Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:14 AM - Re: EAA FAA (A. Dennis Savarese)
2. 05:43 AM - Re: EAA FAA (bill wade)
3. 08:24 AM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
4. 07:28 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 (Roger Kemp)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bill,
Arbitrary and personal interpretation of 8130.2F is fairly common on the
part of some FSDO inspectors. However, if you were to seriously
challenge them, they most likely would have to default to the actual FAA
Order written word. The only reason an inspector is suppose to change
the wording in 8130.2F to be inserted into the OL's is specifically for
reasons of safety. NOT because he doesn't "like" or "feel" an
experimental airplane is safe. Changing the wording is usually done to
satisfy unique situations such as routes of flight into and out of your
home base airport because of proximity to Class B airspace. Or
something like that. Limiting an aircraft that has been issued an
experimental airworthiness certificate (that means the airplane is safe
for flight in U.S. airspace IAW the Regulations) to day VFR even if the
airplane is appropriately equipped for day or night VFR is ridiculous.
There is a program that is very active within the FAA and FSDO's. It
puts the onus on each and every FSDO to properly justify (if necessary)
their decisions when challenged by us civilians. The program is called
"CSI" or Customer Service Initiative. Here's a link to it in case
anyone is interested in reading it.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/
cust_service/
As everyone knows, the FAA and FSDO's primary function in life is
aviation safety. If a ludicrous decision such as the one described in
the email saying the Inspector "thinks" Warbirds are unsafe, that
Inspector is WAY outside the bounds of the regulations and the Order
governing the operation of Warbirds. Just because he thinks they are
unsafe is not justification to limit the operations to day VFR only.
There must be facts to back up his decision. And if there were facts,
the Order would be rewritten to cover it. The issue is, he has the
power and he thinks that just because he makes that decision, since he
has the power, the decision will stand unchallenged. Most of us do not
want to upset the apple cart for fear of reprisal. But these
overzealous people are not immune to being challenged. Most of us know
the Order better than some of the FSDO inspectors do. I would also
suggest asking a D.A.R. (Designated Airworthiness Inspector who is a
civilian licensed by the FAA to issue airworthiness certificates) who
issues the Special Airworthiness Certificates for Experimental
Exhibition aircraft (the DAR must be certified for that category) if he
would put day VFR in the OL's for no specific reason.
The EAA's Warbirds of America government relations people are VERY good
at quoting chapter and verse to these inspectors through their contacts
in Washington. I would not hesitate a minute to call either the EAA or
Warbirds of America and ask for their assistance with ridiculous and
unjustified restrictions to OL's. Also, do not hesitate to use the
FAA's own CSI initiative. It forces the inspector, his manager and the
FAA to justify decisions which in all cases must be in accordance with
existing regulations.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Whenever one of these issues comes up on
the list, I get really ticked off because it always comes back to "he
who has the power, makes the decisions". But what many inspectors fail
to remember is, you have the right to challenge their decision by using
the FAA's own policy; the CSI initiative.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: bill wade
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: EAA FAA
Doc I think Dennis answered your question about speed restrictions,
Here in Albany we have we have an FAA guy that doesn't feel warbirds are
safe and both of my airplanes are Day VFR only period. He actually
called me in after receiving my IAR from GESOCO and rewrote the
operating limitations removing the if aircraft is equipped night and IFR
ops are permitted. Does anyone know the FAA definition of densely
populated? I've been told its two guys standing next to a shit house. I
know this because I got violated for flying low over the Adirondack
Mountains six years ago doing a flyby for a funeral I was thinking 500'
sparsly populated and treetop unpopulated (wrong), well flyby's and acro
near Speculator. My advise read the regs before talking to the Fed's
then answer with I'll have to see if the airplane flew that day and if
so who was flying it. GOOD LUCK
Bill Wade
Roger Kemp <viperdoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
Bill,
Did you mean 250 knots below 10000 and 600 nm for the heavy iron and
300 nm for us light weight trainers?
