing a flight suit in good condition during our flying is a healthy
one.
Folks, the completely new website is open that resolved the navigation
issues, it has full online courseware written by members on Mass Formation,
Tactical Formation, as well as a flight training documents library, members
links site, FAST currency roster posted, CFI Roster posted, new By-Laws
posted, there's now a site for treasury reports and meeting minutes. Thanks
to all the volunteers, I hope the site better serves the pilot group. I
suspect their is some words that need correcting and if you experience any
other web issues, email us at admin@flyredstar.org
<mailto:admin@flyredstar.org> and someone will jump on it, it goes to about
5 diff folks....
Drew
Drew Blahnick
305.803.8158
Time: 05:57:22 PM PST US
From: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <
<http://us.f301.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.m
il&YY=62776&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b>
BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
Smash, you really don't want to open this discussion. Trust me.
But.. you
kind of already did. Oh well.... My fault, not yours.
Ok.
This whole thing really boils down to a very simple fact, and it has
very
little .. if anything... to do with safety. It instead is an issue
where
one group of people is trying to tell another group of people what to
do.
One group of people thinks that they have the right to do this.
Another group of people do not agree with THAT assumption AT AL L.
It is.... in the end.... as simple as that.
As far as what you wear while flying your personal aircraft... well,
that is
your business and I will defend to the death your right to make those
decisions.
I also happen to believe that what I wear while flying MY aircraft is
simply
none of your business. I do not mean to sound impolite, just to the
point.
No matter how good OR bad your logic/arguments are .... it should
always be
my choice, and I should not have to justify that choice to you or
anyone
else with the possible exception of the FAA.
Regards,
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From:
<http://us.f301.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=owner-yak-list-server@matronics
.com&YY=62776&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b>
owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:< A
onics.com&YY=62776&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b">owner-yak-list-
server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sarah Tobin
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
I disagree with you guys that are saying that a flt suit is only good
for
picking up chicks. Having worn a flight suit for the past 9 years, I
have
come to know them quite well. Doc can probably back me up on this
one...a
viper dude had his giblets roasted because he wore silk boxers on a
flight
that ended poorly, but the rest of his body was fine. Point is, that
it
isn't fire *proof*, but it is fire retardant. Had he been wearing
cotton
drawers the story would be different.
I always wear cotton everything, and I mean everything when I fly my
plane
OR when I am on any airliner. Why not give you the added chance of
survival? I don't wear a flt suit to acro competitions cuz I can't
bring
myself to look like a dork wearing a flt suit when I am off duty....but
I
think in an org like RPA that it isn't a bad idea. Go thru the smoke
course
in OKC if you get a chance. They give you a gnd course on what happens
in a
survivable airline crash and how the plastic melts on you. They show
you
what happens to ladies that wear nylons on flights and dudes in
polyester
pants...ick. Then they fill the cabin with 'chocolate smoke' and let
you
see the limited vis in such a situation. Anyway, I go on, but the
point
is...never compromise on safety! :)
Smash
_____
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/virusall/*http://communications.yah
oo.com/features.php?page=221> scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>So Drew, just to put this to bed for the last time, if
someone shows up at an RPA event and decides to fly naked can they
?
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>As I have said personally I think that protection far in
advance of the green suit is a good idea for the reasons I stated earlier
(bubble canopy, long down and welded gear)
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Gus
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Drew
Blahnick
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:03 AM
yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: Flight Suits
again...
Just to make sure this discussion does not distort the RedStar Pilots
Associations policy, it's easy to get this discussion twisted to look like
your association says you must wear a flight suit always - thats nonsense, the
board never voted for that and never would - that's your decision.
The RPA as a collective organization does not make you wear a flight suit
in your personal flying - in formation training/display sorties at RPA
formation training events/clinicsit does require a flight suit by the
flight members. This policy is upheld by our flight leads at events/clinics,
thats many of you, as they have final say who they have in their
flights. Thats a pretty small window for that policy and when I head to
events likeWaycross this year I publicly askthe flight
membersabout their support of this eventpolicy, the feedback is
supportive asthe right thing to do. Beyond that, the collective
groups discussions on the proven safety benefits of wearing a flight suit in
good condition during our flying is a healthy one.
Folks, the completely new website is open that resolved the navigation
issues, it has full online courseware written by members on Mass Formation,
Tactical Formation, as well as a flight training documents library, members
links site, FAST currency roster posted, CFI Roster posted, new By-Laws
posted, there's now a site for treasury reports and meeting minutes.
Thanks to all the volunteers, I hope the site better serves thepilot
group. I suspect their is some words that need correcting and if you
experience any other web issues, email us at <A
">admin@flyredstar.org and someone will
jump on it, it goes to about 5 diff folks....
Drew
DrewBlahnick
305.803.8158
Time: 05:57:22 PM PST US
From: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <A
"><FONT
color=#003399>BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil
Subject: RE:
Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
Smash, you really don't want to open
this discussion. Trust me.
But.. you
kind of already
did. Oh well.... My fault, not yours.
Ok.
This whole thing really boils down to a very simple fact, and it has
very
little .. if anything... to do with safety. It instead is an
issue
where
one group of people is trying to tell another group of
people what to
do.
One group of people thinks that they have the
right to do this.
Another group of people do not agree with THAT
assumption AT AL L.
It is.... in the end.... as simple as
that.
As far as what you wear while flying your personal
aircraft... well,
that is
your business and I will defend to the death
your right to make those
decisions.
I also happen to believe
that what I wear while flying MY aircraft is
simply
none of your
business. I do not mean to sound impolite, just to the
point.
No matter how good OR bad your logic/arguments are ....
it should
always be
my choice, and I should not have to justify that
choice to you or
anyone
else with the possible exception of the
FAA.
Regards,
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: <A
"><FONT
color=#003399>owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto: A
color=#003399>owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Sarah Tobin
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:32 AM
Subject: Re:
Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
I disagree with you guys that
are saying that a flt suit is only good
for
picking up chicks.
Having worn a flight suit for the past 9 years, I
have
come to know
them quite well. Doc can probably back me up on this
one...a
viper dude had his giblets roasted because he wore silk boxers
on a
flight
that ended poorly, but the rest of his body was fine.
Point is, that
it
isn't fire *proof*, but it is fire retardant.
Had he been wearing
cotton
drawers the story would be different.
I always wear cotton everything, and I mean everything when I fly my
plane
OR when I am on any airliner. Why not give you the added
chance of
survival? I don't wear a flt suit to acro competitions cuz
I can't
bring
myself to look like a dork wearing a flt suit when I am
off duty....but
I
think in an org like RPA that it isn't a bad
idea. Go thru the smoke
course
in OKC if you get a chance.
