Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:32 AM - Re: Yak parts (Rob Kent)
2. 01:48 AM - Re: Commercial and Compensation (Kevin Pilling)
3. 02:02 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Hans Oortman)
4. 02:14 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Markus Feyerabend)
5. 02:30 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Hans Oortman)
6. 04:32 AM - Re: Commercial and Compensation (Tim Gagnon)
7. 04:35 AM - Re: Commercial and Compensation (Tim Gagnon)
8. 04:36 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (A. Dennis Savarese)
9. 04:58 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Michael Bolton)
10. 05:36 AM - Interesting Photo... (Tim Gagnon)
11. 05:55 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Fraser, Gus)
12. 05:56 AM - Re: STUNT PILOT DIES DURING PRACTICE (Fraser, Gus)
13. 06:45 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Brian Lloyd)
14. 06:50 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Brian Lloyd)
15. 07:14 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Daniel Fortin)
16. 07:27 AM - Re: Re: Commercial and Compensation (Brian Lloyd)
17. 07:40 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Brian Lloyd)
18. 07:58 AM - Re: Re: Commercial and Compensation (Roger Kemp)
19. 07:59 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Roger Kemp)
20. 08:00 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Roger Kemp)
21. 08:02 AM - Re: Re: Commercial and Compensation (Roger Kemp)
22. 08:02 AM - Re: Commercial and Compensation (Valkyre1)
23. 08:39 AM - Re: [Comment]Commercial and Compensation (Fraser, Gus)
24. 09:39 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Walter Lannon)
25. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Fraser, Gus)
26. 11:11 AM - compensation (Jerry Painter)
27. 11:35 AM - Re: compensation (Fraser, Gus)
28. 12:01 PM - ignition (Jerry Painter)
29. 12:22 PM - Re: ignition (Stephen Fox)
30. 12:39 PM - Re: ignition (Fraser, Gus)
31. 12:45 PM - Re: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues (Brian Lloyd)
32. 12:46 PM - Re: [Comment]Commercial and Compensation (Brian Lloyd)
33. 01:15 PM - {Humor, kinda]Sorry Brian (Fraser, Gus)
34. 01:40 PM - Re: {Humor, kinda]Sorry Brian (Brian Lloyd)
35. 02:28 PM - Re: ignition (Craig Payne)
36. 02:42 PM - Re: Re: ignition (Stephen Fox)
37. 03:05 PM - Re: Re: Commercial and Compensation (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
38. 03:08 PM - Re: ignition (A. Dennis Savarese)
39. 03:36 PM - Re: Re: ignition (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
40. 04:16 PM - Re: Re: ignition (david stroud)
41. 04:35 PM - ACM - A T-34 Owner's two cents (Joe Enzminger)
42. 05:41 PM - Re: ACM - A T-34 Owner's two cents (forrest johnson)
43. 06:05 PM - Re: ACM - A T-34 Owner's two cents (YakL1@aol.com)
44. 06:20 PM - Commercial/ 2nd class (forrest johnson)
45. 07:16 PM - Re: ACM - A T-34 Owner's two cents (Walter Lannon)
46. 08:29 PM - Re: Commercial/ 2nd class (Brian Lloyd)
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Rob Kent" <rkent@wlacrussianeng.co.uk>
I've got some factory new units in stock.
Regards
Rob Kent
Stores Manager
WLAC - Russian Engineering
www.wlacrussianeng.co.uk
Tel: +44 1628 829 165
Fax: +44 1628 828 961
----- Original Message -----
From: "DaBear" <dabear@damned.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:02 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Yak parts
> --> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
>
> Anyone have or know someone who has a Oil Pressure Sensor for a M14P?
>
> DaBear
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Commercial and Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Kevin Pilling" <pilling.k@btconnect.com>
I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms....this current thread has wiped so much
familiar and comforting 'noise' off the List.
Whatever's happened to MMO, Yak-vs-CJ, Male-vs-Female, Nomex-vs-Cotton
Flightsuits and all those other 'burning' issues that were the daily
list-fodder...........Hell I cant even remember where we left
off.........sic
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: | Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Hans Oortman" <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
Sorry to ask this stupid question: Can anybody explain to me what "ACM"
stands for???
It would explain a lot to me...
Hans
Dutch Yak Pilot
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] Namens DaBear
Verzonden: donderdag 23 maart 2006 6:56
Aan: yak-list@matronics.com
Onderwerp: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
--> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
Roger,
The problem is not *if* pilots will do it. They are doing it. Sticking
our collective heads in the sand and saying we don't support it, don't
want people to do it, and will not train them to do it, doesn't stop
that. Just like you, people are doing ACM in their aircraft.
Your comment is valid:
"Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own dime
and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative."
If two people want to brief it up on their own dime ... it is their
prerogative. Qualified? What is that? If we don't have a standard set
of qualifications, programs, etc. Then everyone is qualified, because
their is no agreed upon level of qualification. People flew formation
before FAST. People fly formation without going to FAST clinics and
getting instruction, solo "qual", and then wing/lead patches. Some do
it safe, many are just lucky. But they do it. Not having clinics
doesn't stop people from flying ACM, it just stops them from having the
opportunity to learn the "standards."
I agree, someone flying their Yak on a regular basis doing acro is
different than ACM. However, I don't agree that a metal fatigue is more
likely in ACM. Someone flying a 1985 Yak-52 or 1970 CJ6A, who has no
idea how much time their aircraft has spent at high G levels, is doing
acro on a regular basis. Even competing at IAC events. Eventually,
their aircraft could break. Heck, if they are doing airshows, or even
just practicing low level and mess something up, they could over G Their
aircraft multiple times and cause failure.
I see nothing wrong with teaching people a safe way to brief, fly (with
safety pilots), and debrief ACM hops. It is better to teach people the
safe way to do things, rather than ignore it. I also don't think it is
right for people to say, don't teach it, don't condone it, RPA doesn't
support it, and then for those same folks to go out and do it. That
includes multiple people in all levels of our RPA organization.
Some folks were lucky (and good) and were able to fly fighter jets.
Others would like a taste of that, with some guidance from local IPs and
people that can guide those that are new to this. It isn't that I can't
find people to do ACM with/against. I can find many just at my local
airport. However, what I don't have is a standards of flight profiles,
and standards for level of ability ala FAST. So, I'm not going to go
out and fly against people I don't know and trust just like I will not
fly formation without knowing someones ability and that they understand
the program.
I'd much rather our community pilots go to regular ACM clinics, with
appropriate level (ex-military) IPs, and learn to do it well, safely,
and with rules we all understand, than to have them doing it on their
own, without training, without good IPs in the back. No one is saying
go to one 3-day ACM clinic and you are going to be a SH ACM pilot. But
teaching some basic BFM 1 v 1 stuff over a series of clinics would be
fun, valuable, and safe. Having basic level requires before moving to
next level clinics would be great times for out community of pilots. We
have people that have their FAST cards for multiple years, 100+ hours of
formation including lots of grab-ass extended trail, and they want to
learn more, improve their skills, and have fun.
ACM clinics would prevent more accidents then they would ever cause.
DaBear
Roger Kemp wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
>Tim,
>Honestly I have mixed emotions on having civilians doing ACM. Sure it is
>nice to see what their military has trained for and get a taste of what it
>is like to be a fighter pilot for a day. The problems have come from the
>type aircraft chosen to present this taste in. It has brought a mirade of
>headaches to the T-34 and T-6 communities. I really do not want to see that
>come to our community.
>As for Acro being no worse on the aircraft than ACM, I would have to
>disagree. In the fighter training community, acro is a stepping stone to
>something more. In acro, it is you and the airplane flying a set routine.
>Your attention is on what your aircraft is doing (airspeed and attitudes
>flown). ACM is a choreography balancing what your aircraft is doing, what
>your adversary is doing, thinking far enough ahead of your jet to project
>where you want to be in the airspace, the corner you are trying to paint
>your opponent into, and oh by the way look inside for a snap shot of what
>your instruments say your plane is doing. If you are pulling the fight and
>not pushing, your trying to force your adversary to make a mistake so
>he/she overshoots giving you an in (if you are defensive that is). The
>entire time you are dividing you attention between your plane, your energy
>state that is, and your opponent. Flying is second nature. The majority of
>your attention is employing your jet as a weapons system to kill this
>bandit, go to his bar and drink his beer. This is all taking place in a 1
>v 1, it gets even more dicey in 2v2, 4v4, or you v many.
>The whole process of minting a steely eyed young fighter pilot is a
>building block process that takes place over a 18 mo. course of training.
>He/She exits the B course are FNG wing man who is trying finish gulping
>down the fire hose they stuck in it's mouth for the last 18 mo. The
>building process is only beginning. It is not complete until he/she leaves
>the cockpit at retirement.
>We can't take a civilian YAK/CJ driver with nothing more than a FAST card
>and turn them into a "safe" fighter pilot in weekend. We are asking for
>major trouble if we start doing that. Some Bubba is going to go home
>thinking that at the end of a 3 day ACM course he is kingkong and put
>himself or his bud out of control turning themselves into a lawn dart. We
>just do not need to do that in our community.
>Tactical flying is one thing but full up ACM needs to stay where it is
>now... the military where we train to that level of proficiency.
>Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own dime
>and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative. But do not do it in
>the name of the PA and neither should the RPA try to legislate what two
>consenting adults do on their on time. The problem will still come if the
>intrepid YAK drivers (CJ for that matter) go an shuck a wing. Now we have
>the undivided attention of the FAA in a light we do not want.
>That is my 2 cents. Now do I fly ACM with some of my squadron
>buds...truthfully yes. The ROE is so ingrained that the Knock It Off call
>is almost automatic when a DLO(desired learning objective) is met.
>Learning to fly tactical is allot of fun and does take energy management of
>our aircraft to another level. It truly does introduce the 3 dimension to
>flying, the vertical.
>Doc
>
>
>
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: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Markus Feyerabend <feyerabm@web.de>
Hi Hans,
ACM = Air Combat Maneuvers
Regards,
Markus
> -----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: yak-list@matronics.com
> Gesendet: 23.03.06 11:10:47
> An: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Betreff: RE: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Hans Oortman" <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
>
> Sorry to ask this stupid question: Can anybody explain to me what "ACM"
> stands for???
> It would explain a lot to me...
>
> Hans
> Dutch Yak Pilot
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] Namens DaBear
> Verzonden: donderdag 23 maart 2006 6:56
> Aan: yak-list@matronics.com
> Onderwerp: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
>
> Roger,
>
> The problem is not *if* pilots will do it. They are doing it. Sticking
> our collective heads in the sand and saying we don't support it, don't
> want people to do it, and will not train them to do it, doesn't stop
> that. Just like you, people are doing ACM in their aircraft.
>
> Your comment is valid:
>
> "Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own dime
> and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative."
>
>
> If two people want to brief it up on their own dime ... it is their
> prerogative. Qualified? What is that? If we don't have a standard set
> of qualifications, programs, etc. Then everyone is qualified, because
> their is no agreed upon level of qualification. People flew formation
> before FAST. People fly formation without going to FAST clinics and
> getting instruction, solo "qual", and then wing/lead patches. Some do
> it safe, many are just lucky. But they do it. Not having clinics
> doesn't stop people from flying ACM, it just stops them from having the
> opportunity to learn the "standards."
>
> I agree, someone flying their Yak on a regular basis doing acro is
> different than ACM. However, I don't agree that a metal fatigue is more
> likely in ACM. Someone flying a 1985 Yak-52 or 1970 CJ6A, who has no
> idea how much time their aircraft has spent at high G levels, is doing
> acro on a regular basis. Even competing at IAC events. Eventually,
> their aircraft could break. Heck, if they are doing airshows, or even
> just practicing low level and mess something up, they could over G Their
> aircraft multiple times and cause failure.
>
> I see nothing wrong with teaching people a safe way to brief, fly (with
> safety pilots), and debrief ACM hops. It is better to teach people the
> safe way to do things, rather than ignore it. I also don't think it is
> right for people to say, don't teach it, don't condone it, RPA doesn't
> support it, and then for those same folks to go out and do it. That
> includes multiple people in all levels of our RPA organization.
>
> Some folks were lucky (and good) and were able to fly fighter jets.
> Others would like a taste of that, with some guidance from local IPs and
> people that can guide those that are new to this. It isn't that I can't
> find people to do ACM with/against. I can find many just at my local
> airport. However, what I don't have is a standards of flight profiles,
> and standards for level of ability ala FAST. So, I'm not going to go
> out and fly against people I don't know and trust just like I will not
> fly formation without knowing someones ability and that they understand
> the program.
>
> I'd much rather our community pilots go to regular ACM clinics, with
> appropriate level (ex-military) IPs, and learn to do it well, safely,
> and with rules we all understand, than to have them doing it on their
> own, without training, without good IPs in the back. No one is saying
> go to one 3-day ACM clinic and you are going to be a SH ACM pilot. But
> teaching some basic BFM 1 v 1 stuff over a series of clinics would be
> fun, valuable, and safe. Having basic level requires before moving to
> next level clinics would be great times for out community of pilots. We
> have people that have their FAST cards for multiple years, 100+ hours of
> formation including lots of grab-ass extended trail, and they want to
> learn more, improve their skills, and have fun.
>
> ACM clinics would prevent more accidents then they would ever cause.
>
> DaBear
>
>
> Roger Kemp wrote:
>
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> >
> >Tim,
> >Honestly I have mixed emotions on having civilians doing ACM. Sure it is
> >nice to see what their military has trained for and get a taste of what it
> >is like to be a fighter pilot for a day. The problems have come from the
> >type aircraft chosen to present this taste in. It has brought a mirade of
> >headaches to the T-34 and T-6 communities. I really do not want to see that
> >come to our community.
> >As for Acro being no worse on the aircraft than ACM, I would have to
> >disagree. In the fighter training community, acro is a stepping stone to
> >something more. In acro, it is you and the airplane flying a set routine.
> >Your attention is on what your aircraft is doing (airspeed and attitudes
> >flown). ACM is a choreography balancing what your aircraft is doing, what
> >your adversary is doing, thinking far enough ahead of your jet to project
> >where you want to be in the airspace, the corner you are trying to paint
> >your opponent into, and oh by the way look inside for a snap shot of what
> >your instruments say your plane is doing. If you are pulling the fight and
> >not pushing, your trying to force your adversary to make a mistake so
> >he/she overshoots giving you an in (if you are defensive that is). The
> >entire time you are dividing you attention between your plane, your energy
> >state that is, and your opponent. Flying is second nature. The majority of
> >your attention is employing your jet as a weapons system to kill this
> >bandit, go to his bar and drink his beer. This is all taking place in a 1
> >v 1, it gets even more dicey in 2v2, 4v4, or you v many.
> >The whole process of minting a steely eyed young fighter pilot is a
> >building block process that takes place over a 18 mo. course of training.
> >He/She exits the B course are FNG wing man who is trying finish gulping
> >down the fire hose they stuck in it's mouth for the last 18 mo. The
> >building process is only beginning. It is not complete until he/she leaves
> >the cockpit at retirement.
> >We can't take a civilian YAK/CJ driver with nothing more than a FAST card
> >and turn them into a "safe" fighter pilot in weekend. We are asking for
> >major trouble if we start doing that. Some Bubba is going to go home
> >thinking that at the end of a 3 day ACM course he is kingkong and put
> >himself or his bud out of control turning themselves into a lawn dart. We
> >just do not need to do that in our community.
