Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:13 AM - Jean NV. (Kelley Monroe)
2. 03:50 AM - The Actual Proficiency Area Elimination Letter (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 05:01 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (A. Dennis Savarese)
4. 05:02 AM - Re: The Actual Proficiency Area Elimination Letter (Sarah Tobin)
5. 05:44 AM - Reno - Unlimited Gold (A. Dennis Savarese)
6. 06:13 AM - a nice YK52 (Jan Mevis)
7. 06:59 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Sarah Tobin)
8. 07:02 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Jon Boede)
9. 07:42 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Cliff Coy)
10. 08:06 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Sarah Tobin)
11. 08:19 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Doug Sapp)
12. 08:39 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (DaBear)
13. 08:41 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Craig Schneider)
14. 08:58 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (DaBear)
15. 09:19 AM - A BIG WIN! (Barry Hancock)
16. 09:38 AM - Re: UOTERe: Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50 (Ron Davis)
17. 09:39 AM - Re: UOTERe: Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50 (Ron Davis)
18. 09:45 AM - Re: UOTE Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50 (Ron Davis)
19. 09:53 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (A. Dennis Savarese)
20. 10:14 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (A. Dennis Savarese)
21. 10:25 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Jon Boede)
22. 10:34 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Craig Schneider)
23. 10:45 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Craig Schneider)
24. 10:52 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (A. Dennis Savarese)
25. 10:52 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Ron Davis)
26. 11:03 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (A. Dennis Savarese)
27. 11:11 AM - Lift (was: MF'ing air system! Yak-50) (Brian Lloyd)
28. 11:15 AM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (A. Dennis Savarese)
29. 01:44 PM - Is it Just Me, or Has This Been a Bad Year for Flying in Airshows... (Craig Winkelmann)
30. 02:18 PM - Re: Is it Just Me, or Has This Been a Bad Year for Flying in Airshows... (Jorgen Nielsen)
31. 03:42 PM - Re: Reno - Unlimited Gold (Jim Griffin)
32. 05:33 PM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Brian Lloyd)
33. 05:45 PM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (A. Dennis Savarese)
34. 06:15 PM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Jim Bernier)
35. 06:22 PM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (Brian Lloyd)
36. 07:30 PM - Hurricane (cjpilot710@aol.com)
37. 07:43 PM - Re: Reno - Unlimited Gold (fish@aviation-tech.com)
38. 09:10 PM - Re: Jean NV. (Shinden33)
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 |
|
Is there any Yak members at Jean, Nv. 0L7 or around the Las Vegas area?
I am planning a trip their and may need some advice. Thanks Kelley
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: | The Actual Proficiency Area Elimination Letter |
http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/geo_limit.pdf
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-2141
334-546-8182 (cell)
www.yak-52.com
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
After reading and rereading the FAA Memorandum and relating it to the
posting by WOA whereas WOA says in the announcement, "All former
military experimental exhibition aircraft in Groups I, II, and III
currently operating and with the flight proficiency 300/600 mile
limitations on their operating limitations must continue to operate
under the issued limitations until such time they get their operating
limitations updated from their local FSDO.
However, within the Memorandum it states in the second paragraph,
"......Group I, II, III former military aircraft with a special
airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the purpose
of exhibition (that's us!) are no longer required to comply with the 300
and 600 nautical mile proficiency flight required by Order 8130.2F,
Change 3, Paragraph 158."
According to the Memorandum, the proficiency area is eliminated,
effective with the Memorandum. Period...end of sentence. The
Memorandum does NOT say anything about aircraft with existing operating
limitions must continue to operate under the existing limitations until
their OL's are changes. The Memorandum DOES say, "Owners/Operators of
former military aircraft that currently have a special airworthiness
certificate in the experimental category for the purpose of exhibition
(that's us) may apply to have the above limitation removed." That
paragraph refers to removing the limitation as written in the OL's. It
does not mean the proficiency area limitation as currently written in
the existing OL's remains in effect until such time as the OL's are
reissued with the elimination of the proficiency area. I believe it is
intended to mean the proficiency area is eliminated effective with the
Memorandum and one must apply to have the OL's revised to remove the
proficiency area statement (thus a rewrite/reissue of the OL's) from the
aircraft operating limitations.