They give you a gnd course on what happens
in a
survivable airline
crash and how the plastic melts on you. They show
you
what
happens to ladies that wear nylons on flights and dudes in
polyester
pants...ick. Then they fill the cabin with 'chocolate
smoke' and let
you
see the limited vis in such a situation.
Anyway, I go on, but the
point
is...never compromise on safety!
:)
Smash
">virus
scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
Nuff said...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=12634#12634
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/deadpercent20horsepercent204_109.jpg
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 |
|
| Subject: | Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
That gets you up the rails, out of the Oh shit my world has just turned
brown, and under a canopy. Depending on what mode of the envelope you were
in when you opted for the 3rd redundant life support system to save your
little pink ass from your trusted stead when it's world turned to SHIT.
That is all the Nomex was intended to do for you.
Doc
> [Original Message]
> From: Fraser, Gus <gus.fraser@gs.com>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 2/16/2006 8:26:50 AM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
>
> John I have news for you that Nomex suit buys you 1.5 seconds of
protection,
> should reduce your insurance though !
>
> Gus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> fish@aviation-tech.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:26 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: fish@aviation-tech.com
>
> Brian,
>
> I would agree with you, except in our litigious society your family would
> sue after your death. Their argument would be that we failed to protect
you,
> causing them harm!
>
> I had a meeting with my insurance agent yesterday, and he said that my
> insurance rates were going up, because the cost of defending me was going
> up. He also said that I could no longer get some types of insurance.
>
> About 20 years ago there was a debate in California over a motorcycle
helmet
> law. The most outspoken person (Gary Buesy), then had a motorcycle
accident
> and was in a coma. The next time the law was put to a vote it passed. So
who
> would like to be the first person roasted alive, to pass this law!
>
> In military flying we have a saying that the Warnings are written in blood
> (others have died so we don't have to make the same mistake).
>
> Fly Safe
> John Fischer
>
>
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> >
> >Bitterlich GS11 Mark G wrote:
> >
> >> I also happen to believe that what I wear while flying MY aircraft is
> >> simply none of your business. I do not mean to sound impolite, just
> >> to the point.
> >>
> >> No matter how good OR bad your logic/arguments are .... it should
> >> always
>
> >> be my choice, and I should not have to justify that choice to you or
> >> anyone else with the possible exception of the FAA.
> >
> >Ah, Mark, you have hit the nail squarely on the head. I would add to it
> >a bit more of a general statement which I have been thinking about for
> >some time. Consider it to be somewhat of a libertarian manifesto as
> >applied to flying in general and RPA specifically.
> >
> >1. You have the right to expect me to operate my aircraft in a manner
> >that does nothing to endanger you or affect your ability to fly your
> >own aircraft.
> >
> >For example, you have the right to insist that I be qualified to fly on
> >your wing before you let me fly on your wing.
> >
> >2. You do not have the right to tell me what to wear, what safety
> >equipment to use, what equipment to install in my aircraft, or even
> >insist that I meet FAA requirements. The latter is between me and the
FAA.
>
> >
> >If I want to burn in my cockpit should there be a fire or not wear a
> >parachute during formation flight, that is my right to choose. It does
> >NOT affect your ability to fly your own airplane.
> >
> >I think talking about safety equipment and how best to protect oneself
> >is a GREAT use for the mailing list and for RPA. Requiring it at events
> >is *NOT*!
> >
> >--
> >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 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Scooter" <yakk52@verizon.net>
Here's a good article on nomex flight suits:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_11_58/ai_95153298
It's by Capt John McKnight, and with a name like that you must know what you're
talking about.
Seems like much of what I've read about them states that they offer protection
mainly for "flash fires". Is this something we would experience in the crash
of a Yak or CJ?
Also, anyone have recommended throttle/pitch settings for (all phases of) an inverted
spin?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=12663#12663
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: | Flight suits, again..... |
Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil> wrote:
Smash, you really don't want to open this discussion. Trust me. But..
you kind of already did. Oh well.... My fault, not yours.
Boy oh boy were you right about this!
For what it's worth, I really don't care what ya'll wear in your cockpit. I
just assumed that since we are all pilots and by definition...geniuses, that we
would all be smart enough to take the extra precautions to prevent getting burned,
should the situation arise. But yeah, it's pretty lame to force someone
to go buy a $150 flight suit just to hang with play with their friends in the
sky. Hey what do I know anyway, I'm not a member of the RPA.
Smash
---------------------------------
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
Scooter,
Unless you get someone very well versed in doing this to show you my advice
is with the throttle closed. An inverted flat spin in a Yak 52 in itself is
not a big deal IF YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT how to get out and you have had a
chance to observe the aircraft performance. With the throttle retarded it
will recover quicker than a rightside up spin but please, if you havn't
already, get some coaching from an experienced Yak pilot. It is VERY
impressive when the aileron goes in and the engine spools up it goes very
flat and starts to shudder. Best to see that when someone else is at the
controls for the first time that way you are only dealing with the new
experience of recovery not the sensation of the maneuver as well at the same
time.
Which region are you in ? I am sure there is someone in your area that can
show you what you need to know, the web is a particularly bad place to teach
aerobatics :)))
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scooter
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 1:29 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Flight suits, again.....
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Scooter" <yakk52@verizon.net>
Here's a good article on nomex flight suits:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_11_58/ai_95153298
It's by Capt John McKnight, and with a name like that you must know what
you're talking about.
Seems like much of what I've read about them states that they offer
protection mainly for "flash fires". Is this something we would experience
in the crash of a Yak or CJ?
Also, anyone have recommended throttle/pitch settings for (all phases of) an
inverted spin?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=12663#12663
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: | Flight Suits again... |
----- Original Message -----
From: Fraser, Gus
Sent: 2/16/2006 10:35:31 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
So, if someone shows up at an RPA event and decides to fly naked can they ?
Gus
Say what's the court cost and fine for indecent exposure, lurid and lascivious
behavior these days? As well as the cost for that none covered psychiatric
hospitalization the judge will order after the airport security snatches your
rosy pink bohuncus off the ramp. Well maybe the city will pickup the court ordered
neuropsychic eval.cost. With all the discussion of scorched giblets and
hot roasted nuts, you now want to fly naked? Fly UNITED MAYBE but not naked!