Have heard the restrictions were going to go away but have not seen
anything to that effect written anywhere.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:46 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: EAA FAA
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA
Warbirds director. Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating
limitations for Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last
year about removing the densely populated restriction and the 300 kt
proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
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 |
|
Thank You So Much Dennis
"A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com> wrote: Bill,
Arbitrary and personal interpretation of 8130.2F is fairly common on the part
of some FSDO inspectors. However, if you were to seriously challenge them, they
most likely would have to default to the actual FAA Order written word. The
only reason an inspector is suppose to change the wording in 8130.2F to be
inserted into the OL's is specifically for reasons of safety. NOT because he
doesn't "like" or "feel" an experimental airplane is safe. Changing the wording
is usually done to satisfy unique situations such as routes of flight into
and out of your home base airport because of proximity to Class B airspace. Or
something like that. Limiting an aircraft that has been issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate (that means the airplane is safe for flight in U.S.
airspace IAW the Regulations) to day VFR even if the airplane is appropriately
equipped for day or night VFR is ridiculous.
There is a program that is very active within the FAA and FSDO's. It puts the
onus on each and every FSDO to properly justify (if necessary) their decisions
when challenged by us civilians. The program is called "CSI" or Customer Service
Initiative. Here's a link to it in case anyone is interested in reading
it.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/cust_service/
As everyone knows, the FAA and FSDO's primary function in life is aviation safety.
If a ludicrous decision such as the one described in the email saying the
Inspector "thinks" Warbirds are unsafe, that Inspector is WAY outside the bounds
of the regulations and the Order governing the operation of Warbirds.
Just because he thinks they are unsafe is not justification to limit the operations
to day VFR only. There must be facts to back up his decision. And if there
were facts, the Order would be rewritten to cover it. The issue is, he has
the power and he thinks that just because he makes that decision, since he
has the power, the decision will stand unchallenged. Most of us do not want to
upset the apple cart for fear of reprisal. But these overzealous people are
not immune to being challenged. Most of us know the Order better than some of
the FSDO inspectors do. I would also suggest asking a D.A.R. (Designated Airworthiness
Inspector who is a civilian licensed by
the FAA to issue airworthiness certificates) who issues the Special Airworthiness
Certificates for Experimental Exhibition aircraft (the DAR must be certified
for that category) if he would put day VFR in the OL's for no specific reason.
The EAA's Warbirds of America government relations people are VERY good at quoting
chapter and verse to these inspectors through their contacts in Washington.
I would not hesitate a minute to call either the EAA or Warbirds of America
and ask for their assistance with ridiculous and unjustified restrictions to
OL's. Also, do not hesitate to use the FAA's own CSI initiative. It forces
the inspector, his manager and the FAA to justify decisions which in all cases
must be in accordance with existing regulations.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Whenever one of these issues comes up on the list,
I get really ticked off because it always comes back to "he who has the power,
makes the decisions". But what many inspectors fail to remember is, you
have the right to challenge their decision by using the FAA's own policy; the
CSI initiative.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: bill wade
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: EAA FAA
Doc I think Dennis answered your question about speed restrictions, Here in Albany
we have we have an FAA guy that doesn't feel warbirds are safe and both
of my airplanes are Day VFR only period. He actually called me in after receiving
my IAR from GESOCO and rewrote the operating limitations removing the if aircraft
is equipped night and IFR ops are permitted. Does anyone know the FAA
definition of densely populated? I've been told its two guys standing next to
a shit house. I know this because I got violated for flying low over the Adirondack
Mountains six years ago doing a flyby for a funeral I was thinking 500'
sparsly populated and treetop unpopulated (wrong), well flyby's and acro near
Speculator. My advise read the regs before talking to the Fed's then answer with
I'll have to see if the airplane flew that day and if so who was flying it.