> >Tactical flying is one thing but full up ACM needs to stay where it is
> >now... the military where we train to that level of proficiency.
> >Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own dime
> >and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative. But do not do it in
> >the name of the PA and neither should the RPA try to legislate what two
> >consenting adults do on their on time. The problem will still come if the
> >intrepid YAK drivers (CJ for that matter) go an shuck a wing. Now we have
> >the undivided attention of the FAA in a light we do not want.
> >That is my 2 cents. Now do I fly ACM with some of my squadron
> >buds...truthfully yes. The ROE is so ingrained that the Knock It Off call
> >is almost automatic when a DLO(desired learning objective) is met.
> >Learning to fly tactical is allot of fun and does take energy management of
> >our aircraft to another level. It truly does introduce the 3 dimension to
> >flying, the vertical.
> >Doc
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Hans Oortman" <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
Thanks Markus, that explains a hell of a lot. I agree with Doc....
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] Namens Markus Feyerabend
Verzonden: donderdag 23 maart 2006 11:14
Aan: yak-list@matronics.com
Onderwerp: RE: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
--> Yak-List message posted by: Markus Feyerabend <feyerabm@web.de>
Hi Hans,
ACM = Air Combat Maneuvers
Regards,
Markus
> -----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: yak-list@matronics.com
> Gesendet: 23.03.06 11:10:47
> An: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Betreff: RE: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Hans Oortman" <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
>
> Sorry to ask this stupid question: Can anybody explain to me what "ACM"
> stands for???
> It would explain a lot to me...
>
> Hans
> Dutch Yak Pilot
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] Namens DaBear
> Verzonden: donderdag 23 maart 2006 6:56
> Aan: yak-list@matronics.com
> Onderwerp: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
>
> Roger,
>
> The problem is not *if* pilots will do it. They are doing it. Sticking
> our collective heads in the sand and saying we don't support it, don't
> want people to do it, and will not train them to do it, doesn't stop
> that. Just like you, people are doing ACM in their aircraft.
>
> Your comment is valid:
>
> "Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own
dime
> and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative."
>
>
> If two people want to brief it up on their own dime ... it is their
> prerogative. Qualified? What is that? If we don't have a standard set
> of qualifications, programs, etc. Then everyone is qualified, because
> their is no agreed upon level of qualification. People flew formation
> before FAST. People fly formation without going to FAST clinics and
> getting instruction, solo "qual", and then wing/lead patches. Some do
> it safe, many are just lucky. But they do it. Not having clinics
> doesn't stop people from flying ACM, it just stops them from having the
> opportunity to learn the "standards."
>
> I agree, someone flying their Yak on a regular basis doing acro is
> different than ACM. However, I don't agree that a metal fatigue is more
> likely in ACM. Someone flying a 1985 Yak-52 or 1970 CJ6A, who has no
> idea how much time their aircraft has spent at high G levels, is doing
> acro on a regular basis. Even competing at IAC events. Eventually,
> their aircraft could break. Heck, if they are doing airshows, or even
> just practicing low level and mess something up, they could over G Their
> aircraft multiple times and cause failure.
>
> I see nothing wrong with teaching people a safe way to brief, fly (with
> safety pilots), and debrief ACM hops. It is better to teach people the
> safe way to do things, rather than ignore it. I also don't think it is
> right for people to say, don't teach it, don't condone it, RPA doesn't
> support it, and then for those same folks to go out and do it. That
> includes multiple people in all levels of our RPA organization.
>
> Some folks were lucky (and good) and were able to fly fighter jets.
> Others would like a taste of that, with some guidance from local IPs and
> people that can guide those that are new to this. It isn't that I can't
> find people to do ACM with/against. I can find many just at my local
> airport. However, what I don't have is a standards of flight profiles,
> and standards for level of ability ala FAST. So, I'm not going to go
> out and fly against people I don't know and trust just like I will not
> fly formation without knowing someones ability and that they understand
> the program.
>
> I'd much rather our community pilots go to regular ACM clinics, with
> appropriate level (ex-military) IPs, and learn to do it well, safely,
> and with rules we all understand, than to have them doing it on their
> own, without training, without good IPs in the back. No one is saying
> go to one 3-day ACM clinic and you are going to be a SH ACM pilot. But
> teaching some basic BFM 1 v 1 stuff over a series of clinics would be
> fun, valuable, and safe. Having basic level requires before moving to
> next level clinics would be great times for out community of pilots. We
> have people that have their FAST cards for multiple years, 100+ hours of
> formation including lots of grab-ass extended trail, and they want to
> learn more, improve their skills, and have fun.
>
> ACM clinics would prevent more accidents then they would ever cause.
>
> DaBear
>
>
> Roger Kemp wrote:
>
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> >
> >Tim,
> >Honestly I have mixed emotions on having civilians doing ACM. Sure it is
> >nice to see what their military has trained for and get a taste of what
it
> >is like to be a fighter pilot for a day. The problems have come from the
> >type aircraft chosen to present this taste in. It has brought a mirade of
> >headaches to the T-34 and T-6 communities. I really do not want to see
that
> >come to our community.
> >As for Acro being no worse on the aircraft than ACM, I would have to
> >disagree. In the fighter training community, acro is a stepping stone to
> >something more. In acro, it is you and the airplane flying a set routine.
> >Your attention is on what your aircraft is doing (airspeed and attitudes
> >flown). ACM is a choreography balancing what your aircraft is doing, what
> >your adversary is doing, thinking far enough ahead of your jet to project
> >where you want to be in the airspace, the corner you are trying to paint
> >your opponent into, and oh by the way look inside for a snap shot of
what
> >your instruments say your plane is doing. If you are pulling the fight
and
> >not pushing, your trying to force your adversary to make a mistake so
> >he/she overshoots giving you an in (if you are defensive that is). The
> >entire time you are dividing you attention between your plane, your
energy
> >state that is, and your opponent. Flying is second nature. The majority
of
> >your attention is employing your jet as a weapons system to kill this
> >bandit, go to his bar and drink his beer. This is all taking place in a
1
> >v 1, it gets even more dicey in 2v2, 4v4, or you v many.
> >The whole process of minting a steely eyed young fighter pilot is a
> >building block process that takes place over a 18 mo. course of training.
> >He/She exits the B course are FNG wing man who is trying finish gulping
> >down the fire hose they stuck in it's mouth for the last 18 mo. The
> >building process is only beginning. It is not complete until he/she
leaves
> >the cockpit at retirement.
> >We can't take a civilian YAK/CJ driver with nothing more than a FAST card
> >and turn them into a "safe" fighter pilot in weekend. We are asking for
> >major trouble if we start doing that. Some Bubba is going to go home
> >thinking that at the end of a 3 day ACM course he is kingkong and put
> >himself or his bud out of control turning themselves into a lawn dart. We
> >just do not need to do that in our community.
> >Tactical flying is one thing but full up ACM needs to stay where it is
> >now... the military where we train to that level of proficiency.
> >Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own
dime
> >and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative. But do not do it
in
> >the name of the PA and neither should the RPA try to legislate what two
> >consenting adults do on their on time. The problem will still come if
the
> >intrepid YAK drivers (CJ for that matter) go an shuck a wing. Now we have
> >the undivided attention of the FAA in a light we do not want.
> >That is my 2 cents. Now do I fly ACM with some of my squadron
> >buds...truthfully yes. The ROE is so ingrained that the Knock It Off call
> >is almost automatic when a DLO(desired learning objective) is met.
> >Learning to fly tactical is allot of fun and does take energy management
of
> >our aircraft to another level. It truly does introduce the 3 dimension to
> >flying, the vertical.
> >Doc
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
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: Commercial and Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
pilling.k(at)btconnect.co wrote:
> I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms....this current thread has wiped so much
> familiar and comforting 'noise' off the List.
>
> Whatever's happened to MMO, Yak-vs-CJ, Male-vs-Female, Nomex-vs-Cotton
> Flightsuits and all those other 'burning' issues that were the daily
> list-fodder...........Hell I cant even remember where we left
> off.........sic
Kevin,
This is what adults sound like discussing an issue!! Kind of refreshing. Its kind
of like wearing noise cancelling headsets...you get to hear what is important
instead of all the other crap that just gets in the way.
Tim
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23660#23660
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: Commercial and Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
My original (two years ago) flight doc flew B-17s in WWII. I think his deal is
if you can see or hear better than him...you are good to go!
I have switched recently and actually do not mind the thoroughness of a good physical...as
Doc said..they may find something that will kill me!
Now, when I get my annual military flight physical and the doc dims the lights,
lights a candle, puts on some Barry White, and gets out the latex glove, I know
I am getting a more "probing" check under the hood.
Three physicals a year...I hope if I had something, they would find during one
of those!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23662#23662
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: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Also throw in age differences (read - reaction time), and physical
condition. Having a current 3rd, 2nd or 1st class medical doesn't make you
physically fit to participate.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> Tim,
> Honestly I have mixed emotions on having civilians doing ACM. Sure it is
> nice to see what their military has trained for and get a taste of what it
> is like to be a fighter pilot for a day. The problems have come from the
> type aircraft chosen to present this taste in. It has brought a mirade of
> headaches to the T-34 and T-6 communities. I really do not want to see
> that
> come to our community.
> As for Acro being no worse on the aircraft than ACM, I would have to
> disagree. In the fighter training community, acro is a stepping stone to
> something more. In acro, it is you and the airplane flying a set routine.
> Your attention is on what your aircraft is doing (airspeed and attitudes
> flown). ACM is a choreography balancing what your aircraft is doing, what
> your adversary is doing, thinking far enough ahead of your jet to project
> where you want to be in the airspace, the corner you are trying to paint
> your opponent into, and oh by the way look inside for a snap shot of what
> your instruments say your plane is doing. If you are pulling the fight and
> not pushing, your trying to force your adversary to make a mistake so
> he/she overshoots giving you an in (if you are defensive that is). The
> entire time you are dividing you attention between your plane, your energy
> state that is, and your opponent. Flying is second nature. The majority of
> your attention is employing your jet as a weapons system to kill this
> bandit, go to his bar and drink his beer. This is all taking place in a 1
> v 1, it gets even more dicey in 2v2, 4v4, or you v many.
> The whole process of minting a steely eyed young fighter pilot is a
> building block process that takes place over a 18 mo. course of training.
> He/She exits the B course are FNG wing man who is trying finish gulping
> down the fire hose they stuck in it's mouth for the last 18 mo. The
> building process is only beginning. It is not complete until he/she leaves
> the cockpit at retirement.
> We can't take a civilian YAK/CJ driver with nothing more than a FAST card
> and turn them into a "safe" fighter pilot in weekend. We are asking for
> major trouble if we start doing that. Some Bubba is going to go home
> thinking that at the end of a 3 day ACM course he is kingkong and put
> himself or his bud out of control turning themselves into a lawn dart. We
> just do not need to do that in our community.
> Tactical flying is one thing but full up ACM needs to stay where it is
> now... the military where we train to that level of proficiency.
> Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own
> dime
> and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative. But do not do it in
> the name of the PA and neither should the RPA try to legislate what two
> consenting adults do on their on time. The problem will still come if the
> intrepid YAK drivers (CJ for that matter) go an shuck a wing. Now we have
> the undivided attention of the FAA in a light we do not want.
> That is my 2 cents. Now do I fly ACM with some of my squadron
> buds...truthfully yes. The ROE is so ingrained that the Knock It Off call
> is almost automatic when a DLO(desired learning objective) is met.
> Learning to fly tactical is allot of fun and does take energy management
> of
> our aircraft to another level. It truly does introduce the 3 dimension to
> flying, the vertical.
> Doc
>
>
>
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: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Michael Bolton" <mjbjhf@charter.net>
So true Dennis. I am 41 and fit as a fiddle. But still went night night
during the last of six fights during a Air Combat USA flight. My advice is
to only participate in these activities with a current proffessional in the
other seat. And I found these guys really good.
Michael "Mighty " Bolton
"If it doesn't sound round, WHY LOOK?"
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> Also throw in age differences (read - reaction time), and physical
> condition. Having a current 3rd, 2nd or 1st class medical doesn't make
> you physically fit to participate.
> Dennis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:55 PM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>>
>> Tim,
>> Honestly I have mixed emotions on having civilians doing ACM. Sure it is
>> nice to see what their military has trained for and get a taste of what
>> it
>> is like to be a fighter pilot for a day. The problems have come from the
>> type aircraft chosen to present this taste in. It has brought a mirade of
>> headaches to the T-34 and T-6 communities. I really do not want to see
>> that
>> come to our community.
>> As for Acro being no worse on the aircraft than ACM, I would have to
>> disagree. In the fighter training community, acro is a stepping stone to
>> something more. In acro, it is you and the airplane flying a set routine.
>> Your attention is on what your aircraft is doing (airspeed and attitudes
>> flown). ACM is a choreography balancing what your aircraft is doing, what
>> your adversary is doing, thinking far enough ahead of your jet to project
>> where you want to be in the airspace, the corner you are trying to paint
>> your opponent into, and oh by the way look inside for a snap shot of
>> what
>> your instruments say your plane is doing. If you are pulling the fight
>> and
>> not pushing, your trying to force your adversary to make a mistake so
>> he/she overshoots giving you an in (if you are defensive that is). The
>> entire time you are dividing you attention between your plane, your
>> energy
>> state that is, and your opponent. Flying is second nature. The majority
>> of
>> your attention is employing your jet as a weapons system to kill this
>> bandit, go to his bar and drink his beer. This is all taking place in a
>> 1
>> v 1, it gets even more dicey in 2v2, 4v4, or you v many.
>> The whole process of minting a steely eyed young fighter pilot is a
>> building block process that takes place over a 18 mo. course of training.
>> He/She exits the B course are FNG wing man who is trying finish gulping
>> down the fire hose they stuck in it's mouth for the last 18 mo. The
>> building process is only beginning. It is not complete until he/she
>> leaves
>> the cockpit at retirement.
>> We can't take a civilian YAK/CJ driver with nothing more than a FAST card
>> and turn them into a "safe" fighter pilot in weekend. We are asking for
>> major trouble if we start doing that. Some Bubba is going to go home
>> thinking that at the end of a 3 day ACM course he is kingkong and put
>> himself or his bud out of control turning themselves into a lawn dart. We
>> just do not need to do that in our community.
>> Tactical flying is one thing but full up ACM needs to stay where it is
>> now... the military where we train to that level of proficiency.
>> Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own
>> dime
>> and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative. But do not do it
>> in
>> the name of the PA and neither should the RPA try to legislate what two
>> consenting adults do on their on time. The problem will still come if
>> the
>> intrepid YAK drivers (CJ for that matter) go an shuck a wing. Now we have
>> the undivided attention of the FAA in a light we do not want.
>> That is my 2 cents. Now do I fly ACM with some of my squadron
>> buds...truthfully yes. The ROE is so ingrained that the Knock It Off call
>> is almost automatic when a DLO(desired learning objective) is met.
>> Learning to fly tactical is allot of fun and does take energy management
>> of
>> our aircraft to another level. It truly does introduce the 3 dimension to
>> flying, the vertical.
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
>
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: | Interesting Photo... |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
Just found this on latest issue of Avweb...