Bottom line, you can fly your airplane anyway you want as long as it is not a hazard
to someone else's safety. Because after you box, it will be your relatives
that will have to contend with the lawyers that will surely surface from the
depths of their ilk when there is a smell of blood, er...make that ...green
poultice..jack...green stuff...wallet liner...theirs'....After all, when you hit
the ground or whatever else it was that caused your trusty stead to fail ya
by loosing that flying spirit and you just happened to have caused personal injury
to someone other than yourself, You can bet your sweat dead ass that the
lawyers will come a calling on those poor suffering soles (parody here) that
are suffering the mental anguish of having witnessed the sight of your naked pink
ass (what's left of it that is) after it landed in po' ol' Auntie Jamelle's
bedroom of her manufactured home off the end of 27 or what ever runway, smoking
both yourself and the dearly just departed Auntie
Jamelle! Also since you obviously were crazy, out of your gourd, nuts, whack-o,
or just plain eat up with the dumb-ass, your insurance company is gonna abandon
you like a sinking ship leaving your now grieving widow to divide up what
assets you thought you were leaving behind for the life long support of your
poor loved ones. They are now going to pay off the "legal cost" and the plaintiff!
As for the statement about the presumed lawsuit, huh?! Just go fly through someone's
property causing personal injury (remember the current corrupt court system
with the illiterate socially down trodden jury of my peers) will be upon you
(or your Widow) like white on rice or better yet, Sink on Shit! Particularly
if there is even a hint that your activity remotely resembled the violation
of a FAR or some other statue/ordinance that can be pulled out of some lawyers
ass to slap you with. It does not even matter if you did not do a damned thing
wrong. You just happened to be in the casting distance of the net when shit
did hit the fan! Presumed LawSuit My Ass!
Doc
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 |
|
One word....incorporate
Say what's the court cost and fine for indecent exposure, lurid and lascivious
behavior these days? As well as the cost for that none covered psychiatric
hospitalization the judge will order after the airport security snatches your
rosy pink bohuncus off the ramp. Well maybe the city will pickup the court ordered
neuropsychic eval.cost. With all the discussion of scorched giblets and
hot roasted nuts, you now want to fly naked? Fly UNITED MAYBE but not naked!
Bottom line, you can fly your airplane anyway you want as long as it is not a
hazard to someone else's safety. Because after you box, it will be your relatives
that will have to contend with the lawyers that will surely surface from
the depths of their ilk when there is a smell of blood, er...make that ...green
poultice..jack...green stuff...wallet liner...theirs'....After all, when you
hit the ground or whatever else it was that caused your trusty stead to fail
ya by loosing that flying spirit and you just happened to have caused personal
injury to someone other than yourself, You can bet your sweat dead ass that the
lawyers will come a calling on those poor suffering soles (parody here) that
are suffering the mental anguish of having witnessed the sight of your naked
pink ass (what's left of it that is) after it landed in po' ol' Auntie Jamelle's
bedroom of her manuf actured home off the end of 27 or what ever runway, smoking
both yourself and the dearly just departed Aun
tie
Jamelle! Also since you obviously were crazy, out of your gourd, nuts, whack-o,
or just plain eat up with the dumb-ass, your insurance company is gonna abandon
you like a sinking ship leaving your now grieving widow to divide up what
assets you thought you were leaving behind for the life long support of your poor
loved ones. They are now going to pay off the "legal cost" and the plaintiff!
As for the statement about the presumed lawsuit, huh?! Just go fly through someone's
property causing personal injury (remember the current corrupt court system
with the illiterate socially down trodden jury of my peers) will be upon
you (or your Widow) like white on rice or better yet, Sink on Shit! Particularly
if there is even a hint that your activity remotely resembled the violation
of a FAR or some other statue/ordinance that can be pulled out of some lawyers
ass to slap you with. It does not even matter if you did not do a damned thing
wrong. You just happened to be in the casting distance of the net when shit
did hit the fan! Presumed LawSuit My Ass!
Doc
---------------------------------
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Say Scooter?
How disoriented are you looking to be?
Throttle closed after entry...not to bad if watching the brown stuff over
your head go around hanging by your harness at a reasonably calm pace with
the wind whistling by your canopy is what stokes your fire.
82% and 850 or> mmHg manifold pressure...is quite a bit more attention
getting. Between the shake rattle an roll of the M-14 with the revolutions
of the brown stuff above yo head whipping around a fair amount faster while
hanging by your harness again will make you wonder what possesed you to
want to voluntarily subject yo rosey pink to this?!
As one of my hangermates said one day after flying acro..."Man, I really
love doing spins in this airplane. It is just like floating down on a leaf!
My response being.."SAY WHAT??!" A gentle spin you say!?" He was entering
them with the throttle closed. Suggested that he try it at 82% and come
back an tell me how he loved the "gentle floating leaf feeling." Next day
the ol' eyeballs were a bit wider on return! Seems it took him 1400 ft and
4 -5 turns before he recovered, he lost count.
Me personally, try to avoid 'em. Terrible waist of energy in a fight and it
just makes you to damned predictable!
Doc
> [Original Message]
> From: Scooter <yakk52@verizon.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 2/16/2006 12:39:54 PM
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Flight suits, again.....
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Scooter" <yakk52@verizon.net>
>
> Here's a good article on nomex flight suits:
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_11_58/ai_95153298
>
> It's by Capt John McKnight, and with a name like that you must know what
you're talking about.
>
> Seems like much of what I've read about them states that they offer
protection mainly for "flash fires". Is this something we would experience
in the crash of a Yak or CJ?
>
> Also, anyone have recommended throttle/pitch settings for (all phases of)
an inverted spin?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=12663#12663
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Flight Suits again... |
I would never fly naked, remember I am the guy with fire proof underwear,
but I will defend the right of Frank to wear, or not wear, whatever he
chooses to fly in & Brian's personal right to ..... to be Brian. Show me a
50 cal and a lawyer and I will show you a solution.
JOKING AS ALWAYS
Gus
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
----- Original Message -----
From: Fraser, Gus <mailto:gus.fraser@gs.com>
Sent: 2/16/2006 10:35:31 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
So, if someone shows up at an RPA event and decides to fly naked can they ?
Gus
Say what's the court cost and fine for indecent exposure, lurid and
lascivious behavior these days? As well as the cost for that none covered
psychiatric hospitalization the judge will order after the airport security
snatches your rosy pink bohuncus off the ramp. Well maybe the city will
pickup the court ordered neuropsychic eval.cost. With all the discussion of
scorched giblets and hot roasted nuts, you now want to fly naked? Fly UNITED
MAYBE but not naked!