GOOD LUCK
Bill Wade
Roger Kemp <viperdoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
@font-face { font-family: Helvetica; } @font-face { font-family: Cambria
Math; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @font-face { font-family:
Tahoma; } @font-face { font-family: Consolas; } @page Section1 {size:
8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE:
12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } LI.MsoNormal
{ FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
} DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY:
"Times New Roman","serif" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION:
underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION:
underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } A:visited { COLOR: purple;
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{ COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 }
PRE { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt;
FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted
Char" } SPAN.apple-style-span { mso-style-name: apple-style-span
} SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar { FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; mso-style-priority: 99;
mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted"; mso-style-name: "HTML Preformatted Char"
} SPAN.EmailStyle20 { COLOR: black; mso-style-type: personal-reply }
.MsoChpDefault { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only } DIV.Section1
{ page: Section1 } Bill,
Did you mean 250 knots below 10000 and 600 nm for the heavy iron and 300 nm for
us light weight trainers?
Have heard the restrictions were going to go away but have not seen anything
to that effect written anywhere.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: EAA FAA
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA Warbirds director.
Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating limitations for
Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last year about removing the
densely populated restriction and the 300 kt proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
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: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 |
Concur.. Would be a great idea. Would need the floppy tube and guts
from the Acro tank though.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 17:02
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
That is what I was referring to. Putting a second aux tank in the acro
tank side on the left side of the fuselage.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
--> Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Really? From what I see in mine, I have two different size tanks right
next to each other. It appears to me that the original aerobatic tank
could easily be made as big as the Aux tank that currently sits right
next to it.
Dennis is suggesting replacing BOTH with some kind of bladder. THAT
sounds interesting as well!
Hey, I'm just thinking out loud is all.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 21:06
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
Mark,
I do not think you or I could fit danged shoulders in the hell hole to
work on anything else if two Aux tanks were fitted in the space. I'm not
sure one could get a second tank in that space so easily either.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
--> Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Why not pull the whole mess out and put in TWO of those size tanks?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of viperdoc
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 16:54
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
Tim,
I tend to agree with you. Less plumbling ect. Still have to build a hard
point(s) for attachment which will probably entail removing the
exsisting fuel tanks. If you are going to do that then why not just weld
a stainless steel 10 in section to the ends of the AUX tank. That if the
calculation is correct will get you up to 42 gal total fuel.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
When you guys finishing the engineering, can you work on building a
better ass..mine is limited to about an hour in these things! After
that, I call work and have them book me a first class ticket.
I think a centerline tank would look way cooler and I think would
require less engineering. I know someone who could knock it out pretty
quickly. The same guy who did my bottle set-up....the guy is scary good
and we talked in passing about it...his reply "no problem".
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125379#125379
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 |
Copy and concur.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Concur.. Would be a great idea. Would need the floppy tube and guts
from the Acro tank though.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 17:02
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
That is what I was referring to. Putting a second aux tank in the acro
tank side on the left side of the fuselage.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
--> Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Really? From what I see in mine, I have two different size tanks right
next to each other. It appears to me that the original aerobatic tank
could easily be made as big as the Aux tank that currently sits right
next to it.
Dennis is suggesting replacing BOTH with some kind of bladder. THAT
sounds interesting as well!
Hey, I'm just thinking out loud is all.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 21:06
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
Mark,
I do not think you or I could fit danged shoulders in the hell hole to
work on anything else if two Aux tanks were fitted in the space. I'm not
sure one could get a second tank in that space so easily either.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
--> Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Why not pull the whole mess out and put in TWO of those size tanks?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of viperdoc
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 16:54
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
Tim,
I tend to agree with you. Less plumbling ect. Still have to build a hard
point(s) for attachment which will probably entail removing the
exsisting fuel tanks. If you are going to do that then why not just weld
a stainless steel 10 in section to the ends of the AUX tank. That if the
calculation is correct will get you up to 42 gal total fuel.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
When you guys finishing the engineering, can you work on building a
better ass..mine is limited to about an hour in these things! After
that, I call work and have them book me a first class ticket.
I think a centerline tank would look way cooler and I think would
require less engineering. I know someone who could knock it out pretty
quickly. The same guy who did my bottle set-up....the guy is scary good
and we talked in passing about it...his reply "no problem".
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125379#125379
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! --
|