If the FAA wanted the aircraft with existing experimental exhibition
airworthiness certificates and operating limitations to have to continue
to comply with the 300/600 NM proficiency area, they would have clearly
stated that in the Memorandum. But the Memorandum clearly says "Group
I, II, III former military aircraft with (that means exisiting) a
special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the
purpose of exhibition ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE 300 AND
600 NAUTICAL MILE PROFICIENCY FLIGHT REQUIRED BY ORDER 8130.2F, CHANGE
3."
I will be contacting WOA sometime today and will ask them why they
interpreted the Memorandum to mean the 300/600 mile proficiency area
elimination only applies AFTER the OL's have been reissued. Why would
the FAA want to create an unbelieveable mound of paperwork for
themselves by requiring existing OL's to be reissued before the
elimination of the proficiency area went into effect? I believe the
intent of the Memorandum was to first, announce the elimination of the
restriction (300/600 mile proficiency area) and then, at the
owner/operators request, update their OL's to reflect the change.
My recommendation is to carry a copy of the letter with you just in case
you get ramped checked. If you do get into a discussion with an FAA
inspector, focus on the words "are no longer required to comply". It
does not say "will no longer be required to comply until after the
existing operating limitions are reissued."
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Selby" <alikatz@mbay.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:21 PM
Subject: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>
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: The Actual Proficiency Area Elimination Letter |
I am assuming this letter doesn't apply to Yak 55s correct?
http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/geo_limit.pdf
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-2141
334-546-8182 (cell)
www.yak-52.com
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
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: | Reno - Unlimited Gold |
Yak 11 runs second to Rare Bear.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/954-full.html#196153
Dennis
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 |
|
My good friend Etienne Verhellen having fun with his Yak 52 G-CBSS
And I like the music as well ... :
http://www.yak52.fr/topic5/janie1.htm
All the best,
Jan Mevis
YK50 RA2005K
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Not sure why my post came out like it did, but my question is, does anyone know
if this would apply to Yak 55s? doesn't sound like it does,not being a former
military a/c.
Smash
---------------------------------
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Our FSDO folks gave us a heads-up on this a few weeks ago. They said that
their preference would be for us to bring in our current OPS Lims and they'd
be happy to re-write them with the 300 or 600 mile ring removed.
This is certainly a step in the right direction... how that the FAA has
admitted that at least one of the limitations has done nothing for safety,
perhaps we're on our way to eliminating some of the other ones, too.
>From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:58:53 -0500
>
>After reading and rereading the FAA Memorandum and relating it to the
>posting by WOA whereas WOA says in the announcement, "All former military
>experimental exhibition aircraft in Groups I, II, and III currently
>operating and with the flight proficiency 300/600 mile limitations on their
>operating limitations must continue to operate under the issued limitations
>until such time they get their operating limitations updated from their
>local FSDO.
>
>However, within the Memorandum it states in the second paragraph,
>"......Group I, II, III former military aircraft with a special
>airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the purpose of
>exhibition (that's us!) are no longer required to comply with the 300 and
>600 nautical mile proficiency flight required by Order 8130.2F, Change 3,
>Paragraph 158."
>
>According to the Memorandum, the proficiency area is eliminated, effective
>with the Memorandum. Period...end of sentence. The Memorandum does NOT
>say anything about aircraft with existing operating limitions must continue
>to operate under the existing limitations until their OL's are changes.