Bottom line, you can fly your airplane anyway you want as long as it is not
a hazard to someone else's safety. Because after you box, it will be your
relatives that will have to contend with the lawyers that will surely
surface from the depths of their ilk when there is a smell of blood,
er...make that ...green poultice..jack...green stuff...wallet
liner...theirs'....After all, when you hit the ground or whatever else it
was that caused your trusty stead to fail ya by loosing that flying spirit
and you just happened to have caused personal injury to someone other than
yourself, You can bet your sweat dead ass that the lawyers will come a
calling on those poor suffering soles (parody here) that are suffering the
mental anguish of having witnessed the sight of your naked pink ass (what's
left of it that is) after it landed in po' ol' Auntie Jamelle's bedroom of
her manuf actured home off the end of 27 or what ever runway, smoking both
yourself and the dearly just departed Auntie Jamelle! Also since you
obviously were crazy, out of your gourd, nuts, whack-o, or just plain eat up
with the dumb-ass, your insurance company is gonna abandon you like a
sinking ship leaving your now grieving widow to divide up what assets you
thought you were leaving behind for the life long support of your poor loved
ones. They are now going to pay off the "legal cost" and the plaintiff!
As for the statement about the presumed lawsuit, huh?! Just go fly through
someone's property causing personal injury (remember the current corrupt
court system with the illiterate socially down trodden jury of my peers)
will be upon you (or your Widow) like white on rice or better yet, Sink on
Shit! Particularly if there is even a hint that your activity remotely
resembled the violation of a FAR or some other statue/ordinance that can be
pulled out of some lawyers ass to slap you with. It does not even matter if
you did not do a damned thing wrong. You just happened to be in the casting
distance of the net when shit did hit the fan! Presumed LawSuit My Ass!
Doc
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>I would never fly naked, remember I am the guy with fire proof
underwear, but I will defend the right of Frank to wear, or not
wear,whatever he chooses to fly in Brian's personal right to .....
to be Brian. Show me a 50 cal and a lawyer and I will show you a
solution.
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>JOKING AS ALWAYS
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>Gus
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Kemp
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:10 PM
yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits
again...
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
#000000 2px solid">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
<A title=gus.fraser@gs.com ">Fraser, Gus
To: <A title=yak-list@matronics.com
">yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: 2/16/2006 10:35:31 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits
again...
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>So, if someone shows up at an RPA event and decides to fly
naked can they ?
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>Gus
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>
<FONT
face=Arial color=#ff0000>Say what's the court cost and fine for
indecent exposure, lurid and lascivious behavior these days? As well
as the cost for that none covered psychiatric hospitalization the
judge will order after the airport security snatches your rosy pink bohuncus
off the ramp. Well maybe the city will pickup the court ordered neuropsychic
eval.cost. With all the discussion of scorched giblets and hot roasted
nuts, you now want to fly naked? Fly UNITED MAYBE but not naked!
<FONT
face=Arial color=#ff0000>Bottom line, you can fly your airplane anyway you
want as long as it is not a hazard to someone else's safety. Because after
you box, it will be your relatives that will have to contend with the
lawyers that will surely surface from the depths of their ilk when there is
a smell of blood, er...make that ...green poultice..jack...green
stuff...wallet liner...theirs'....After all, when you hit the ground or
whatever else it was that caused your trusty stead to fail ya
byloosingthat flying spirit and you justhappened to have
caused personal injury to someone other than yourself, You can bet your
sweat dead ass that the lawyers will come a calling on those poor suffering
soles (parody here) that are suffering the mental anguish of having
witnessed the sight of your naked pink ass (what's left of it that is) after
it landed in po' ol' Auntie Jamelle's bedroom of her manuf actured home off
the end of 27 or what ever runway,smoking both yourself and the dearly
just departed Auntie Jamelle! Also since you obviously were crazy, out of
your gourd, nuts, whack-o, or just plain eat up with the dumb-ass, your
insurance company is gonna abandon you like a sinking ship leaving your now
grieving widow to divide up what assets you thought you were leaving behind
for the life long support of your poor loved ones. They are now
goingto pay off the "legal cost" and the
plaintiff!
<FONT
face=Arial color=#ff0000>As for the statement about the presumed lawsuit,
huh?! Just go fly through someone's property causing personal injury
(remember the current corrupt court system with the illiterate socially down
trodden jury of my peers) will be upon you (or your Widow) like white on
rice or better yet, Sink on Shit! Particularly if there is even ahint
that your activity remotely resembled the violation of a FAR or some other
statue/ordinance that can be pulled out of some lawyers ass to slap you
with. It does not even matter if you did not do a damned thing wrong. You
just happened to bein the casting distance of the net when shit did
hit the fan! Presumed LawSuit My Ass!
<FONT
face=Arial
color=#ff0000>Doc
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: Scooter spins. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Scooter" <yakk52@verizon.net>
not to worry gus, i'm wearing a helmet AND a nomex flight suit :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=12691#12691
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: | Flight Suits again... |
What's that they say about a bus full of lawyers going over a cliff with 2 empty
seats? A crying SAME.
I do agree...Frank or anyone else can fly how they wish to be atired or unatired.
Tis their's to choose.
Doc
----- Original Message -----
From: Fraser, Gus
Sent: 2/16/2006 2:02:39 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
I would never fly naked, remember I am the guy with fire proof underwear, but I
will defend the right of Frank to wear, or not wear, whatever he chooses to fly
in & Brian's personal right to ..... to be Brian. Show me a 50 cal and a lawyer
and I will show you a solution.
JOKING AS ALWAYS
Gus
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
----- Original Message -----
From: Fraser, Gus
Sent: 2/16/2006 10:35:31 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
So, if someone shows up at an RPA event and decides to fly naked can they ?
Gus
Say what's the court cost and fine for indecent exposure, lurid and lascivious
behavior these days? As well as the cost for that none covered psychiatric
hospitalization the judge will order after the airport security snatches your
rosy pink bohuncus off the ramp. Well maybe the city will pickup the court ordered
neuropsychic eval.cost. With all the discussion of scorched giblets and
hot roasted nuts, you now want to fly naked? Fly UNITED MAYBE but not naked!
Bottom line, you can fly your airplane anyway you want as long as it is not a hazard
to someone else's safety. Because after you box, it will be your relatives
that will have to contend with the lawyers that will surely surface from the
depths of their ilk when there is a smell of blood, er...make that ...green
poultice..jack...green stuff...wallet liner...theirs'....After all, when you hit
the ground or whatever else it was that caused your trusty stead to fail ya
by loosing that flying spirit and you just happened to have caused personal injury
to someone other than yourself, You can bet your sweat dead ass that the
lawyers will come a calling on those poor suffering soles (parody here) that
are suffering the mental anguish of having witnessed the sight of your naked pink
ass (what's left of it that is) after it landed in po' ol' Auntie Jamelle's
bedroom of her manuf actured home off the end of 27 or what ever runway, smoking
both yourself and the dearly just departed Aunti
e Jamelle! Also since you obviously were crazy, out of your gourd, nuts, whack-o,
or just plain eat up with the dumb-ass, your insurance company is gonna abandon
you like a sinking ship leaving your now grieving widow to divide up what
assets you thought you were leaving behind for the life long support of your
poor loved ones. They are now going to pay off the "legal cost" and the plaintiff!