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/potw_1212.jpg
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23674#23674
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
There is already two bodies that 'regulate' aerobatics IAC and CIVA. I
should make the point that competition aerobatics and airshow flying are as
different as night and day. The safety record at IAC events is remarkable.
In fact I think the safety record of IAC events is to this day spotless. In
fact I think that makes it better that RPA :)))) notice the smiley !
Airshow flying is about going beyond. We All know that the guy who
helicopters his Pitts 10 ft above the ground is walking a very thin line. A
reduction in HP, even slightly, can be disastrous. Aerobatics has rules in
place and these rules, pretty much all of them are obvious and everyone
accepts them because they make so much sense.
I agree that airshow pilots take, what for me are unacceptable risk but hey
all to there own. I am happy competing against my last score in a
competition.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Tim Gagnon wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
>
> I find it odd that while ACM is discouraged, low level aerobatics is
promoted and people pay money to see it!! I have seen two fatal accidents
while low level aerobatics were being peformed. In fact, I was the second to
the scene (the first was the dead pilot) and then I had to assist the womans
husband!
>
> I dont go to too many airshows any more because of this.
I understand. I like participatory sports, not spectator sports. Acro is
something you do, not something you watch (unless you are trying to
understand a maneuver).
> I honestly dont see the fun in seeing someone pull out from a loop 4
inches above the ground. I will agree that it takes extraordinary talent to
do what they do...but it just does not make sense to me. The crowd does not
truly understand the training and risk involved, they just want to see
someone pushing the edge.
You are certainly right on that.
> What is the RPA's stand on this?
Well, it should be that it is legal and therefore RPA has no comment.
The desire to tell others what they can and cannot do "for their own good"
is a powerful one. Still, people should be allowed to do what they want to
do even if they risk their own life in the process.
RPA should stay out of this completely and provide services to its
membership to help them be as safe as they can be. RPA should not be in the
habit of telling people how they should fly their airplane or attempting to
enforce same.
--
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: | STUNT PILOT DIES DURING PRACTICE |
Hans, I could not agree more. In fact I heard that term on CNN the other
morning regarding a guy who crashed in CA in a lancair. I wrote to them that
I was pleased that the NTSB no longer had to visit the scene of the accident
as remarkable they had determined the cause of the accident. I further
thanked them for saving me tax dollars.
Gus
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hans Oortman
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: STUNT PILOT DIES DURING PRACTICE
Damm!
I hate the word "stunt pilot", it gives the impression that he was doing
something irresponsible and we all know he wasn't, he was practicing
aerobatics...it makes a difference..
Hans
Just a Yak pilot from Holland
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
viperdoc@mindspring.com
Sent: woensdag 22 maart 2006 15:52
Subject: Yak-List: STUNT PILOT DIES DURING PRACTICE
--> Yak-List message posted by: viperdoc@mindspring.com This Story has been
sent to you by : viperdoc@mindspring.com
STUNT PILOT DIES DURING PRACTICEAfter spending a morning rehearsing dramatic
air show maneuvers, stunt pilot Nick Nilmeyer was killed Monday while
attempting to land a single-seat plane in a private airfield near
Greenfield.
The full article will be available on the Web for a limited time:
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/local/14157834.htm
<http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/local/14157834.htm>
(c) 2006 Monterey County Herald and wire service sources. All Rights
Reserved.
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page Section1 {size: 21.0cm 842.0pt; margin: 70.9pt 3.0cm 70.9pt 3.0cm; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
P.MsoEnvelopeAddress {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 144pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoEnvelopeAddress {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 144pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoEnvelopeAddress {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 144pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
P.MsoAutoSig {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoAutoSig {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoAutoSig {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
P {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0cm; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New
Roman"
}
PRE {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"
}
SPAN.EmailStijl20 {
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Hans, I could not agree more. In fact I heard that term on
CNN the other morning regarding a guy who crashed in CA in a lancair. I wrote to
them that I was pleased that the NTSB no longer had to visit the scene of the
accident as remarkable they had determined the cause of the accident. I further
thanked them for saving me tax dollars.
<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 Hans
Oortman
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:19 AM
yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Yak-List: STUNT PILOT DIES
DURING PRACTICE
<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Damm!
<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I hate the word
"stunt pilot", it gives the impression that he was doing something
irresponsible and we all know he wasn't, he was practicing aerobatics...it makes
a difference..
<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Hans
<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Just a Yak pilot from
Holland
<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">-----Original
Message-----
From:
owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] <SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On Behalf Of
viperdoc@mindspring.com
<SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent: woensdag 22 maart 2006
15:52
YAK-List@matronics.com
<SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject: Yak-List: STUNT PILOT DIES
DURING PRACTICE
<FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
<FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>-- Yak-List message posted by:
viperdoc@mindspring.com This Story has been sent to you by :
viperdoc@mindspring.com
STUNT PILOT DIES DURING PRACTICEAfter spending a morning rehearsing dramatic air
show maneuvers, stunt pilot Nick Nilmeyer was killed Monday while attempting
to land a single-seat plane in a private airfield near Greenfield.
The full article will be available on the Web for a limited time:
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/local/14157834.htm
<FONT face
="Courier New" size=2>(c) 2006 Monterey County Herald and wire service sources.
All Rights Reserved.
<FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
<SPAN span <
="============================================"
Navigator?Yak-List="========================-Matt" www.matronics.com http: and
Photoshare, Navigator>
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: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
DaBear wrote:
> their aircraft could break. Heck, if they are doing airshows, or even
> just practicing low level and mess something up, they could over G Their
> aircraft multiple times and cause failure.
One good thing about our Eastern Bloc aircraft: they design to a greater
load margin than do US designers. If the structure is designed to yield
at 12G and you spec it at 6G, even if you go over a little you still
have a much greater safety margin than if you do the same to an aircraft
designed to yield at 9G with a design load factor of 6G. Frankly I am
going to feel safer in a CJ6A or Yak-52 of unknown background than I am
a T-34 or SNJ of unknown background. (My opinion. YMMV.)
> ACM clinics would prevent more accidents then they would ever cause.
Now, while I agree with you philosophically, I don't think you can make
the above statement with any degree of confidence. We just don't know
because we just don't have enough data. For instance, most people
wouldn't even try to play fighter jock. Put them through a class and
they might feel more qualified to go out and try it on their own. In
that case instruction would make an accident more likely.
OTOH, proper training will reduce the incidence of stupid errors and
reduce the error rate over that of untrained people attempting the same
thing. This would likely reduce the accident rate.
So you have competing results from the same action because the initial
conditions change.
So what does this mean for RPA? It means that we can argue about the
number of angels dancing on the head of a pin forever since there is no
hard data from which to make a reasoned decision. It means that anything
we decide is pure, unsupported, meaningless supposition.
Now the question is, what do we *DO*? Frankly, you guys know where I
come from. I believe that it is the right and responsibility of the
PILOT to determine how best to operate his/her aircraft. To that end I
believe that members of RPA who have skill in an area; be that ACM,
acro, form, maintenance, systems, or whatever; share that experience in
a fashion that members interested in a particular activity can make
decisions based on a better understanding of that activity. I think
these members should learn and then practice under the watchful eye of
the people with skill and then solicit the input of these people,
including accepting, "You know what Bob? I don't think you are really
getting this. You probably ought to do something else with your airplane."
But in the end, it is the PILOT and not RPA who makes the decision.
(But, boy oh boy, do some people want other people to make their
decisions for them. <sigh>)
--
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 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: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
DaBear wrote:
> So teach people what rolling G is, the consequences, and how to do ACM
> without rolling G. Sorry Brian, but people (qualified and not yet
> instructed) are doing it today. Hiding behind the illusion that lack of
> ACM training and clinics will prevent someone from doing ACM is in the
> same vein of if we outlaw guns, we will not have any gun crime.
Yo! Bear! Who do you think you are talking to here? You are talking to
the resident extreme libertarian who thinks we should be able to do what
we want to do, damn the torpedoes. I would *never* advocate legislating
against any activity (so long as its practice only affects the person
practicing it). I was just commenting on a possible reason why people
playing fighter jock might be more likely to break their airplanes than
people doing straight-ahead acro.
I -*{AGREE}*- with you. Long live instruction in the things we want to
do! And long live the good sense to do it safely (or not do it as the
case may be).
--
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 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: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
Our community is still young. It is growing rapidly both in numbers and in
experience level. We are far from my first KOSH (1998) when there was only 3
Yaks / CJ flying in the Big show. The level of professionalism and knowledge
has done leaps and bounds and continues to grow exponentially. It is only
normal for the members of our community to seek a higher level of knowledge
and skills. Heck, I too want to improve my flying abilities. I too am
interested in both ACM and / or Aerobatic. The question is at what cost.
Agreed, having trained pilots flying their airplanes will not hurt our
airplanes as much as the "thrill" rides sold by certain vendors, but still
the level of fatigue imposed on our airplanes increases during ACM (even if
compared to Acro).
So, what should the RPA do? Is it better for your association to turn a
blind eye and leave its members on heir own to learn by trial and error? Is
it better to come up with a training program and get every interested member
trained? What is the responsibility of the RPA? Lets face it, both low level
acro and ACM are high risk activities. Acro is already legislated via the
FAA, IAC and ICAS but ACM is not. Is the RPA the proper venue to organize /
legislate ACM? What about liability? Are you covered to fly formation
aerobatic? After all, that IS what ACM is. Flying semi-improvised aerobatic
maneuvers in reference to another airplane.
Facts are simple, neither formation flying, aerobatic nor ACM are strictly
legislated by the FAA. Any pilot can legally go fly formation with their
SpamCan, same with acro and / or ACM (assuming they fly acro birds) and
they will remain legal. Not the best of ideas, but legal no the less. The
RPA (through FAST and FAST standards) trains its members for "airshow"
formation. RPA did not come up with the FAST standard, it simply applies it
to its operation. Should the RPA break new ground and "invent" an ACM
standard? As with FAST, this standard would most likely have an experience
level associated with training / qualification (something like: needs a Lead
patch, 100hrs Acro, 100hrs Form and advance spin training (my numbers
only)). Would this standard prevent two guys who do not meet the
requirements from learning on their own the same way FAST prevented two non
qualified guys from flying formation?... Oh wait a minute, FAST never
prevented two guys from...
At the end of the day, opening this can of worm will only cause more
headache to the RPA. ACM has already arrived, nothing we can do about it.
The RPA will be faced with a tough choice in the near future; either condone
ACM, not promote ACM or come up with a standard and go full fledge with it.
Believe it or not, you have a voice in that choice. Let your BOD know in
which direction you wnat your RPA to go. Personally, I think we should
someone else break that ice.
Dan
>From: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
>To: "'yak-list@matronics.com'" <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
>Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:54:24 -0500
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
>
>There is already two bodies that 'regulate' aerobatics IAC and CIVA. I
>should make the point that competition aerobatics and airshow flying are as
>different as night and day. The safety record at IAC events is remarkable.
>In fact I think the safety record of IAC events is to this day spotless. In
>fact I think that makes it better that RPA :)))) notice the smiley !
>
>Airshow flying is about going beyond. We All know that the guy who
>helicopters his Pitts 10 ft above the ground is walking a very thin line. A
>reduction in HP, even slightly, can be disastrous. Aerobatics has rules in
>place and these rules, pretty much all of them are obvious and everyone
>accepts them because they make so much sense.
>
>I agree that airshow pilots take, what for me are unacceptable risk but hey
>all to there own. I am happy competing against my last score in a
>competition.
>
>Gus
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
>Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:12 AM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>Tim Gagnon wrote:
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
> >
> > I find it odd that while ACM is discouraged, low level aerobatics is
>promoted and people pay money to see it!! I have seen two fatal accidents
>while low level aerobatics were being peformed. In fact, I was the second
>to
>the scene (the first was the dead pilot) and then I had to assist the
>womans
>husband!
> >
> > I dont go to too many airshows any more because of this.
>
>I understand. I like participatory sports, not spectator sports. Acro is
>something you do, not something you watch (unless you are trying to
>understand a maneuver).
>
> > I honestly dont see the fun in seeing someone pull out from a loop 4
>inches above the ground. I will agree that it takes extraordinary talent to
>do what they do...but it just does not make sense to me. The crowd does not
>truly understand the training and risk involved, they just want to see
>someone pushing the edge.
>
>You are certainly right on that.
>
> > What is the RPA's stand on this?
>
>Well, it should be that it is legal and therefore RPA has no comment.
>
>The desire to tell others what they can and cannot do "for their own good"
>is a powerful one. Still, people should be allowed to do what they want to
>do even if they risk their own life in the process.
>
>RPA should stay out of this completely and provide services to its
>membership to help them be as safe as they can be. RPA should not be in the
>habit of telling people how they should fly their airplane or attempting to
>enforce same.
>
>--
>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: Commercial and Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Roger Kemp wrote:
> Tell that to the coorperate left seater that was in my office two weeks
> ago. Found a precancerous rectal polpy with- in 1 inch of his anus on the
> finger waive. It was removed the following Monday. He also was having
> premature atrial contractions on his EKG that were caused by excess coffee
> consumption. Left unchecked it could have lead to proxsymal atrial
> tachycardia which carries a risk of syncopy. He was worked into the
> Cardiologist office the following Tuesday for farther workup.
Right, because these guys had their prostate examined and had an ECG.
But how many pilots going in for their second- or third-class aviation
flight physical actually have that done? If I go to you I would not be
surprised if you did it and I would be glad you did, but most AMEs
don't. They aren't required and the procedures cost time and money anyway.
> (slim and inshape). Could have easily ignored the fact that he had not had
> a complete exam for two years from his family MD. This was his first visit
> to my office. He had had a colonoscopy 2 years before that was negative, so
> according to the GI guys he was good for 5 years.
> Granted some IME's are not the same, nor are some CF I's either. You get
> what you ask for. Tell your IME you have not had a complete physical by
> your family MD in the past 2-3 years and/or he has never done a prostate
> exam or rectal exam and see what begrudingly happens. In my office, you
> will get a finger stuck up your but. If you say you had a normal
> colonoscopy in the last 2 years or your family doc does that annually, I
> will give you the choice to be nice unless the review of sytems was
> positive for something that really needs to be looked into.
Thank you. You have just made my point for me. The point being, the exam
tells you your status at the time of the exam. And if the FAA mandated
physical examinations to the level and frequency to really ensure that
the pilots are physically fit to fly, there would be screams of pain
from all over because of the exorbitant cost.
> Your physical
> exam is only as good as the answers you give on your review of systems part
> of the exam sheet. It is a subjective and objective exam.
Bingo.
> The last time I checked, no one can predict the future. Your dad's coronary
> stenosis could have been found on that exam. All that it would have taken
> was a graded exercise treadmill (GXT).
That was what caught it. It was a very small irregularity in the ECG
taken during the treadmill stress-test. It was even within normal limits
and in most cases he would have been dismissed but this happened to have
been at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center and he is considered to be a
VIP so they decided on a precautionary angiogram just in case because
money is no object. That probably wouldn't have happened to most other
people.
(BTW, he had no symptoms because his life-long love of playing
basketball caused the heart to grow lots and lots of secondary paths for
blood flow to the heart muscle.)
> Which is not indicated in someone
> without complaints or a history of none insulin dependent diabetes,
> Hypertension, or symptomatic coronary arterty disease. Did your dad have
> complains of chest pain symptoms at the time of his exam?
No, none. In fact, he had played several games of basketball the day
before. He was *totally* asymptomatic.
> If he did and the
> IME ignored them then he screwed up. If he knew he was having funny chest
> symptoms but was denying them which is what 85% of heart attach victims do,
> there was nothing anyone could do. Short of doing a treadmill or the newer
> more expensive CT Directed Coronary Artery Calcium assay, the pending heart
> attach was not going to be diagnosed by a simple physical exam.
Right on bro! You just keep making my point for me.
> An EKG is
> on a snap shot of what your heart is doing at the 3 minutes it took to run
> the analysis. True some things are found on the EKG but alot is missed
> also. Does a photograph catch everything has happened in your life up to
> that point?
Nope.
> Nothing in life is guarrenteed except death. I have not met anyone that got
> out of this world alive. Sorry your dad had a heart attach,
He never did have a heart attack. Many years before he had Bell's palsy
and after many years needed a face-lift because he has no muscle tone in
the side of his face due to the paralysis. The cardiac problem was
discovered in the preop screening. My point is that it would never have
been discovered by an aviation flight physical and probably not even a
first-class flight physical.
> but it sounds like you are blaming the IME for not finding it.
No no no no no no NO! I am saying that the procedures we have to go
through for a medical certificate, which determines fly/no-fly for us,
is virtually useless to determine actual state of health over and above
alive/not-alive and sure as hell tells us nothing about our physical
status even one year down the road. The concept of the medical
certificate, i.e. is this person should be healthy enough to fly a
plane, is a good one. It is the implementation that is flawed in that a
standard third- or second-class aviation flight physical doesn't
determine anything. It tests for the wrong things because the wrong
things are easy to test for and the right things are both hard and
expensive to test for. So what do we test for?
You are on the right track -- people should really know the status of
their bodies with regard to flying. But to really do it requires much
greater participation on the part of the pilot and a lot more time,
effort, and money spent on diagnostic procedures.
Doc, your view of this is skewed by the fact that you are in the
military. A pilot in the military gets just about the best medical care
available. You really know the status of the people under your care and
you look for long-term trends. You can freely order a relatively
expensive diagnostic routine on a hunch and not worry about cost or
insurance pay-back. Those of us not in the military don't really have
that luxury. I certainly wish I did. If so, I would have you poking and
prodding me at least every year so I would know my own health status,
FAA be damned.
So lets get on to the real issue here. If I am safe to fly with 20:40
distance vision why am I not safe to be reimbursed for flying my
airplane to an airshow? You will let me perform in the airshow because I
am not being compensated but I thought the issue was one of SAFETY? The
whole point is that the existing medical examination process as dictated
by the FAA, is virtually useless to have any effect on the safety for
people to operate airplanes.
The rest is just window dressing.
--
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: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Daniel Fortin wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
>
> Our community is still young. It is growing rapidly both in numbers and
> in experience level. We are far from my first KOSH (1998) when there was
> only 3 Yaks / CJ flying in the Big show.
Yeah, Pappy, Batman, and me. Pappy led. That was a fun flight.
> The RPA (through FAST and FAST standards) trains its members
> for "airshow" formation. RPA did not come up with the FAST standard, it
> simply applies it to its operation. Should the RPA break new ground and
> "invent" an ACM standard? As with FAST, this standard would most likely
> have an experience level associated with training / qualification
> (something like: needs a Lead patch, 100hrs Acro, 100hrs Form and
> advance spin training (my numbers only)). Would this standard prevent
> two guys who do not meet the requirements from learning on their own the
> same way FAST prevented two non qualified guys from flying formation?...
> Oh wait a minute, FAST never prevented two guys from...
The hard part of training is to know when the trainee has reached a
level of competency. What is the test?
> At the end of the day, opening this can of worm will only cause more
> headache to the RPA. ACM has already arrived, nothing we can do about
> it. The RPA will be faced with a tough choice in the near future; either
> condone ACM, not promote ACM or come up with a standard and go full
> fledge with it. Believe it or not, you have a voice in that choice. Let
> your BOD know in which direction you wnat your RPA to go. Personally, I
> think we should someone else break that ice.
This is how we lose out. We worry about liability and then do nothing.
Frankly I want to be able to find people who have skills I want and then
go learn them. What I do with those skills is then up to me.
I don't think it is a tough choice at all. Let people do what they want
to do and facilitate the flow of information.
--
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: | Re: Commercial and Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Kevin,
We've mooooovvvveeeddd onnn totottttoooo riping wings off and having parts
sales for perfectly good airplanes ddddooiiiinngggg BBBBFFFMMMMM!
Doc
> [Original Message]
> From: Kevin Pilling <pilling.k@btconnect.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 3/23/2006 3:58:14 AM
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Commercial and Compensation
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Kevin Pilling" <pilling.k@btconnect.com>
>
> I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms....this current thread has wiped so much
> familiar and comforting 'noise' off the List.
>
> Whatever's happened to MMO, Yak-vs-CJ, Male-vs-Female, Nomex-vs-Cotton
> Flightsuits and all those other 'burning' issues that were the daily
> list-fodder...........Hell I cant even remember where we left
> off.........sic
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Air Combat Maneuvering. Dog fighting.
Doc
> [Original Message]
> From: Hans Oortman <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 3/23/2006 4:08:40 AM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Hans Oortman" <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
>
> Sorry to ask this stupid question: Can anybody explain to me what "ACM"
> stands for???
> It would explain a lot to me...
>
> Hans
> Dutch Yak Pilot
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] Namens DaBear
> Verzonden: donderdag 23 maart 2006 6:56
> Aan: yak-list@matronics.com
> Onderwerp: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
>
> Roger,
>
> The problem is not *if* pilots will do it. They are doing it. Sticking
> our collective heads in the sand and saying we don't support it, don't
> want people to do it, and will not train them to do it, doesn't stop
> that. Just like you, people are doing ACM in their aircraft.
>
> Your comment is valid:
>
> "Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own
dime
> and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative."
>
>
> If two people want to brief it up on their own dime ... it is their
> prerogative. Qualified? What is that? If we don't have a standard set
> of qualifications, programs, etc. Then everyone is qualified, because
> their is no agreed upon level of qualification. People flew formation
> before FAST. People fly formation without going to FAST clinics and
> getting instruction, solo "qual", and then wing/lead patches. Some do
> it safe, many are just lucky. But they do it. Not having clinics
> doesn't stop people from flying ACM, it just stops them from having the
> opportunity to learn the "standards."
>
> I agree, someone flying their Yak on a regular basis doing acro is
> different than ACM. However, I don't agree that a metal fatigue is more
> likely in ACM. Someone flying a 1985 Yak-52 or 1970 CJ6A, who has no
> idea how much time their aircraft has spent at high G levels, is doing
> acro on a regular basis. Even competing at IAC events. Eventually,
> their aircraft could break. Heck, if they are doing airshows, or even
> just practicing low level and mess something up, they could over G Their
> aircraft multiple times and cause failure.
>
> I see nothing wrong with teaching people a safe way to brief, fly (with
> safety pilots), and debrief ACM hops. It is better to teach people the
> safe way to do things, rather than ignore it. I also don't think it is
> right for people to say, don't teach it, don't condone it, RPA doesn't
> support it, and then for those same folks to go out and do it. That
> includes multiple people in all levels of our RPA organization.
>
> Some folks were lucky (and good) and were able to fly fighter jets.
> Others would like a taste of that, with some guidance from local IPs and
> people that can guide those that are new to this. It isn't that I can't
> find people to do ACM with/against. I can find many just at my local
> airport. However, what I don't have is a standards of flight profiles,
> and standards for level of ability ala FAST. So, I'm not going to go
> out and fly against people I don't know and trust just like I will not
> fly formation without knowing someones ability and that they understand
> the program.
>
> I'd much rather our community pilots go to regular ACM clinics, with
> appropriate level (ex-military) IPs, and learn to do it well, safely,
> and with rules we all understand, than to have them doing it on their
> own, without training, without good IPs in the back. No one is saying
> go to one 3-day ACM clinic and you are going to be a SH ACM pilot. But
> teaching some basic BFM 1 v 1 stuff over a series of clinics would be
> fun, valuable, and safe. Having basic level requires before moving to
> next level clinics would be great times for out community of pilots. We
> have people that have their FAST cards for multiple years, 100+ hours of
> formation including lots of grab-ass extended trail, and they want to
> learn more, improve their skills, and have fun.
>
> ACM clinics would prevent more accidents then they would ever cause.
>
> DaBear
>
>
> Roger Kemp wrote:
>
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> >
> >Tim,
> >Honestly I have mixed emotions on having civilians doing ACM. Sure it is
> >nice to see what their military has trained for and get a taste of what
it
> >is like to be a fighter pilot for a day. The problems have come from the
> >type aircraft chosen to present this taste in. It has brought a mirade of
> >headaches to the T-34 and T-6 communities. I really do not want to see
that
> >come to our community.
> >As for Acro being no worse on the aircraft than ACM, I would have to
> >disagree. In the fighter training community, acro is a stepping stone to
> >something more. In acro, it is you and the airplane flying a set routine.
> >Your attention is on what your aircraft is doing (airspeed and attitudes
> >flown). ACM is a choreography balancing what your aircraft is doing, what
> >your adversary is doing, thinking far enough ahead of your jet to project
> >where you want to be in the airspace, the corner you are trying to paint
> >your opponent into, and oh by the way look inside for a snap shot of
what
> >your instruments say your plane is doing. If you are pulling the fight
and
> >not pushing, your trying to force your adversary to make a mistake so
> >he/she overshoots giving you an in (if you are defensive that is). The
> >entire time you are dividing you attention between your plane, your
energy
> >state that is, and your opponent. Flying is second nature. The majority
of
> >your attention is employing your jet as a weapons system to kill this
> >bandit, go to his bar and drink his beer. This is all taking place in a
1
> >v 1, it gets even more dicey in 2v2, 4v4, or you v many.
> >The whole process of minting a steely eyed young fighter pilot is a
> >building block process that takes place over a 18 mo. course of training.
> >He/She exits the B course are FNG wing man who is trying finish gulping
> >down the fire hose they stuck in it's mouth for the last 18 mo. The
> >building process is only beginning. It is not complete until he/she
leaves
> >the cockpit at retirement.
> >We can't take a civilian YAK/CJ driver with nothing more than a FAST card
> >and turn them into a "safe" fighter pilot in weekend. We are asking for
> >major trouble if we start doing that. Some Bubba is going to go home
> >thinking that at the end of a 3 day ACM course he is kingkong and put
> >himself or his bud out of control turning themselves into a lawn dart. We
> >just do not need to do that in our community.
> >Tactical flying is one thing but full up ACM needs to stay where it is
> >now... the military where we train to that level of proficiency.
> >Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own
dime
> >and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative. But do not do it
in
> >the name of the PA and neither should the RPA try to legislate what two
> >consenting adults do on their on time. The problem will still come if
the
> >intrepid YAK drivers (CJ for that matter) go an shuck a wing. Now we have
> >the undivided attention of the FAA in a light we do not want.
> >That is my 2 cents. Now do I fly ACM with some of my squadron
> >buds...truthfully yes. The ROE is so ingrained that the Knock It Off call
> >is almost automatic when a DLO(desired learning objective) is met.
> >Learning to fly tactical is allot of fun and does take energy management
of
> >our aircraft to another level. It truly does introduce the 3 dimension to
> >flying, the vertical.
> >Doc
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Thanks from across the pond!
Doc
> [Original Message]
> From: Hans Oortman <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 3/23/2006 4:35:13 AM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Hans Oortman" <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
>
> Thanks Markus, that explains a hell of a lot. I agree with Doc....
>
> Hans
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] Namens Markus Feyerabend
> Verzonden: donderdag 23 maart 2006 11:14
> Aan: yak-list@matronics.com
> Onderwerp: RE: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Markus Feyerabend <feyerabm@web.de>
>
> Hi Hans,
>
> ACM = Air Combat Maneuvers
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
> > -----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Gesendet: 23.03.06 11:10:47
> > An: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> > Betreff: RE: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Hans Oortman" <pa3arw@euronet.nl>
> >
> > Sorry to ask this stupid question: Can anybody explain to me what "ACM"
> > stands for???
> > It would explain a lot to me...
> >
> > Hans
> > Dutch Yak Pilot
> >
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] Namens DaBear
> > Verzonden: donderdag 23 maart 2006 6:56
> > Aan: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Onderwerp: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
> >
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
> >
> > Roger,
> >
> > The problem is not *if* pilots will do it. They are doing it. Sticking
> > our collective heads in the sand and saying we don't support it, don't
> > want people to do it, and will not train them to do it, doesn't stop
> > that. Just like you, people are doing ACM in their aircraft.
> >
> > Your comment is valid:
> >
> > "Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own
> dime
> > and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative."
> >
> >
> > If two people want to brief it up on their own dime ... it is their
> > prerogative. Qualified? What is that? If we don't have a standard set
> > of qualifications, programs, etc. Then everyone is qualified, because
> > their is no agreed upon level of qualification. People flew formation
> > before FAST. People fly formation without going to FAST clinics and
> > getting instruction, solo "qual", and then wing/lead patches. Some do
> > it safe, many are just lucky. But they do it. Not having clinics
> > doesn't stop people from flying ACM, it just stops them from having the
> > opportunity to learn the "standards."
> >
> > I agree, someone flying their Yak on a regular basis doing acro is
> > different than ACM. However, I don't agree that a metal fatigue is more
> > likely in ACM. Someone flying a 1985 Yak-52 or 1970 CJ6A, who has no
> > idea how much time their aircraft has spent at high G levels, is doing
> > acro on a regular basis. Even competing at IAC events. Eventually,
> > their aircraft could break. Heck, if they are doing airshows, or even
> > just practicing low level and mess something up, they could over G Their
> > aircraft multiple times and cause failure.
> >
> > I see nothing wrong with teaching people a safe way to brief, fly (with
> > safety pilots), and debrief ACM hops. It is better to teach people the
> > safe way to do things, rather than ignore it. I also don't think it is
> > right for people to say, don't teach it, don't condone it, RPA doesn't
> > support it, and then for those same folks to go out and do it. That
> > includes multiple people in all levels of our RPA organization.
> >
> > Some folks were lucky (and good) and were able to fly fighter jets.
> > Others would like a taste of that, with some guidance from local IPs and
> > people that can guide those that are new to this. It isn't that I can't
> > find people to do ACM with/against. I can find many just at my local
> > airport. However, what I don't have is a standards of flight profiles,
> > and standards for level of ability ala FAST. So, I'm not going to go
> > out and fly against people I don't know and trust just like I will not
> > fly formation without knowing someones ability and that they understand
> > the program.
> >
> > I'd much rather our community pilots go to regular ACM clinics, with
> > appropriate level (ex-military) IPs, and learn to do it well, safely,
> > and with rules we all understand, than to have them doing it on their
> > own, without training, without good IPs in the back. No one is saying
> > go to one 3-day ACM clinic and you are going to be a SH ACM pilot. But
> > teaching some basic BFM 1 v 1 stuff over a series of clinics would be
> > fun, valuable, and safe. Having basic level requires before moving to
> > next level clinics would be great times for out community of pilots. We
> > have people that have their FAST cards for multiple years, 100+ hours of
> > formation including lots of grab-ass extended trail, and they want to
> > learn more, improve their skills, and have fun.
> >
> > ACM clinics would prevent more accidents then they would ever cause.