As for the statement about the presumed lawsuit, huh?! Just go fly through someone's
property causing personal injury (remember the current corrupt court system
with the illiterate socially down trodden jury of my peers) will be upon you
(or your Widow) like white on rice or better yet, Sink on Shit! Particularly
if there is even a hint that your activity remotely resembled the violation
of a FAR or some other statue/ordinance that can be pulled out of some lawyers
ass to slap you with. It does not even matter if you did not do a damned thing
wrong. You just happened to be in the casting distance of the net when shit
did hit the fan! Presumed LawSuit My Ass!
Doc
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: Flight suits, again..... |
In a message dated 2/16/2006 10:39:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
aerobaticgirl@yahoo.com writes:
But yeah, it's pretty lame to force someone to go buy a $150 flight suit
just to hang with play with their friends in the sky. Hey what do I know anyway,
I'm not a member of the RPA
Well, one can usually find a decent used flight suit on e-bay for $25. This
is slightly less than what we pay our fuel valet boys here in Marin to clean
and press our Banana Republic kaki shirts after each form sortie (tip not
included). This does not include costs to polish our Birkenstock organic flight
boots, but that's a whole other topic.
Dave
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: | Re: Flight suits, again..& boots |
In a message dated 2/16/06 1:54:26 PM, KingCJ6@aol.com writes:
>
> This does not include costs to polish our Birkenstock organic flight boots,
> but that's a whole other topic.
>
>
>
>
Dave, I've found that open-toed Birkenstock boots are a trifle breezy,
particularly in the winter even here in temperate Marin. My personal choice=20are
the
understated, cap-toed boots in fine English Connelly leather from Brooks
Brothers. ...Blitz
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: | Re: Flight suits, again..... |
On Feb 16, 2006, at 4:50 PM, KingCJ6@AOL.COM wrote:
> Well, one can usually find a decent used flight suit on e-bay for
> $25. This is slightly less than what we pay our fuel valet boys
> here in Marin to clean and press our Banana Republic kaki shirts
> after each form sortie (tip not included). This does not include
> costs to polish our Birkenstock organic flight boots, but that's a
> whole other topic.
>
Wait a minute, you got your flight suit of ebay! You are running a
grave risk, my friend. Please review your RPA guidelines for Marin
County Flyers. You will see in Chapter 11 paragraph 72 sub section c
you should only be wearing the new powder blue issue by Vera Wang.
Please rectify this immediately or you will loose your privileges to
the men's grill.. Further if you want maintain your Lead status the
Birkenstock flight boots must be replaced with the newly designed
boots from Gucci. You can special orders these with or without the
gold bit buckle from Gucci in Florence: Via Roma 38r, 50123 Florence
tel: 39.055.75.92.21 ask Antonio.
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight suits, again..... |
In a message dated 2/16/06 2:21:37 PM, jsfox@adelphia.net writes:
>
> You can special orders these with or without the gold bit buckle from Gucci
> in Florence: Via Roma 38r, 50123 Florence=A0
>
> tel: 39.055.75.92.21 ask Antonio.
>
>
No, no, brother. Much too overstated. Lack tradition. Much better as apres
fly wear. ...B
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flight suits, again..... |
Well, "one" might indeed find a Flight Suit for $25 if "one" happened to be
just the right size to wear whatever "one" found on E-Bay.
However, if God happened to pull the same joke on you as he played on me,
the price is $287.75 thank you very much. That also does not include the
price of sending it back and forth a few times to get it to fit.
Send me $262.75 Dave, and I'll stop complaining. By the way, lest someone
think I speak anything other than the truth... the included file shows the
bill. No advertisements intended.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of KingCJ6@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Flight suits, again.....
In a message dated 2/16/2006 10:39:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
aerobaticgirl@yahoo.com writes:
But yeah, it's pretty lame to force someone to go buy a $150 flight suit
just to hang with play with their friends in the sky. Hey what do I know
anyway, I'm not a member of the RPA
Well, one can usually find a decent used flight suit on e-bay for $25. This
is slightly less than what we pay our fuel valet boys here in Marin to clean
and press our Banana Republic kaki shirts after each form sortie (tip not
included). This does not include costs to polish our Birkenstock organic
flight boots, but that's a whole other topic.
Dave
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 |
|
Suits again...)
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Drew Blahnick wrote:
That got your attention, didn't it. Let's see ...
> in formation training/display sorties at
> RPA formation training events/clinics it does require a flight suit by
> the flight members.
So, if Bob Fong (like FNG) shows up at an event with his newly acquired
CJ6A or Yak-52, it is the policy of RPA to refuse to provide training if
Mr. FNG doesn't own and wear a flight suit? Well gosh oh gee this sure
looks good. Let's make sure we piss Bob off and send him home (as you
guys did to a friend of mine at ARS a couple of years back) where he
will practice formation with the other guys who have had no training.
Yup, we are really fostering safety and serving the needs of the pilot
community.
As a dues-paying member of the RPA I would like to say that this sucks.
If it were my RPA we would do everything we could to provide training
and support to help people operate their aircraft as safely as possible
regardless of their age, sex, race, or choice of outerwear. Forcing
people to wear a flight suit against their will or refusing to provide
needed training is just f-----g stupid.
> This policy is upheld by our flight leads at
> events/clinics, thats many of you, as they have final say who they have
> in their flights.
I don't care who upholds it. What gives a small group the right to tell
the rest of us what to do when it in no way affects them?
> Thats a pretty small window for that policy and when
> I head to events like Waycross this year I publicly ask the flight
> members about their support of this event policy,
Let's see, I am sure we can ask around and find people to uphold just
about any policy we want. You know, maybe we should refuse to allow
women to participate as it might cramp the style of The Guys. Man, I
could come up with some real crap here but I think that the rest get my
drift.
> the feedback is
> supportive as the right thing to do. Beyond that, the collective groups
> discussions on the proven safety benefits of wearing a flight suit in
> good condition during our flying is a healthy one.
The discussion of the relative merits of various methods to prevent
burns in the cockpit is a good one. I suspect it is even more important
when in combat and the aircraft sustains battle damage. Oh wait, none of
us fly our CJ6As or Yak-52s in combat. Darn. There goes that reason to
wear a flight suit.
So we only provide training to people who wear flight suits. Yeah, that
is a great, inclusive policy. We do it because the inner cabal has
decided, "ugh, flight suit good."
--
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 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: | Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
You know, I have been thinking of ways to turn a Nomex flight suit into a
clown suit. It could be great fun, especially when the media shows up to
take pictures.
Brian, that's twice in a row now you made me bust a gut. What's gotten into
you?