> >
> > DaBear
> >
> >
> > Roger Kemp wrote:
> >
> > >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> > >
> > >Tim,
> > >Honestly I have mixed emotions on having civilians doing ACM. Sure it
is
> > >nice to see what their military has trained for and get a taste of what
> it
> > >is like to be a fighter pilot for a day. The problems have come from
the
> > >type aircraft chosen to present this taste in. It has brought a mirade
of
> > >headaches to the T-34 and T-6 communities. I really do not want to see
> that
> > >come to our community.
> > >As for Acro being no worse on the aircraft than ACM, I would have to
> > >disagree. In the fighter training community, acro is a stepping stone
to
> > >something more. In acro, it is you and the airplane flying a set
routine.
> > >Your attention is on what your aircraft is doing (airspeed and
attitudes
> > >flown). ACM is a choreography balancing what your aircraft is doing,
what
> > >your adversary is doing, thinking far enough ahead of your jet to
project
> > >where you want to be in the airspace, the corner you are trying to
paint
> > >your opponent into, and oh by the way look inside for a snap shot of
> what
> > >your instruments say your plane is doing. If you are pulling the fight
> and
> > >not pushing, your trying to force your adversary to make a mistake so
> > >he/she overshoots giving you an in (if you are defensive that is). The
> > >entire time you are dividing you attention between your plane, your
> energy
> > >state that is, and your opponent. Flying is second nature. The majority
> of
> > >your attention is employing your jet as a weapons system to kill this
> > >bandit, go to his bar and drink his beer. This is all taking place in
a
> 1
> > >v 1, it gets even more dicey in 2v2, 4v4, or you v many.
> > >The whole process of minting a steely eyed young fighter pilot is a
> > >building block process that takes place over a 18 mo. course of
training.
> > >He/She exits the B course are FNG wing man who is trying finish gulping
> > >down the fire hose they stuck in it's mouth for the last 18 mo. The
> > >building process is only beginning. It is not complete until he/she
> leaves
> > >the cockpit at retirement.
> > >We can't take a civilian YAK/CJ driver with nothing more than a FAST
card
> > >and turn them into a "safe" fighter pilot in weekend. We are asking for
> > >major trouble if we start doing that. Some Bubba is going to go home
> > >thinking that at the end of a 3 day ACM course he is kingkong and put
> > >himself or his bud out of control turning themselves into a lawn dart.
We
> > >just do not need to do that in our community.
> > >Tactical flying is one thing but full up ACM needs to stay where it is
> > >now... the military where we train to that level of proficiency.
> > >Now having said all that, if two guys want to brief it up on their own
> dime
> > >and are qualified to do that..it is their prerogative. But do not do it
> in
> > >the name of the PA and neither should the RPA try to legislate what two
> > >consenting adults do on their on time. The problem will still come if
> the
> > >intrepid YAK drivers (CJ for that matter) go an shuck a wing. Now we
have
> > >the undivided attention of the FAA in a light we do not want.
> > >That is my 2 cents. Now do I fly ACM with some of my squadron
> > >buds...truthfully yes. The ROE is so ingrained that the Knock It Off
call
> > >is almost automatic when a DLO(desired learning objective) is met.
> > >Learning to fly tactical is allot of fun and does take energy
management
> of
> > >our aircraft to another level. It truly does introduce the 3 dimension
to
> > >flying, the vertical.
> > >Doc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
> Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Commercial and Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Does he/she have a hand on both shoulders? If so, I'd worry!
Doc
> [Original Message]
> From: Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 3/23/2006 6:41:23 AM
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Commercial and Compensation
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
>
> My original (two years ago) flight doc flew B-17s in WWII. I think his
deal is if you can see or hear better than him...you are good to go!
>
> I have switched recently and actually do not mind the thoroughness of a
good physical...as Doc said..they may find something that will kill me!
>
> Now, when I get my annual military flight physical and the doc dims the
lights, lights a candle, puts on some Barry White, and gets out the latex
glove, I know I am getting a more "probing" check under the hood.
>
> Three physicals a year...I hope if I had something, they would find
during one of those!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23662#23662
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Commercial and Compensation |
Just a thought here on who and what we're dealing with when we put ourselves in
a grey area of legalities and run into an FAA employee who just may have gotten
up on the wrong side of bed;
To make a long story ...not quite so long, nineteen years ago I was flying as co-pilot
on a 737 at the end of a four day trip. The day was CAVU and not another
aircraft was within 150 miles as we landed in Casper, Wyo. enroute to SLC.
In those days, we made quick turn arounds. ( Land, unload baggage-passengers, reload
all, and leave within about 15 minutes.) This was a good trip and everyone
seemed in a good mood. We were having fun. I called for taxi clearance and
received it, called for takeoff (captain was flying/taxiing) and received the
OK for that too.
As we departed and were told to switch frequencies we thanked tower for the help
and they cheerily told us to "have a nice day."
When we landed in SLC our Chief Pilot was out to meet us telling us that Casper
had called him and filed a violation on us for taxiing and taking off without
a clearance. We were horrified and asked each other "Did we DO that!?" We both
concluded that we had not, and my Captain said that he would talk to the tower
Chief in CPR when he went through the next day.
The tower chief apologized to my captain and told him that we had been dealing
with a supervisor and a trainee who filed the violation against us. They were
the only personnel in the tower. Evidently the supervisor had "issues" because
he had wanted to be an airline pilot and been rejected. He also had "issues"
with female voices coming out of the cockpit. The tower chief said that he would
have thrown out the complaint but he could not because it had already been
filed. They wanted to slap us with a "minor" violation and 5 days off.
I did not want a violation on my record. Particularly one that I didn't feel we
deserved. (Lets forget others that I may have slipped through the net on in previous
years.)
I demanded the tower voice tapes and was relieved to hear us ask for and receive
all clearances...end of issue, or so I assumed. They sent another letter informing
us that the charges had been changed since their initial complaint was
proven false. Now we were accused of moving an inch before they said that we could
(in motion) in a "mother-may-I" pissing contest. We had no witnesses other
than the two accusing ATC tower people themselves. Faced with something as apparently
unjust as this, I refused to go down without at least having our day
in court and convinced my captain to go to Seattle for an NTSB hearing which
occurred a year later.
The lesson that I learned and the facts that I was reminded of is that a pilot's
license is considered a privilege and not a right. NTSB (FAA) courts admittedly
function on the premise that you are considered "guilty until proven innocent".
The NTSB judge was a good buddy of and played golf with the FAA lawyer.
The judge, after hearing our opposing views of what happened ( did we or didn't
we start to move a few seconds before being given permission?) asked me if I
know of any reasons why the FAA controller would have accused us of this if we
hadn't done it. I said yes I did. (I hate playing the gender card, even if it's
true.) The judge didn't ask me to tell him the reason, our ALPA attorney didn't
pick up on it, and I was too uncomfortable to push it thinking that surely
someone would ask. They didn't ask and we lost our only chance of being vindicated.
The prosecuting attorney said that since the tower Supervisor had nothing to gain
by unfairly violating us, and since we had something to lose (our first and
only violation) quote: "The pilots must be lying and the controllers must be
telling the truth." Of course I resented being called "a liar" by default, no
less, and turned to my Attorney." He told us "Look, I have a tennis match to
get to, the violation is minor, and you should just take it and drop it. You can't
win in a case where it's the FAA's word against yours, this is THEIR court
and not a civil court. You don't have the same rights here."
That, my friends, is the story of my first and only violation. it was a learning
experience. At least I got the opportunity to meet our accusers and to make
them go all of the way to Seattle, endure the same uncomfortable days in court
that they subjected pilots to, and hopefully ask themselves if violating their
next pilot really had enough truth to it to justify backing it up. It was rather
disgusting to watch the Supervisor, Mr. Short, slapping hands and high fiveing
his buddies over his perceived victory. It wasn't the trainees fault. He
seemed like a decent guy, just caught in the situation.
I did get some sense of vindication when I walked up behind Mr. Short (and he was
short...about 5' 7") doing his victory dance. Everyone became quiet and my
captain later told me "I just kept thinking....Don't hit him Val!". He turned
and I looked him in the eye and said "Mr. Short, up until now I have always
had the highest regard for Air Traffic Controllers. They're wonderful people
and have always done a fine job for me. You are the exception. Regardless of this
court ruling, both you and I know why you really did this to us and it's a
gross abuse of power. At this point I have no choice but to bid around Casper
Wyoming because I don't know when you're going to get up on the wrong side of
bed and decide to throw your weight around again. Your contemporaries deserve
to be represented by better men than you."
He had been sweating profusely and just kept the same silly grin and blank look
plastered on his face as he absently muttered "thank you." I don't think that
he even knew who I was, much less registered what I said.
Point being, let's fight the good fight, knowing well who we're dealing with and
what we have to work with. Let's get a regulation that we can defend in court
firmly set in place BEFORE we have to defend ourselves. Don't hope for nebulous
solutions because it's hard enough to defend even the best of your actions
in an NTSB Court. Not the same rules and rights and both the judge and the jury
can also be your accusers. This is definitely not meant to discourage you guys.
Quite the contrary. Just to give you good tools to fight the good fight.
Happy ending for me was that it was such a minor violation and happened so long
ago that I think it has long since left my record (I hope). That's just my understanding
of the law.
Fly Safe, have fun, and don't go through Casper Wyoming. At least not on Mr. Shorts
watch. That's assuming he hasn't already been pummeled into submission by
another irate Amazon. (laugh)
Fraternally, - Val
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: | [Comment]Commercial and Compensation |
Val,
There is a great line which I am sure Brian will appreciate in the current
film V is for Vendetta (which I read when it came out, great story in it's
original form)
"The people should not be scared of the government, the government should be
scared of the people".
Gus
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valkyre1
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial and Compensation
Just a thought here on who and what we're dealing with when we put ourselves
in a grey area of legalities and run into an FAA employee who just may have
gotten up on the wrong side of bed;
To make a long story ...not quite so long, nineteen years ago I was flying
as co-pilot on a 737 at the end of a four day trip. The day was CAVU and not
another aircraft was within 150 miles as we landed in Casper, Wyo. enroute
to SLC.
In those days, we made quick turn arounds. ( Land, unload
baggage-passengers, reload all, and leave within about 15 minutes.) This was
a good trip and everyone seemed in a good mood. We were having fun. I called
for taxi clearance and received it, called for takeoff (captain was
flying/taxiing) and received the OK for that too.
As we departed and were told to switch frequencies we thanked tower for the
help and they cheerily told us to "have a nice day."
When we landed in SLC our Chief Pilot was out to meet us telling us that
Casper had called him and filed a violation on us for taxiing and taking off
without a clearance. We were horrified and asked each other "Did we DO
that!?" We both concluded that we had not, and my Captain said that he would
talk to the tower Chief in CPR when he went through the next day.
The tower chief apologized to my captain and told him that we had been
dealing with a supervisor and a trainee who filed the violation against us.
They were the only personnel in the tower. Evidently the supervisor had
"issues" because he had wanted to be an airline pilot and been rejected. He
also had "issues" with female voices coming out of the cockpit. The tower
chief said that he would have thrown out the complaint but he could not
because it had already been filed. They wanted to slap us with a "minor"
violation and 5 days off.
I did not want a violation on my record. Particularly one that I didn't feel
we deserved. (Lets forget others that I may have slipped through the net on
in previous years.)
I demanded the tower voice tapes and was relieved to hear us ask for and
receive all clearances...end of issue, or so I assumed. They sent another
letter informing us that the charges had been changed since their initial
complaint was proven false. Now we were accused of moving an inch before
they said that we could (in motion) in a "mother-may-I" pissing contest. We
had no witnesses other than the two accusing ATC tower people themselves.
Faced with something as apparently unjust as this, I refused to go down
without at least having our day in court and convinced my captain to go to
Seattle for an NTSB hearing which occurred a year later.
The lesson that I learned and the facts that I was reminded of is that a
pilot's license is considered a privilege and not a right. NTSB (FAA) courts
admittedly function on the premise that you are considered "guilty until
proven innocent". The NTSB judge was a good buddy of and played golf with
the FAA lawyer. The judge, after hearing our opposing views of what happened
( did we or didn't we start to move a few seconds before being given
permission?) asked me if I know of any reasons why the FAA controller would
have accused us of this if we hadn't done it. I said yes I did. (I hate
playing the gender card, even if it's true.) The judge didn't ask me to tell
him the reason, our ALPA attorney didn't pick up on it, and I was too
uncomfortable to push it thinking that surely someone would ask. They didn't
ask and we lost our only chance of being vindicated.
The prosecuting attorney said that since the tower Supervisor had nothing to
gain by unfairly violating us, and since we had something to lose (our first
and only violation) quote: "The pilots must be lying and the controllers
must be telling the truth." Of course I resented being called "a liar" by
default, no less, and turned to my Attorney." He told us "Look, I have a
tennis match to get to, the violation is minor, and you should just take it
and drop it. You can't win in a case where it's the FAA's word against
yours, this is THEIR court and not a civil court. You don't have the same
rights here."
That, my friends, is the story of my first and only violation. it was a
learning experience. At least I got the opportunity to meet our accusers and
to make them go all of the way to Seattle, endure the same uncomfortable
days in court that they subjected pilots to, and hopefully ask themselves if
violating their next pilot really had enough truth to it to justify backing
it up. It was rather disgusting to watch the Supervisor, Mr. Short, slapping
hands and high fiveing his buddies over his perceived victory. It wasn't the
trainees fault. He seemed like a decent guy, just caught in the situation.
I did get some sense of vindication when I walked up behind Mr. Short (and
he was short...about 5' 7") doing his victory dance. Everyone became quiet
and my captain later told me "I just kept thinking....Don't hit him Val!".
He turned and I looked him in the eye and said "Mr. Short, up until now I
have always had the highest regard for Air Traffic Controllers. They're
wonderful people and have always done a fine job for me. You are the
exception. Regardless of this court ruling, both you and I know why you
really did this to us and it's a gross abuse of power. At this point I have
no choice but to bid around Casper Wyoming because I don't know when you're
going to get up on the wrong side of bed and decide to throw your weight
around again. Your contemporaries deserve to be represented by better men
than you."
He had been sweating profusely and just kept the same silly grin and blank
look plastered on his face as he absently muttered "thank you." I don't
think that he even knew who I was, much less registered what I said.
Point being, let's fight the good fight, knowing well who we're dealing with
and what we have to work with. Let's get a regulation that we can defend in
court firmly set in place BEFORE we have to defend ourselves. Don't hope for
nebulous solutions because it's hard enough to defend even the best of your
actions in an NTSB Court. Not the same rules and rights and both the judge
and the jury can also be your accusers. This is definitely not meant to
discourage you guys. Quite the contrary. Just to give you good tools to
fight the good fight.
Happy ending for me was that it was such a minor violation and happened so
long ago that I think it has long since left my record (I hope). That's just
my understanding of the law.
Fly Safe, have fun, and don't go through Casper Wyoming. At least not on Mr.
Shorts watch. That's assuming he hasn't already been pummeled into
submission by another irate Amazon. (laugh)
Fraternally, - Val
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Val,
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>There is a great line which I am sure Brian will appreciate
in the current film V is for Vendetta (which I read when it came out, great
story in it's original form)
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>
<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>"The people should not be scared of the government, the
government should be scared of the people".