Thanks :)
Frank
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: Flight Suits again... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Roger Kemp wrote:
> *Say what's the court cost and fine for indecent exposure, lurid
> and lascivious behavior these days?
Wear a speedo. That'll fix it. If they can get away with only that on TV
for the olympics, we can certainly wear one in the cockpit.
> As well as the cost for that
> none covered psychiatric hospitalization the judge will order after
> the airport security snatches your rosy pink bohuncus off the ramp.
> Well maybe the city will pickup the court ordered neuropsychic
> eval.cost. With all the discussion of scorched giblets and hot
> roasted nuts, you now want to fly naked? Fly UNITED MAYBE but not
> naked! *
> *Bottom line, you can fly your airplane anyway you want as long as
> it is not a hazard to someone else's safety. Because after you box,
> it will be your relatives that will have to contend with the lawyers
> that will surely surface from the depths of their ilk when there is
> a smell of blood, er...make that ...green poultice..jack...green
> stuff...wallet liner...theirs'....After all, when you hit the ground
> or whatever else it was that caused your trusty stead to fail ya
> by loosing that flying spirit and you just happened to have caused
> personal injury to someone other than yourself, You can bet your
> sweat dead ass that the lawyers will come a calling on those poor
> suffering soles (parody here) that are suffering the mental anguish
> of having witnessed the sight of your naked pink ass (what's left of
> it that is) after it landed in po' ol' Auntie Jamelle's bedroom of
> her manuf actured home off the end of 27 or what ever
> runway, smoking both yourself and the dearly just departed Auntie
> Jamelle!
Uh, so if I wear a flight suit this won't happen? Ah. Now I understand.
--
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 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: Flight Suits again... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Fraser, Gus wrote:
> I would never fly naked, remember I am the guy with fire proof
> underwear, but I will defend the right of Frank to wear, or not
> wear, whatever he chooses to fly in & Brian's personal right to ..... to
> be Brian. Show me a 50 cal and a lawyer and I will show you a solution.
Gus, you made me laugh. Not many posts just make me laugh out loud.
"...and Brian's personal right to ... to be Brian."
Yup, that's me! ROFL!
--
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 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: | Flight Suits again... |
"in formation training/display sorties at RPA formation training
events/clinics it does require a flight suit by the flight members."
Drew, the only thing I object to is the word "training" being included in
the above sentence.
Did then, do now. Always will.
It is my humble opinion that receiving proper training in and performing the
proper conduct of.....formation flight .....has immediate and direct impact
on the safety of pilots, spectators, and aircraft world wide. The "safety"
offered by wearing a Flight Suit, compared to NOT wearing a Flight Suit,
pales into insignificance by comparison. Thus the rule should read that
Flight Suits are RECOMMENDED for any type of formation training, but should
go on to say: "we will never withhold such training from any individual who
happens to not have one".
I say out loud and clearly that anyone who disagrees with this has something
other than "safety" on their mind.
But............. that's just my opinion.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Drew Blahnick
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
Just to make sure this discussion does not distort the RedStar Pilots
Associations policy, it's easy to get this discussion twisted to look like
your association says you must wear a flight suit always - thats nonsense,
the board never voted for that and never would - that's your decision.
The RPA as a collective organization does not make you wear a flight suit in
your personal flying - in formation training/display sorties at RPA
formation training events/clinics it does require a flight suit by the
flight members. This policy is upheld by our flight leads at events/clinics,
thats many of you, as they have final say who they have in their flights.
Thats a pretty small window for that policy and when I head to events like
Waycross this year I publicly ask the flight members about their support of
this event policy, the feedback is supportive as the right thing to do.
Beyond that, the collective groups discussions on the proven safety benefits
of wearing a flight suit in good condition during our flying is a healthy
one.
Folks, the completely new website is open that resolved the navigation
issues, it has full online courseware written by members on Mass Formation,
Tactical Formation, as well as a flight training documents library, members
links site, FAST currency roster posted, CFI Roster posted, new By-Laws
posted, there's now a site for treasury reports and meeting minutes. Thanks
to all the volunteers, I hope the site better serves the pilot group. I
suspect their is some words that need correcting and if you experience any
other web issues, email us at admin@flyredstar.org
<mailto:admin@flyredstar.org> and someone will jump on it, it goes to about
5 diff folks....
Drew
Drew Blahnick
305.803.8158
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: | Flight Suits again... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "David McGirt" <david@mcgirt.net>
I think this waste of email space will run more people off .. I know I quit
reading about 40 emails back, and just hit delete.
Face it, there are a handful of people that will always have the last word,
and they usually do not agree. Now, can we use that knowledge for something
constructive again??
Emergency Procedures Discussions, Systems discussions, new avionics that
work for people, results from 100 hr inspections, things you have changed...
ect..
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 |
|
Blitz,
This is too good to pass up without a shot on your six!
> I've found that open-toed Birkenstock boots are a trifle breezy,
> particularly in the winter even here in temperate Marin. My personal choice
> re the understated, cap-toed boots in fine English Connelly leather from Brooks
> Brothers. ...Blitz
>
But of course it is ALWAYS temperate in Marin, how else could it be?? I presume
you got measured for these fine boots at the Aviator's Boutique at the Marin
County Airport. Isn't adjacent to the 5 plasma-screened Pilot's lounge in the
FBO, where appropriately attired Gentlemen Aviators inhale various flavors at
the O2 bar while waiting for the Line Valets to bring their mounts up to the Red
Carpet?
It's all just Sooo Marin :>)
Craig Payne
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 |
|
I am looking for filters for my 285hp CJs case vents. Or should they be left open?
Thanks Kelley
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 |
|
I've found that open-toed Birkenstock boots are a trifle breezy,,,,,,
There's only two kinds of people who live in Marin....steers and queers.
Judging by the posts I'd have to say queers.
Frank :)
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: | Flight Suits again... |
And I happen to think that this RPA rule has already run a lot of people off
and that it impacts formation flight safety.
Regardless, you make a good point.
I am sure a lot of people have about as much interest in the RPA's
insistance on wearing flight suits for training, as non RPA members are in
hearing about RPA fly-in's, RPA jackets and patches, and who flew on who's
wing at the last airshow.
I am all for the discussions that you mention, but if you are going to
condemn one type of discussion that does not meet your pure objectives, then
you must condemn them all.
And no, this is not an attempt at a last word... this is no such thing on
list servers.
mgb
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of David McGirt
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:21 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
--> Yak-List message posted by: "David McGirt" <david@mcgirt.net>
I think this waste of email space will run more people off .. I know I quit
reading about 40 emails back, and just hit delete.
Face it, there are a handful of people that will always have the last word,
and they usually do not agree. Now, can we use that knowledge for something
constructive again??
Emergency Procedures Discussions, Systems discussions, new avionics that
work for people, results from 100 hr inspections, things you have changed...
ect..
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: | Flight Suits again... |
Point taken.
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich GS11
Mark G
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:04 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
And I happen to think that this RPA rule has already run a lot of people off
and that it impacts formation flight safety.
Regardless, you make a good point.
I am sure a lot of people have about as much interest in the RPA's
insistance on wearing flight suits for training, as non RPA members are in
hearing about RPA fly-in's, RPA jackets and patches, and who flew on who's
wing at the last airshow.
I am all for the discussions that you mention, but if you are going to
condemn one type of discussion that does not meet your pure objectives, then
you must condemn them all.
And no, this is not an attempt at a last word... this is no such thing on
list servers.
mgb
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of David McGirt
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:21 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
--> Yak-List message posted by: "David McGirt" <david@mcgirt.net>
I think this waste of email space will run more people off .. I know I quit
reading about 40 emails back, and just hit delete.
Face it, there are a handful of people that will always have the last word,
and they usually do not agree. Now, can we use that knowledge for something
constructive again??
Emergency Procedures Discussions, Systems discussions, new avionics that
work for people, results from 100 hr inspections, things you have changed...
ect..
browse Subscriptions page, Chat, FAQ,
"
TARGET="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
support!
"
TARGET="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flight Suits again... |
Now, that is a fair suggestion, and a constructive one. I do not know the
by laws well enough, but Mark, you should make that a formal request, and
let the RPA vote on it..
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich GS11
Mark G
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:03 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
"in formation training/display sorties at RPA formation training
events/clinics it does require a flight suit by the flight members."
Drew, the only thing I object to is the word "training" being included in
the above sentence.
Did then, do now. Always will.
It is my humble opinion that receiving proper training in and performing the
proper conduct of.....formation flight .....has immediate and direct impact
on the safety of pilots, spectators, and aircraft world wide. The "safety"
offered by wearing a Flight Suit, compared to NOT wearing a Flight Suit,
pales into insignificance by comparison. Thus the rule should read that
Flight Suits are RECOMMENDED for any type of formation training, but should
go on to say: "we will never withhold such training from any individual who
happens to not have one".
I say out loud and clearly that anyone who disagrees with this has something
other than "safety" on their mind.
But............. that's just my opinion.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Drew Blahnick
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Flight Suits again...
Just to make sure this discussion does not distort the RedStar Pilots
Associations policy, it's easy to get this discussion twisted to look like
your association says you must wear a flight suit always - thats nonsense,
the board never voted for that and never would - that's your decision.
The RPA as a collective organization does not make you wear a flight suit in
your personal flying - in formation training/display sorties at RPA
formation training events/clinics it does require a flight suit by the
flight members. This policy is upheld by our flight leads at events/clinics,
thats many of you, as they have final say who they have in their flights.
Thats a pretty small window for that policy and when I head to events like
Waycross this year I publicly ask the flight members about their support of
this event policy, the feedback is supportive as the right thing to do.
Beyond that, the collective groups discussions on the proven safety benefits
of wearing a flight suit in good condition during our flying is a healthy
one.
Folks, the completely new website is open that resolved the navigation
issues, it has full online courseware written by members on Mass Formation,
Tactical Formation, as well as a flight training documents library, members
links site, FAST currency roster posted, CFI Roster posted, new By-Laws
posted, there's now a site for treasury reports and meeting minutes. Thanks
to all the volunteers, I hope the site better serves the pilot group. I
suspect their is some words that need correcting and if you experience any
other web issues, email us at admin@flyredstar.org and someone will jump on
it, it goes to about 5 diff folks....
Drew
Drew Blahnick
305.803.8158
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: CJ vent filters |
Kelley,
>I am looking for filters for my 285hp CJs case vents. Or should they be left open?
>Thanks Kelley
>
Up there in the Land 'o Lakes where the Mosquito is the State Bird, I'd prefer
to keep those vents covered. Fine Scotch pad will work with tie wraps, keeps the
critters and dirt out and *some* of the oil in, especially when inverted. If
you plumb the oil tank vent to the "Y" crankcase vent, only the gearbox vent
needs covering. However, don't fly into icing as the vent filter freezes over,
pressurizing the crankcase and blowing all the oil out somewhere.
Craig Payne
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: Flight suits, again..... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Frank Haertlein wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
>> You know, I have been thinking of ways to turn a Nomex flight suit into a
>> clown suit. It could be great fun, especially when the media shows up to
>> take pictures.
>
> Brian, that's twice in a row now you made me bust a gut. What's gotten into
> you?
I think it is because I have fallen into a Kafka novel and can't get
out. Humor is the only thing that keeps me alive.
--
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 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: | Re: Flight Suits again... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
David McGirt wrote:
> Now, that is a fair suggestion, and a constructive one. I do not know
> the by laws well enough, but Mark, you should make that a formal
> request, and let the RPA vote on it..
So if enough people vote for something that is wrong, that makes it OK?
Ah, the tyranny of the masses.
--
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 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 |
|
Pappy or Ray,
Was there resolution to having to be a VAC member to fly?
Message 52
| 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 last time that I spoke with Ken Terry, two days ago, the VAC has not
reached a decision. Ken is doing his best to have the BOD drop the membership
requirement. Should I get a decision, will put it on our site.
My Best,
Ray Gage
Message 53
| 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: | [humor] Manly men wear Nomex (was: Flight Suits again...) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
(Three years ago we were having this same discussion. I decided to take
another slant on it. Some of you might remember. I know a number of you
commented that you liked the message so I thought I would post it again
to raise the humor coefficient of the list a bit.
Do not archive)
You know, we have been approaching the decision-making process all
wrong. When it comes to selecting parachutes, flight wear, oil, etc.,
we have been talking like these are technical decisions. The problem
is, they aren't! These are psychological decisions based on the macho
coolness factor (MCF) which has become totally ignored in the decision
making process. I propose we move it to the forefront where it belongs.
First let's talk about parachutes. If we leave out the Russian and
Chinese 'chutes because of their questionable acceptance of the FAA we
are left with really four major 'chute manufacturers here in the US:
Manley Butler
Paraphernalia "Softie"
Strong
National
The National is the cheapest and most compact of the 'chutes. It is
packed to the density of degenerate matter (what one would find in the
core of a collapsed neutron star) so it sucks you butt muscles in and
pulverizes them. You can sit on this 'chute for about 15 minutes before
requiring medical care. This works for 25 year old acro competitors
flying 10-minute hops but for old cross-country butts like ours, no way.
That leaves the National out of the running.