<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
Valkyre1
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:03 AM
yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial and
Compensation
Just athought here on who and what we're
dealing with when we put ourselves in a grey area of legalities and run
intoan FAA employee who just may have gotten up on the wrong side of
bed;
To make a long story ...not quite so long,
nineteen years ago I was flying as co-pilot on a 737 at the end of a four day
trip. The day was CAVU and not another aircraft was within 150 miles as we
landed in Casper, Wyo. enrouteto SLC.
In those days, we made quick turn arounds. (
Land, unload baggage-passengers, reload all, and leave within about 15
minutes.) This was agood trip and everyone seemed in a good mood. We
were having fun. I called for taxi clearance and received it, called for
takeoff (captainwas flying/taxiing) and received the OK for that
too.
As we departed and were told to switch
frequencies we thanked tower for the help and they cheerily told us to "have
a
nice day."
When we landed in SLC our Chief Pilot was out to
meet us telling us that Casper had called him and filed a violation on us for
taxiing and taking off without a clearance. We were horrified and asked each
other "Did we DO that!?"We both concluded that we had not, and my
Captain said that he would talk to the tower Chief in CPR when he went through
the next day.
The tower chief apologized to my captain and told
him that we had been dealing with a supervisor and a traineewho filed
the violation against us. They were the only personnel in the tower.
Evidently the supervisor had "issues" because he had wanted to be an
airline pilot and been rejected. He also had "issues" with female voices
coming out of the cockpit. The tower chief said that he would have thrown out
the complaint but he could not because it had already been filed. They wanted
to slap us with a "minor" violation and 5 days off.
I did not want a violation on my record.
Particularly one that I didn't feel we deserved. (Lets forget others that I
may have slipped through the net on in previous years.)
I demanded the tower voice tapes and was relieved
to hear us ask for and receive all clearances...end of issue, or so I assumed.
Theysent another letter informing us that the charges had been changed
since their initial complaint was proven false. Now we wereaccused of
moving an inch before they said that we could (in motion) in a "mother-may-I"
pissing contest. We had nowitnesses other than the two accusing ATC
tower people themselves. Faced with something as apparently unjust as this, I
refused to go down without at least having our day in court and convinced my
captain to go to Seattle for an NTSB hearing which occurred a year
later.
The lesson that I learned and the facts that I
was reminded of is that a pilot's license is considered a privilege and not a
right. NTSB (FAA) courts admittedly function on the premise that you are
considered "guilty until proven innocent". The NTSB judge was a good buddy of
and played golf with the FAA lawyer. The judge, after hearing our opposing
views of what happened ( did we or didn't we start to move a few seconds
before being given permission?) asked me if I know of any reasons why the FAA
controller would have accused us of this if we hadn't done it. I said yes I
did. (I hate playing the gender card, even if it's true.) The judge didn't ask
me to tell him the reason,ourALPA<FONT face=Arial
size=2>attorney didn't pick up on it, and I was too uncomfortable to push it
thinking that surely someone would ask. They didn't ask and we lost our only
chance of being vindicated.
Theprosecuting attorney saidthat
since the tower Supervisor had nothing to gain by unfairly violating us, and
since we had something to lose (our first and only violation) quote: "The
pilots must be lying and the controllers must be telling the truth." Of course
I resented being called "a liar" by default, no less, and turned to my
Attorney." He told us "Look, I have a tennis match to get to, the
violation is minor, and you should just take it and drop it. You can't win in
a case where it's the FAA's wordagainst yours, this is THEIR court and
not a civil court. You don't have the same rights here."
That, my friends, is the story of my first and
only violation. it was a learning experience. At least I got the opportunity
to meet our accusers and to make them go all of the way to Seattle, endure the
same uncomfortable days in court that they subjected pilots to, and hopefully
ask themselves if violating their next pilot really hadenough truth to
it to justify backing it up. It was rather disgusting to watch the Supervisor,
Mr. Short, slapping hands and high fiveing his buddies over his perceived
victory. It wasn't the trainees fault. He seemed like a decent guy, just
caught in the situation.
I did get some sense of vindication when I walked
up behind Mr. Short (and he was short...about 5' 7") doing his victory
dance. Everyone became quiet and my captain later told me "I just kept
thinking....Don't hit him Val!". He turned and I looked him in the
eyeand said "Mr. Short, up until now I
have always had the highest regard for Air Traffic Controllers. They're
wonderful people and have always done a fine job for me.You are the
exception. Regardless of this court ruling, both you and I know why you really
did this to us and it's a gross abuse of power. At this point I have no choice
but to bid around Casper Wyoming because I don't know when you're going to get
up on the wrong side of bed and decide to throw your weight around
again. Your contemporaries deserve to be represented by better men than
you."
He had been sweating profusely and just kept the
same silly grin and blank look plastered on his face as he absently muttered
"thank you." I don't think that he even knew who I was, much
lessregistered what I said.
Point being, let's fight the good fight, knowing
well who we're dealing with and what we have to work with. Let's get a
regulation that we can defend in court firmly set in place BEFORE we have to
defend ourselves. Don't hope for nebulous solutions because it's hard enough
to defend even the best of your actions in an NTSB Court. Not the same rules
and rights andboth the judge and the jury can also be your
accusers.This is definitely not meant to
discourage you guys. Quite the contrary. Just to give you good tools to fight
the good fight.
Happy ending for me was that it was such a minor
violation and happened so long ago that I think it has long since left my
record (I hope). That's just my understanding of the law.
Fly Safe, have fun, and don't go through Casper
Wyoming. At least not on Mr. Shorts watch. That's assuming he hasn't already
been pummeled into submission by another irate
Amazon.(laugh)
Fraternally, -
Val
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> One good thing about our Eastern Bloc aircraft: they design to a greater
> load margin than do US designers. If the structure is designed to yield at
> 12G and you spec it at 6G, even if you go over a little you still have a
> much greater safety margin than if you do the same to an aircraft designed
> to yield at 9G with a design load factor of 6G. Frankly I am going to feel
> safer in a CJ6A or Yak-52 of unknown background than I am a T-34 or SNJ of
> unknown background. (My opinion. YMMV.)
Brian;
Where did you find that information?
It is certainly not true for the CJ6. Some years ago Joe Howse received the
CJ design limit loads from the Beijing Aeronautical Technology Research
Centre in order to convince Transport Canada that the CJ did indeed meet
aerobatic requirements.
This document deals with limit loads in various flight conditions and only
refers to design ultimate loads with the statement that the structural
safety factor is at least 1.5. This is precisely the same requirement as
Western standards (FAA Part 23).
The turning/rolling limit for the CJ is +3.6 G's, same as our 60% of limit
load.
The CJ is NO different in this area than any Western military trainer of the
1950's era. Having some experience in this area I can tell you that the CJ
structure is not overly impressive, it appears to be quite adequate but I
advise my customers to use a general limit of 4 G's. I do the same with all
old military trainers.
IMHO the T34 wing structure is far stronger BUT fatigue resistance design
was poorly handled.
Walt
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
How about this then, from the designers mouth, My SP-91s wing was tested to
60G, at 60G the wing tip only moved 80mm, when the load was removed it
returned to 0 indicating no bending took place. The Russians go overboard on
this. The fact that the Russians use 100% is well known. See the trouble is
that you can tell a Russian pilot what the G limit is but he wont believe
you. See Russian pilots see these limits as more of a... guide line.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Walter Lannon
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walter Lannon"
--> <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> One good thing about our Eastern Bloc aircraft: they design to a greater
> load margin than do US designers. If the structure is designed to yield at
> 12G and you spec it at 6G, even if you go over a little you still have a
> much greater safety margin than if you do the same to an aircraft designed
> to yield at 9G with a design load factor of 6G. Frankly I am going to feel
> safer in a CJ6A or Yak-52 of unknown background than I am a T-34 or SNJ of
> unknown background. (My opinion. YMMV.)
Brian;
Where did you find that information?
It is certainly not true for the CJ6. Some years ago Joe Howse received the
CJ design limit loads from the Beijing Aeronautical Technology Research
Centre in order to convince Transport Canada that the CJ did indeed meet
aerobatic requirements.
This document deals with limit loads in various flight conditions and only
refers to design ultimate loads with the statement that the structural
safety factor is at least 1.5. This is precisely the same requirement as
Western standards (FAA Part 23).
The turning/rolling limit for the CJ is +3.6 G's, same as our 60% of limit
load.
The CJ is NO different in this area than any Western military trainer of the
1950's era. Having some experience in this area I can tell you that the CJ
structure is not overly impressive, it appears to be quite adequate but I
advise my customers to use a general limit of 4 G's. I do the same with all
old military trainers.
IMHO the T34 wing structure is far stronger BUT fatigue resistance design
was poorly handled.
Walt
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
Ladies and Gents--
There is a simple escape from the compensation dilemma: don't take any.
You can still "exhibit" your airplane and its capabilities, just like it
says in your C of A and limitations. Buy your own gas etc just like
everyone else--the way you always did before you started flying something a
little more interesting and "exhibition" worthy. Just pretend you're still
an excited young kid thrilled to be spending all you can lay hands on to fly
a Cessna 150...
HSAT--nothing prevents friends and pax from contributing a little expense
sharing.
Jerry Painter
Wild Blue Aviation
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
Alternatively.
Say Jimbo is a comercial ticket holder who flies with John, a normal private
dude, to an airshow. Jimbo has John down as part of his support staff (John
is supposed to clean Jimbo's aircraft). Now see, Jimbo is a real nice guy
and he wants to look after John. So Jimbo arranges as part of his fee
transport and lodgings for his support staff.
John flies in the same display as Jimbo but of course John would not dream
of taking money for gas because that would just be wrong, right ;))
A creative mind excels in all situations.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Painter
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: Yak-List: compensation
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
Ladies and Gents--
There is a simple escape from the compensation dilemma: don't take any.
You can still "exhibit" your airplane and its capabilities, just like it
says in your C of A and limitations. Buy your own gas etc just like
everyone else--the way you always did before you started flying something a
little more interesting and "exhibition" worthy. Just pretend you're still
an excited young kid thrilled to be spending all you can lay hands on to fly
a Cessna 150...
HSAT--nothing prevents friends and pax from contributing a little expense
sharing.
Jerry Painter
Wild Blue Aviation
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
Ladies, Gents and Dennis--
Recently acquired a Yak-55M with automotive ignition installed. As
advertised, it starts and runs great. Sparks is sparks. Not impressed by
the way the wires enter the mag, wrapped in friction tape etc., but maybe
that can be remedied. Dennis, your website doesn't get very specific about
how the wires are supposed to be sealed at the mag. Suggestions? Pictures?
I do wonder about exposed plug porcelain out in the breeze, rain, snow etc.
Anyone ever have any cracked porcelains? Other problems? Wire/plug life?
Not usually big on shadetree engineering (no offense)--I've seen too many
simple" mods and minor maintenance faux pas lead to unexpected and sometimes
serious problems--but trying to be open-minded...Yes, I know all about A-40
s etc.
Fate is still out there hunting, donchaknow. Checksix, cloaking device
activated.
Jerry Painter
Designated Stick-in-the-Mud
Wild Blue Aviation
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Stephen Fox <jsfox@adelphia.net>
Jerry,
Not sure I'd keep the friction tape just ugly and useless. I'd remove
and put a zip tie around the wires just forward of where they enter
the mag. As far as sealing the mag, I agree with Dennis on this, no
need. The Russian wire weren't sealed at this point either. The hose
the old wires went through was a porous as a sieve. In fact a friend
who has a 52 with Russian wires had his engine hosed down, ugh. The
water collected in the ignition wires causing some rather significant
mag drops. It took him forever to disconnect all the wires drain and
dry. This wouldn't have been an issue with the auto ignition harness.
Also if you look closely at where the wires enter the mag they go in
very tightly not leaving a lot of space for moisture to migrate. And
should a bit get through and I think you'd have to be flying in a
driving rain with gills wide open engine heat would evaporate long
before it became an issue.
Just my thoughts,
Steve Fox
On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Jerry Painter wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter"
> <wild.blue@verizon.net>
>
> Ladies, Gents and Dennis--
>
>
> Recently acquired a Yak-55M with automotive ignition installed. As
> advertised, it starts and runs great. Sparks is sparks. Not
> impressed by
> the way the wires enter the mag, wrapped in friction tape etc., but
> maybe
> that can be remedied. Dennis, your website doesn't get very
> specific about
> how the wires are supposed to be sealed at the mag. Suggestions?
> Pictures?
> I do wonder about exposed plug porcelain out in the breeze, rain,
> snow etc.
> Anyone ever have any cracked porcelains? Other problems? Wire/
> plug life?
> Not usually big on shadetree engineering (no offense)--I've seen
> too many
> simple" mods and minor maintenance faux pas lead to unexpected and
> sometimes
> serious problems--but trying to be open-minded...Yes, I know all
> about A-40
> s etc.
>
>
> Fate is still out there hunting, donchaknow. Checksix, cloaking
> device
> activated.
>
>
> Jerry Painter
>
> Designated Stick-in-the-Mud
>
> Wild Blue Aviation
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
I agree that it is not needed but I did use some Silone sealer where I could
see gaps.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: ignition
--> Yak-List message posted by: Stephen Fox <jsfox@adelphia.net>
Jerry,
Not sure I'd keep the friction tape just ugly and useless. I'd remove and
put a zip tie around the wires just forward of where they enter the mag. As
far as sealing the mag, I agree with Dennis on this, no need. The Russian
wire weren't sealed at this point either. The hose the old wires went
through was a porous as a sieve. In fact a friend who has a 52 with Russian
wires had his engine hosed down, ugh. The water collected in the ignition
wires causing some rather significant mag drops. It took him forever to
disconnect all the wires drain and dry. This wouldn't have been an issue
with the auto ignition harness.
Also if you look closely at where the wires enter the mag they go in very
tightly not leaving a lot of space for moisture to migrate. And should a bit
get through and I think you'd have to be flying in a driving rain with gills
wide open engine heat would evaporate long before it became an issue.
Just my thoughts,
Steve Fox
On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Jerry Painter wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter"
> <wild.blue@verizon.net>
>
> Ladies, Gents and Dennis--
>
>
> Recently acquired a Yak-55M with automotive ignition installed. As
> advertised, it starts and runs great. Sparks is sparks. Not
> impressed by the way the wires enter the mag, wrapped in friction tape
> etc., but maybe that can be remedied. Dennis, your website doesn't
> get very specific about
> how the wires are supposed to be sealed at the mag. Suggestions?
> Pictures?
> I do wonder about exposed plug porcelain out in the breeze, rain,
> snow etc.
> Anyone ever have any cracked porcelains? Other problems? Wire/ plug
> life?
> Not usually big on shadetree engineering (no offense)--I've seen too
> many simple" mods and minor maintenance faux pas lead to unexpected
> and sometimes serious problems--but trying to be open-minded...Yes, I
> know all about A-40 s etc.
>
>
> Fate is still out there hunting, donchaknow. Checksix, cloaking
> device activated.
>
>
> Jerry Painter
>
> Designated Stick-in-the-Mud
>
> Wild Blue Aviation
>
>
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: [INFO]ACM possible issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Walter Lannon wrote:
> Where did you find that information?
To be honest, I don't remember. I *think* it was from our discussion
with Bushi Cheng at MTW and OSH but it could have come from Yakity-Yaks.
Unfortunately, again, I don't remember.
> It is certainly not true for the CJ6. Some years ago Joe Howse received
> the CJ design limit loads from the Beijing Aeronautical Technology
> Research Centre in order to convince Transport Canada that the CJ did
> indeed meet aerobatic requirements.
> This document deals with limit loads in various flight conditions and
> only refers to design ultimate loads with the statement that the
> structural safety factor is at least 1.5. This is precisely the same
> requirement as Western standards (FAA Part 23).
> The turning/rolling limit for the CJ is +3.6 G's, same as our 60% of
> limit load.
> The CJ is NO different in this area than any Western military trainer of
> the 1950's era. Having some experience in this area I can tell you that
> the CJ structure is not overly impressive, it appears to be quite
> adequate but I advise my customers to use a general limit of 4 G's. I do
> the same with all old military trainers.
> IMHO the T34 wing structure is far stronger BUT fatigue resistance
> design was poorly handled.
In that case I won't repeat the statement. Thank you for correcting my
misunderstanding.
Brian Lloyd
brian HYPHEN yak AT lloyd DOT com
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: [Comment]Commercial and Compensation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Fraser, Gus wrote:
> Val,
> There is a great line which I am sure Brian will appreciate in the
> current film V is for Vendetta (which I read when it came out, great
> story in it's original form)
>
> "The people should not be scared of the government, the government
> should be scared of the people".
Yes. Why do you think the Constitution of the United States has the
second amendment?
Val, that is a great story. Fortunately for me my "encounters" with the
FAA have gone the other way but if they hadn't, I would go down fighting
too. Good on you! And good on Bill Bainbridge and Bob Hoover. The FAA is
not notorious for turning around when they are wrong.
Here's to Mr. Short becoming the subject of retroactive birth control.
Brian Lloyd
brian HYPHEN yak AT lloyd DOT com
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: | {Humor, kinda]Sorry Brian |
Look see, Brian was at OSH for the first formation....
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: [INFO]ACM possible issues
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Walter Lannon wrote:
> Where did you find that information?
To be honest, I don't remember. I *think* it was from our discussion with
Bushi Cheng at MTW and OSH but it could have come from Yakity-Yaks.
Unfortunately, again, I don't remember.
> It is certainly not true for the CJ6. Some years ago Joe Howse
> received the CJ design limit loads from the Beijing Aeronautical
> Technology Research Centre in order to convince Transport Canada that
> the CJ did indeed meet aerobatic requirements.
> This document deals with limit loads in various flight conditions and
> only refers to design ultimate loads with the statement that the
> structural safety factor is at least 1.5. This is precisely the same
> requirement as Western standards (FAA Part 23).
> The turning/rolling limit for the CJ is +3.6 G's, same as our 60% of
> limit load.
> The CJ is NO different in this area than any Western military trainer
> of the 1950's era. Having some experience in this area I can tell you
> that the CJ structure is not overly impressive, it appears to be quite
> adequate but I advise my customers to use a general limit of 4 G's. I
> do the same with all old military trainers.
> IMHO the T34 wing structure is far stronger BUT fatigue resistance
> design was poorly handled.
In that case I won't repeat the statement. Thank you for correcting my
misunderstanding.
Brian Lloyd
brian HYPHEN yak AT lloyd DOT com
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: {Humor, kinda]Sorry Brian |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Fraser, Gus wrote:
> Look see, Brian was at OSH for the first formation....
Sure looks like me. Not enough grey hair tho'.
Oh, and I was wearing my nomex flight suit under my leather jacket just
in case.
I'm pretty sure it was just a senior moment.
BTW, http://www.matronics.com/yak18
--
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 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 |
|
SOB wrote:
>
>As far as sealing the mag, I agree with Dennis on this, no need.
>
>
Unhh, I beg to differ here, moisture anywhere near the distributor cap sparkies
is not good. Like Gus, I used silicone seal plus self-bonding tape around the
wires. Problems inside the distributor cap and rotor are often mis-attributed
to mag timing, mag coil breakdown or high voltage leaks in the harness. What
happens is that excess carbon builds up "downwind" of each individual spark contact
and timing advance is skewed. A little moisture and there are new paths
for high voltage to find it's way to ground.
Take care of the HV side of your system: points, "cigarette", rotor, distributor
cap, leads and spark plugs. Your reward will be smooth runnings, dude.
Craig Payne
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 |
|
On Mar 23, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Craig Payne wrote:
> Unhh, I beg to differ here, moisture anywhere near the distributor
> cap sparkies is not good. Like Gus, I used silicone seal plus self-
> bonding tape around the wires. Problems inside the distributor cap
> and rotor are often mis-attributed to mag timing, mag coil
> breakdown or high voltage leaks in the harness. What happens is
> that excess carbon builds up "downwind" of each individual spark
> contact and timing advance is skewed. A little moisture and there
> are new paths for high voltage to find it's way to ground.
>
> Take care of the HV side of your system: points, "cigarette",
> rotor, distributor cap, leads and spark plugs. Your reward will be
> smooth runnings, dude.
>
> Craig Payne
>
No need to beg. You have every right to differ :)
Steve
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: | Re: Commercial and Compensation |
That is no doubt absolutely true.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:40 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Commercial and Compensation
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
BitterlichMG(at)cherrypoi wrote:
> The only real difference between 2md and 3rd class medicals is with your
eyesight.? I could only get a 3rd ... changed my glasses, and POOF... got a
2nd.? Your points makes sense Tim, but the reality of the differences
between 2nd and 3rd class do not seem to.?
> Mark Bitterlich
>
> --
I have had all three and currently maintain a First Class because I have to,
to be a Captain. I have been through more stringent Third Class physicals
than some First Class. The biggest difference you will see between the
physicals is the cost!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23593#23593
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
I agree with Gus' recommendation and with Stephen analysis.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: ignition
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
>
> I agree that it is not needed but I did use some Silone sealer where I
> could
> see gaps.
>
> Gus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:21 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: ignition
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Stephen Fox <jsfox@adelphia.net>
>
> Jerry,
>
> Not sure I'd keep the friction tape just ugly and useless. I'd remove and
> put a zip tie around the wires just forward of where they enter the mag.
> As
> far as sealing the mag, I agree with Dennis on this, no need. The Russian
> wire weren't sealed at this point either. The hose the old wires went
> through was a porous as a sieve. In fact a friend who has a 52 with
> Russian
> wires had his engine hosed down, ugh. The water collected in the ignition
> wires causing some rather significant mag drops. It took him forever to
> disconnect all the wires drain and dry. This wouldn't have been an issue
> with the auto ignition harness.
> Also if you look closely at where the wires enter the mag they go in very
> tightly not leaving a lot of space for moisture to migrate. And should a
> bit
> get through and I think you'd have to be flying in a driving rain with
> gills
> wide open engine heat would evaporate long before it became an issue.
>
> Just my thoughts,
>
> Steve Fox
>
> On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Jerry Painter wrote:
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter"
>> <wild.blue@verizon.net>
>>
>> Ladies, Gents and Dennis--
>>
>>
>>
>> Recently acquired a Yak-55M with automotive ignition installed. As
>> advertised, it starts and runs great. Sparks is sparks. Not
>> impressed by the way the wires enter the mag, wrapped in friction tape
>> etc., but maybe that can be remedied. Dennis, your website doesn't
>> get very specific about
>> how the wires are supposed to be sealed at the mag. Suggestions?
>> Pictures?
>> I do wonder about exposed plug porcelain out in the breeze, rain,
>> snow etc.
>> Anyone ever have any cracked porcelains? Other problems? Wire/ plug
>> life?
>> Not usually big on shadetree engineering (no offense)--I've seen too
>> many simple" mods and minor maintenance faux pas lead to unexpected
>> and sometimes serious problems--but trying to be open-minded...Yes, I
>> know all about A-40 s etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Fate is still out there hunting, donchaknow. Checksix, cloaking
>> device activated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jerry Painter
>>
>> Designated Stick-in-the-Mud
>>
>> Wild Blue Aviation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
SOB wrote:
As far as sealing the mag, I agree with Dennis on this, no need.
Craig Payne replied:.
Unhh, I beg to differ here, moisture anywhere near the distributor cap
sparkies is not good. Like Gus, I used silicone seal plus self-bonding tape
around the wires. Problems inside the distributor cap and rotor are often
mis-attributed to mag timing, mag coil breakdown or high voltage leaks in
the harness. What happens is that excess carbon builds up "downwind" of
each individual spark contact and timing advance is skewed. A little
moisture and there are new paths for high voltage to find it's way to
ground.
Take care of the HV side of your system: points, "cigarette", rotor,
distributor cap, leads and spark plugs. Your reward will be smooth runnings,
dude.
Mark Bitterlich now adds: Although I agree with you in theory Craig, of
note is the fact that I have three aircraft with M-14's here at New Bern, NC
with this mod and none of them have used any sealer on the wire output hole
of the mag itself and have experienced absolutely no problems what-so-ever.
On the same note of "begging to differ", here are some other considerations:
1. Certain types of silicone sealer give off a corrosive gas when drying,
which spells BAD NEWS for any electrical circuit, not to mention high
voltage ones.
2. When you have a totally sealed high voltage environment, the sparking
within the divide ionizes the gases inside as well. This ionization can
sometimes promote unplanned for high voltage arcing. It is a good idea to
vent high voltage enclosures, unless you either pump out all the air, or
replace it with something like water pumped nitrogen.
Certainly, water penetration into the mag would be a disaster... but even
with that plug wire outlet on the mag left alone, water intrusion into that
area is highly unlikely given it's location and past performance, not to
mention how the wires go into the top of the cap while the rotor and all
other high voltage areas are underneath.
To each his own, but there are certainly arguments for either.
Mark Bitterlich
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 |
|
Giday, Craig. I haven't had time to dig into my mags yet...just got my Housai today
from VAM
and I'm curious what the cigarette is. I'll definitely go auto on the ignition
stuff. Thanks..
David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
C-FDWS Christavia
Fairchild 51 early construction
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Payne
To: yak-list
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:27 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: ignition
SOB wrote:
>
>As far as sealing the mag, I agree with Dennis on this, no need.
>
>
Unhh, I beg to differ here, moisture anywhere near the distributor cap sparkies
is not good. Like Gus, I used silicone seal plus self-bonding tape around the
wires. Problems inside the distributor cap and rotor are often mis-attributed
to mag timing, mag coil breakdown or high voltage leaks in the harness. What
happens is that excess carbon builds up "downwind" of each individual spark
contact and timing advance is skewed. A little moisture and there are new paths
for high voltage to find it's way to ground.
Take care of the HV side of your system: points, "cigarette", rotor, distributor
cap, leads and spark plugs. Your reward will be smooth runnings, dude.
Craig Payne
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: | ACM - A T-34 Owner's two cents |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Joe Enzminger" <panchoandlefty2002@yahoo.com>
This is my first post to this list - go easy on me. I'd like to provide a little
perspective on this issue because we (I also own a CJ-6) are PRIME candidates
for ending up in the same boat as we (I'm a T-34 owner, too) did. The bad
news is we (the Yak crowd) are actually in a worse position because the FAA's
remedy wouldn't be an AD, they simply would stop issuing Experimental/Exhibition
Airworthiness Certificates to us. For some background I'm a relatively low
time pilot (about 800 hours), aerospace engineer, T-34 Association Board Member,
and my sum knowledge of ACM comes from my experience working as a computer
programmer on an online game called "Warbirds". Not that it is worth much, but
I probably have more time applying Bob Shaw's "Fighter Combat" in a virtual
world than most.
I've read the ACM thread and you could go back and read the T-34 group's archive
from 1999 and people were making the same points:
1) Any idiot can pull the wings off an airplane
2) Metal has memory
3) Rolling G's are the culprit
4) Ban ACM and next they'll ban aerobatics
5) There are more, but I won't bore you with them...you've read them already anyway.
If you haven't go look at the T-34 group's archive.
I'll leave the primer on metal fatigue for another time (although I have learned
more about it in the past 4 years than I care to know...I wish I had paid more
attention in college). I will say that the fatigue process is at work in any
aluminum airplane. When you fly, you are using a limited resource. How you
fly determines how fast that resource gets used up. When it is gone, something
on your airplane breaks. George Braly (who lurks on this list, I think),
has done some interesting studies that indicate that ACM uses up airframe life
something like 6-10 times faster than if you just use your airplane for flying
around the patch (George will surely correct me if I've missed quoted the figure).
So the central question - should we be using airplanes for ACM? For the Yak owner
as an individual I think the answer is clear - as long as you understand that
you are using up your airplane faster than if you didn't do ACM, you've convinced
yourself that your airplane fits your mission, and you conduct yourself
in a safe manner, by all means. It's your choice - it is your life and your
airplane.
I would mention, however, that it would be a good idea to know where you stood
from a fatigue life perspective. In other words, not all Yaks and CJ's are the
same. A high time airplane is not the best for the ACM mission because there
just isn't enough data on the airframe for us to know where we stand on the
fatigue life spectrum. You wouldn't start a flight knowing you only have enough
gas to get airborne (or for that matter not knowing how much gas you have at
all!) - you also shouldn't be doing ACM without enough fatigue life to provide
a margin of safety. And since fatigue life, unlike gas, is impossible to measure
accurately, it is much better to err on the safe side.
Reading this thread, I've seen a lot of traffic about providing "safe" ACM training.
The argument is that training is a good thing and that it leaves the trainee
with the knowledge required to safely go forth and aviate. The one part
of this that I see left out in this argument is the necessity of "training" people
to make sure their airplane matches their mission. You wouldn't go train
someone to fly aerobatics in their 172 Skyhawk. Along the same lines, no "instructor"
in good conscience should train someone in ACM in an airplane that
doesn't fit the mission. Does the CJ-6 fit the mission? I won't take a position
but I would offer some things to consider when making the determination:
1) Aircraft operational history (known or unknown)
2) Airframe total time
3) Margin of safety (load limits, etc.).
4) Aircraft condition
I would suggest that if you don't know your airplane's operational history, or
if you know it's history and the story isn't good, or it is a high time airframe,
then you shouldn't be using it for ACM. I would also offer the opinion that
there isn't enough data to determine if the CJ-6 has an adequate margin of
safety for load limits, but I'm not going to force anyone to agree with me.
Just for information, the T-34 has a +6 G load limit, but some studies we have
done indicate that you get localized yielding in some high stress areas at just
above 6Gs. This means that the metal is permanently deformed and the overall
structural strength of the airplane is compromised if you exceed the load limit
by as little at 5%. Sure, the airplane will hold together if you do this
once (it is required to hold together up to 9Gs), but it is not likely to survive
too many excursions to "just above" load limit. So while the airplane has
a 1.5 safety factor, the truth of the matter is the "margin of safety" is something
much, much less. You can only count on the safety factor ONE TIME. After
that, all bets are off from an engineering perspective.
I'm a big individual rights type of guy, but the "good of the group" should also
be considered. If someone does break an airplane in ACM, it will likely ground
every airplane who's history is in question. In other words, only the guys
with new or single owner airplanes will likely be spared the misery. Not to
mention the negative impact that such an accident will have on the reputation
of the airplane and it's value. So in some ways we owners are all tied together.
When "you" fly ACM, you are actually costing "me" some money. Generally
this is true regardless, but it is something to consider when you are looking
at this issue from an Association point of view.