So how do you pick your 'chute from the remaining group? Well we can
talk about features but it really comes down to something simpler and
more straight-forward. You see, this is really a psychological choice
and the hint is in the name. One is made by "Manl[e]y" Butler, one is
"Strong" and one is "Softie". You will find that most Real Men with
Fighter Pilot icewater in their veins opt for the "Manly" 'chute. The
staid, solid pilot opts for the "strong" 'chute. Guys with callsigns
like "Pinkie" opt for the "softie" 'chute. No worries. Once you
understand this, the selection of a 'chute takes mere milliseconds since
you no longer feel a need to justify your choice.
Flight wear is another issue. When you are flying the last of the
daytime gunfighters, e.g. F-86, F-11, etc.; there is absolutely no
question about your manliness or fitness as a pilot. Every combat is a
knife fight and the best *man* wins. (Sorry, ladies and girlie men need
not apply.) Period, end of report. Flight wear is not an issue because
one's manliness has already been decided.
But consider the current state of the world. If you are a fighter pilot
in today's military forces you go up and when combat is imminent you
turn on the weapons system. Nowadays the funky 'P' shows up on the
weapons display and your headset utters the computer-generated and
distorted word "Playstation". Head down you manipulate the "joystick"
and all those buttons on the electronic throttle control. If you do it
right the display reads "Extra Game" and your headset plays the Star
Wars march. Do it wrong and the last thing you hear is the mournful
rising tone and see the words "Game Over." Not too manly that.
Or worse yet, you are a shit-hot ... uh, sorry ... "Sierra Hotel" pilot
and after UPT you get transferred to C-141s or CODs. Boooooring. No
testosterone there. These poor bus drivers (who don't know that the
weapons system in the F-22
was made by Sony) walk into the O-club and there are the F-22 drivers
talking about "tactics" and "angles" and "vertical penetration". They
don't realize that the discussion is really about how to get into the
pants of that babe unit at the end of the bar, the one that has them so
intimidated that they won't go anywhere near her. So what are the bus
drivers going to do? Start talking up how well they nailed the
localizer in their last hand-flown approach? Can you THINK of a faster
way to be labeled a girlie man? (Let's not even TALK about these poor
guys who get out and are now shagging the right seat of a 737 for
Noservice Airlines.) So we need a way to keep the machismo on display.
Enter Flight Wear!
Flight Wear allows a pilot to retain his manliness when his flying
won't. Nothing screams "I've got big brass ones" like a Nomex suit
covered with patches. If you doubt me, just look at what the guys around
you are wearing. The newbies whose last airplane before their Yak-52 or
CJ6A was a C-172 have crisply-starched Nomex suits literally covered
with patches that say things like "Safeway Grocery Airplane Day". Next
consider the bus drivers with C-141 and COD experience. Their flight
suits are a little older and a little plainer. They might even have a
squadron patch.
And on the subject of patches, trashhauler/MAC squadron patches are
bigger, gaudier, and have more grotesque deaths-head symbols than
fighter squadrons. The little fighter pilot squadron patches say
"triple nickel" or "hat in the ring" while the transport command guys
have patches that say "raw flesh eating, fire and vomit spewing, King
Air drivers."
Now lets consider the guys that flew F6Fs, F4Us, P-80s, F-86s, F9Fs, and
F11Fs in combat. Not to pick on anyone but Randall Webb is a perfect
example. He shows up in a CJ6A painted powder BLUE! He is wearing blue
jeans and a button-down cotton shirt! No helmet adorns his head! What
IS this! Well, he is completely secure in his self-image and knows
that, deep down, there is a lot more similarity than difference between
a CJ6A and a Beechcraft Bonanza. (Besides, he IS a sierra hotel pilot
and if you are lucky you will fly with him in your back seat or on his
wing during formation training but you didn't hear me say that.)
And if you recall, I mentioned oil. This one is easy. Consider two
people: one is sitting at a computer terminal in a laboratory wearing a
clean white lab coat and glasses and muttering about viscosity
coefficients, lubricity factors,
and statistical samples while the other is up in the cowl of an R-2800
wearing an oil stained coverall with the name "Joe" (no one knows any of
his other names anyway) stitched on the front and chomping on a stogie.
Which one are you going to listen to when it comes to picking your oil?
Damn straight! Joe wins by a country mile because he has seen and
fixed it all and doesn't need no stinkin' lab report to know what oil works.
So where am I going with all of this (besides being an equal-opportunity
offender)? Well, I have a proposal to make! Something that the Red Star
Pilots Association could really get into! Let's take a page from wildly
successful televison and offer proper training in the form of "Queer Eye
for the Pilot Guy!" We get a team of wildly studly pilots (perhaps
dressed in tight black leather flight suits) to help the newcomer become
properly attired so that when he gets his CJ6A or Yak-52 marshalled into
the back forty of the warbird parking at OSH, back behind the Cessna
Skymasters, Aeronca Champs, and Stinson Voyagers painted in military
schemes, everyone will know he is a PILOT's PILOT as he gets out of that
cockpit.
We will have the guy who teaches you about and helps you pick out a
flight suit. ("No, no silly, Nomex is the ONLY way. And you need to put
that patch riiiight there. It is more slimming and besides, it doesn't
clash quite so much with that patch.") Then there is the guy who nods
thoughfully while chewing on an unlighted cigar as he instructs you on
the finer points of selecting a fine mineral oil for your airplane.
("Well, if you are having 100LL I recommend a full-bodied,
straight-weight Aeroshell 120W but if you are sipping auto fuel in the
winter a multi-vis Phillips 25W60 is a better choice.") Additional
experts will help you with decorating ... I mean paint schemes and nose
art, avionics, and cockpit (oooh, I just LOVE that word)
instrumentation. Never underestimate the machismo of vacuum-tube
avionics and the ability to say, "I have a fire in the avionics bay so I
am shutting down the electrical system and popping
the bottle. I'll just follow your hand signals from now on," uttered in
a bored drawl. Ernie Gann and Chuck Yaeger would be so proud!
You know, if our Red Star Marketing Agent and Registered TV Personallity
is on-the-ball, he can probably turn this into a prime-time reality TV
show and really get the RSPA on the map! The FAA and TSA will really
pay attention when this hits #1 on the Nielson ratings. Congress
critters won't be able to wait to throw their weight our way especially
if we offer to come out and campaign for them.
But don't forget, you heard it from me first. I expect that from now
on, when the flying is done for the day and we retire to the bar to
"debrief" (as I unzip my mauve Kermel flightsuit about three inches to
properly display my ascot), that I will never have to buy my own fruity
boat drinks with the little parasols again.
--
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 54
| 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 |
|
Unbelievable, I finally reached the end of the emails from today! Is the horse
dead yet? I only see a dusty hole!
Doc
Roger "Doc" Kemp
viperdoc@mindspring.com
Aint no sound like a Radial
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! --
|