ACM, by definition, is a "max performance" flight condition. To "win" you have
to operate the airplane at it's limits. You are also putting the airplane in
a flight condition that is subject to buffet and vibration (which causes something
called high-cycle fatigue) and you put yourself in a position to exceed
the load limit of your airplane, which on some airplanes can cause permanent damage
to the airframe. This damage may not be apparent immediately, but it will
greatly accelerate the fatigue process and dramatically reduce the life of
your airframe.
As I write this I am realizing that I could probably write a book on this subject,
so I'll shut up now and hope I did so soon enough :). Moral of the story
is don't ignore the lesson's of history. I'd hate for us to have to deal with
this issue in a non-hypothetical way, but I will also warn that the similarities
between where we were with the T-34 7 years ago and where we are with the
CJ-6 and Yak community now are strikingly similar.
My two cents, for what it is worth.
Joe Enzminger
700YK (CJ-6)
N520HT (T-34A)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23817#23817
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ACM - A T-34 Owner's two cents |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "forrest johnson" <flushjohnson@charter.net>
This is the best info I have seen in a long time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Enzminger" <panchoandlefty2002@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:34 PM
Subject: Yak-List: ACM - A T-34 Owner's two cents
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Joe Enzminger"
> <panchoandlefty2002@yahoo.com>
>
> This is my first post to this list - go easy on me. I'd like to provide a
> little perspective on this issue because we (I also own a CJ-6) are PRIME
> candidates for ending up in the same boat as we (I'm a T-34 owner, too)
> did. The bad news is we (the Yak crowd) are actually in a worse position
> because the FAA's remedy wouldn't be an AD, they simply would stop issuing
> Experimental/Exhibition Airworthiness Certificates to us. For some
> background I'm a relatively low time pilot (about 800 hours), aerospace
> engineer, T-34 Association Board Member, and my sum knowledge of ACM comes
> from my experience working as a computer programmer on an online game
> called "Warbirds". Not that it is worth much, but I probably have more
> time applying Bob Shaw's "Fighter Combat" in a virtual world than most.
>
> I've read the ACM thread and you could go back and read the T-34 group's
> archive from 1999 and people were making the same points:
>
> 1) Any idiot can pull the wings off an airplane
> 2) Metal has memory
> 3) Rolling G's are the culprit
> 4) Ban ACM and next they'll ban aerobatics
> 5) There are more, but I won't bore you with them...you've read them
> already anyway. If you haven't go look at the T-34 group's archive.
>
> I'll leave the primer on metal fatigue for another time (although I have
> learned more about it in the past 4 years than I care to know...I wish I
> had paid more attention in college). I will say that the fatigue process
> is at work in any aluminum airplane. When you fly, you are using a
> limited resource. How you fly determines how fast that resource gets used
> up. When it is gone, something on your airplane breaks. George Braly
> (who lurks on this list, I think), has done some interesting studies that
> indicate that ACM uses up airframe life something like 6-10 times faster
> than if you just use your airplane for flying around the patch (George
> will surely correct me if I've missed quoted the figure).
>
> So the central question - should we be using airplanes for ACM? For the
> Yak owner as an individual I think the answer is clear - as long as you
> understand that you are using up your airplane faster than if you didn't
> do ACM, you've convinced yourself that your airplane fits your mission,
> and you conduct yourself in a safe manner, by all means. It's your
> choice - it is your life and your airplane.
>
> I would mention, however, that it would be a good idea to know where you
> stood from a fatigue life perspective. In other words, not all Yaks and
> CJ's are the same. A high time airplane is not the best for the ACM
> mission because there just isn't enough data on the airframe for us to
> know where we stand on the fatigue life spectrum. You wouldn't start a
> flight knowing you only have enough gas to get airborne (or for that
> matter not knowing how much gas you have at all!) - you also shouldn't be
> doing ACM without enough fatigue life to provide a margin of safety. And
> since fatigue life, unlike gas, is impossible to measure accurately, it is
> much better to err on the safe side.
>
> Reading this thread, I've seen a lot of traffic about providing "safe" ACM
> training. The argument is that training is a good thing and that it
> leaves the trainee with the knowledge required to safely go forth and
> aviate. The one part of this that I see left out in this argument is the
> necessity of "training" people to make sure their airplane matches their
> mission. You wouldn't go train someone to fly aerobatics in their 172
> Skyhawk. Along the same lines, no "instructor" in good conscience should
> train someone in ACM in an airplane that doesn't fit the mission. Does
> the CJ-6 fit the mission? I won't take a position but I would offer some
> things to consider when making the determination:
>
> 1) Aircraft operational history (known or unknown)
> 2) Airframe total time
> 3) Margin of safety (load limits, etc.).
> 4) Aircraft condition
>
> I would suggest that if you don't know your airplane's operational
> history, or if you know it's history and the story isn't good, or it is a
> high time airframe, then you shouldn't be using it for ACM. I would also
> offer the opinion that there isn't enough data to determine if the CJ-6
> has an adequate margin of safety for load limits, but I'm not going to
> force anyone to agree with me. Just for information, the T-34 has a +6 G
> load limit, but some studies we have done indicate that you get localized
> yielding in some high stress areas at just above 6Gs. This means that the
> metal is permanently deformed and the overall structural strength of the
> airplane is compromised if you exceed the load limit by as little at 5%.
> Sure, the airplane will hold together if you do this once (it is required
> to hold together up to 9Gs), but it is not likely to survive too many
> excursions to "just above" load limit. So while the airplane has a 1.5
> safety factor, the truth of the matter is th!
> e "margin of safety" is something much, much less. You can only count on
> the safety factor ONE TIME. After that, all bets are off from an
> engineering perspective.
>
> I'm a big individual rights type of guy, but the "good of the group"
> should also be considered. If someone does break an airplane in ACM, it
> will likely ground every airplane who's history is in question. In other
> words, only the guys with new or single owner airplanes will likely be
> spared the misery. Not to mention the negative impact that such an
> accident will have on the reputation of the airplane and it's value. So
> in some ways we owners are all tied together. When "you" fly ACM, you are
> actually costing "me" some money. Generally this is true regardless, but
> it is something to consider when you are looking at this issue from an
> Association point of view.
>
> ACM, by definition, is a "max performance" flight condition. To "win" you
> have to operate the airplane at it's limits. You are also putting the
> airplane in a flight condition that is subject to buffet and vibration
> (which causes something called high-cycle fatigue) and you put yourself in
> a position to exceed the load limit of your airplane, which on some
> airplanes can cause permanent damage to the airframe. This damage may not
> be apparent immediately, but it will greatly accelerate the fatigue
> process and dramatically reduce the life of your airframe.
>
> As I write this I am realizing that I could probably write a book on this
> subject, so I'll shut up now and hope I did so soon enough :). Moral of
> the story is don't ignore the lesson's of history. I'd hate for us to
> have to deal with this issue in a non-hypothetical way, but I will also
> warn that the similarities between where we were with the T-34 7 years ago
> and where we are with the CJ-6 and Yak community now are strikingly
> similar.
>
> My two cents, for what it is worth.
>
> Joe Enzminger
> 700YK (CJ-6)
> N520HT (T-34A)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23817#23817
>
>
>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ACM - A T-34 Owner's two cents |
Joe:
You are a good writer and a wise man.
I, as a fellow cj6 owner, agree com with your analysis here completely.
John Zecherle
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Commercial/ 2nd class |
I did not intend for this to get to the point it has. I am a FAST WING pilot.
Understand the problems dealing with the FAA. I guess i didn't make myself clear.
According to what has been writtin Ihave to have to have a Com/2nd to fly.
I would like to fly weather I am compensated or not. I love Tto fly! The rerequirements
prevent me from signing up. The question I have is why to be a LEAD
PILOT should have a Comm/2nd. I have over 30 yrs. flying and no need for a
comm. Over 2yrs Form, over 150hrs form , Would some one please enlighten me why
I cant get a FAST LEAD card. This requirement is stiffling the FAST orgination.
Iwill now SHUT-up and wait for the responces
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ACM - A T-34 Owner's two cents |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
Great post Joe;
Well written and to the point. Your two cents is worth a hell of a lot more
than that. This is information that all owners of CJ/Yak and other types
need to be constantly aware of.
Thank you.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Enzminger" <panchoandlefty2002@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:34 PM
Subject: Yak-List: ACM - A T-34 Owner's two cents
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Joe Enzminger"
> <panchoandlefty2002@yahoo.com>
>
> This is my first post to this list - go easy on me. I'd like to provide a
> little perspective on this issue because we (I also own a CJ-6) are PRIME
> candidates for ending up in the same boat as we (I'm a T-34 owner, too)
> did. The bad news is we (the Yak crowd) are actually in a worse position
> because the FAA's remedy wouldn't be an AD, they simply would stop issuing
> Experimental/Exhibition Airworthiness Certificates to us. For some
> background I'm a relatively low time pilot (about 800 hours), aerospace
> engineer, T-34 Association Board Member, and my sum knowledge of ACM comes
> from my experience working as a computer programmer on an online game
> called "Warbirds". Not that it is worth much, but I probably have more
> time applying Bob Shaw's "Fighter Combat" in a virtual world than most.
>
> I've read the ACM thread and you could go back and read the T-34 group's
> archive from 1999 and people were making the same points:
>
> 1) Any idiot can pull the wings off an airplane
> 2) Metal has memory
> 3) Rolling G's are the culprit
> 4) Ban ACM and next they'll ban aerobatics
> 5) There are more, but I won't bore you with them...you've read them
> already anyway. If you haven't go look at the T-34 group's archive.
>
> I'll leave the primer on metal fatigue for another time (although I have
> learned more about it in the past 4 years than I care to know...I wish I
> had paid more attention in college). I will say that the fatigue process
> is at work in any aluminum airplane. When you fly, you are using a
> limited resource. How you fly determines how fast that resource gets used
> up. When it is gone, something on your airplane breaks. George Braly
> (who lurks on this list, I think), has done some interesting studies that
> indicate that ACM uses up airframe life something like 6-10 times faster
> than if you just use your airplane for flying around the patch (George
> will surely correct me if I've missed quoted the figure).
>
> So the central question - should we be using airplanes for ACM? For the
> Yak owner as an individual I think the answer is clear - as long as you
> understand that you are using up your airplane faster than if you didn't
> do ACM, you've convinced yourself that your airplane fits your mission,
> and you conduct yourself in a safe manner, by all means. It's your
> choice - it is your life and your airplane.
>
> I would mention, however, that it would be a good idea to know where you
> stood from a fatigue life perspective. In other words, not all Yaks and
> CJ's are the same. A high time airplane is not the best for the ACM
> mission because there just isn't enough data on the airframe for us to
> know where we stand on the fatigue life spectrum. You wouldn't start a
> flight knowing you only have enough gas to get airborne (or for that
> matter not knowing how much gas you have at all!) - you also shouldn't be
> doing ACM without enough fatigue life to provide a margin of safety. And
> since fatigue life, unlike gas, is impossible to measure accurately, it is
> much better to err on the safe side.
>
> Reading this thread, I've seen a lot of traffic about providing "safe" ACM
> training. The argument is that training is a good thing and that it
> leaves the trainee with the knowledge required to safely go forth and
> aviate. The one part of this that I see left out in this argument is the
> necessity of "training" people to make sure their airplane matches their
> mission. You wouldn't go train someone to fly aerobatics in their 172
> Skyhawk. Along the same lines, no "instructor" in good conscience should
> train someone in ACM in an airplane that doesn't fit the mission. Does
> the CJ-6 fit the mission? I won't take a position but I would offer some
> things to consider when making the determination:
>
> 1) Aircraft operational history (known or unknown)
> 2) Airframe total time
> 3) Margin of safety (load limits, etc.).
> 4) Aircraft condition
>
> I would suggest that if you don't know your airplane's operational
> history, or if you know it's history and the story isn't good, or it is a
> high time airframe, then you shouldn't be using it for ACM. I would also
> offer the opinion that there isn't enough data to determine if the CJ-6
> has an adequate margin of safety for load limits, but I'm not going to
> force anyone to agree with me. Just for information, the T-34 has a +6 G
> load limit, but some studies we have done indicate that you get localized
> yielding in some high stress areas at just above 6Gs. This means that the
> metal is permanently deformed and the overall structural strength of the
> airplane is compromised if you exceed the load limit by as little at 5%.
> Sure, the airplane will hold together if you do this once (it is required
> to hold together up to 9Gs), but it is not likely to survive too many
> excursions to "just above" load limit. So while the airplane has a 1.5
> safety factor, the truth of the matter is th!
> e "margin of safety" is something much, much less. You can only count on
> the safety factor ONE TIME. After that, all bets are off from an
> engineering perspective.
>
> I'm a big individual rights type of guy, but the "good of the group"
> should also be considered. If someone does break an airplane in ACM, it
> will likely ground every airplane who's history is in question. In other
> words, only the guys with new or single owner airplanes will likely be
> spared the misery. Not to mention the negative impact that such an
> accident will have on the reputation of the airplane and it's value. So
> in some ways we owners are all tied together. When "you" fly ACM, you are
> actually costing "me" some money. Generally this is true regardless, but
> it is something to consider when you are looking at this issue from an
> Association point of view.
>
> ACM, by definition, is a "max performance" flight condition. To "win" you
> have to operate the airplane at it's limits. You are also putting the
> airplane in a flight condition that is subject to buffet and vibration
> (which causes something called high-cycle fatigue) and you put yourself in
> a position to exceed the load limit of your airplane, which on some
> airplanes can cause permanent damage to the airframe. This damage may not
> be apparent immediately, but it will greatly accelerate the fatigue
> process and dramatically reduce the life of your airframe.
>
> As I write this I am realizing that I could probably write a book on this
> subject, so I'll shut up now and hope I did so soon enough :). Moral of
> the story is don't ignore the lesson's of history. I'd hate for us to
> have to deal with this issue in a non-hypothetical way, but I will also
> warn that the similarities between where we were with the T-34 7 years ago
> and where we are with the CJ-6 and Yak community now are strikingly
> similar.
>
> My two cents, for what it is worth.
>
> Joe Enzminger
> 700YK (CJ-6)
> N520HT (T-34A)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23817#23817
>
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Commercial/ 2nd class |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
forrest johnson wrote:
> I did not intend for this to get to the point it has. I am a FAST
> WING pilot. Understand the problems dealing with the FAA. I guess i
> didn't make myself clear. According to what has been writtin Ihave to
> have to have a Com/2nd to fly. I would like to fly weather I am
> compensated or not. I love Tto fly! The rerequirements prevent me from
> signing up. The question I have is why to be a LEAD PILOT should have a
> Comm/2nd. I have over 30 yrs. flying and no need for a comm. Over 2yrs
> Form, over 150hrs form , Would some one please enlighten me why I
> cant get a FAST LEAD card. This requirement is stiffling the FAST
> orgination. Iwill now SHUT-up and wait for the responces
You can get a FAST lead card if you have the chops. You don't need a
CSEL. You don't need a FAST lead card to lead a flight unless you want
to do it in waivered airspace (during an actual air show).
The only reason you need the CSEL is if the airshow offers you some
compensation, like gas for your airplane. No CSEL, no gas -- unless you
want to risk getting cited by the FAA.
That is the whole thing in a nutshell.
Want to get trained to be a lead pilot? I would be happy to help you.
You in northern California?
--
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
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! --
|