>The Memorandum DOES say, "Owners/Operators of former military aircraft that
>currently have a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental
>category for the purpose of exhibition (that's us) may apply to have the
>above limitation removed." That paragraph refers to removing the
>limitation as written in the OL's. It does not mean the proficiency area
>limitation as currently written in the existing OL's remains in effect
>until such time as the OL's are reissued with the elimination of the
>proficiency area. I believe it is intended to mean the proficiency area is
>eliminated effective with the Memorandum and one must apply to have the
>OL's revised to remove the proficiency area statement (thus a
>rewrite/reissue of the OL's) from the aircraft operating limitations.
>
>If the FAA wanted the aircraft with existing experimental exhibition
>airworthiness certificates and operating limitations to have to continue to
>comply with the 300/600 NM proficiency area, they would have clearly stated
>that in the Memorandum. But the Memorandum clearly says "Group I, II, III
>former military aircraft with (that means exisiting) a special
>airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the purpose of
>exhibition ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE 300 AND 600 NAUTICAL
>MILE PROFICIENCY FLIGHT REQUIRED BY ORDER 8130.2F, CHANGE 3."
>
>I will be contacting WOA sometime today and will ask them why they
>interpreted the Memorandum to mean the 300/600 mile proficiency area
>elimination only applies AFTER the OL's have been reissued. Why would the
>FAA want to create an unbelieveable mound of paperwork for themselves by
>requiring existing OL's to be reissued before the elimination of the
>proficiency area went into effect? I believe the intent of the Memorandum
>was to first, announce the elimination of the restriction (300/600 mile
>proficiency area) and then, at the owner/operators request, update their
>OL's to reflect the change.
>
>My recommendation is to carry a copy of the letter with you just in case
>you get ramped checked. If you do get into a discussion with an FAA
>inspector, focus on the words "are no longer required to comply". It does
>not say "will no longer be required to comply until after the existing
>operating limitions are reissued."
>
>Dennis
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jim Selby" <alikatz@mbay.net>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:21 PM
>Subject: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>
>
> >
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
My recommendation is to simply submit the request and wait for them to
ask questions. More than likely the ASI receiving the request won't
know the difference or much care.
It can be argued that all Soviet Union aircraft were "military" aircraft
regardless of type.
At the root of this issue is the FAA's responsibility for "public safety".
It would hard for them to argue that an experimental homebuilt Pitts
with unrestricted range is inherently safer than a production built Yak-55.
Cheers,
Cliff
Sarah Tobin wrote:
> Not sure why my post came out like it did, but my question is, does
> anyone know if this would apply to Yak 55s? doesn't sound like it
> does,not being a former military a/c.
>
> Smash
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Yeah I concur Cliff...I was gonna give it a go anyway...I got away with murder
on my original Ops limits, conveniently leaving out several things, and the OKC
FSDO signed off on it, so you never know, like you said, they will most likely
sign what you give them.
On another note....anyone been shopping Ebay for Yaks lately....my tornado ridden
55 that was rebuilt in Tx now got hurt again and is being auctioned off,
think it's up to 13K now.
Smash
Cliff Coy <cliff@gesoco.com> wrote:
My recommendation is to simply submit the request and wait for them to
ask questions. More than likely the ASI receiving the request won't
know the difference or much care.
It can be argued that all Soviet Union aircraft were "military" aircraft
regardless of type.
At the root of this issue is the FAA's responsibility for "public safety".
It would hard for them to argue that an experimental homebuilt Pitts
with unrestricted range is inherently safer than a production built Yak-55.
Cheers,
Cliff
Sarah Tobin wrote:
> Not sure why my post came out like it did, but my question is, does
> anyone know if this would apply to Yak 55s? doesn't sound like it
> does,not being a former military a/c.
>
> Smash
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
---------------------------------
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Could not find http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf/ anyone able
to download the form?
Doug Sapp
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Take the last "/" off and it works or use this
_http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf_
Dabear
Doug Sapp wrote:
> Could not find http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf/ anyone able
> to download the form?
>
> Doug Sapp
> *
>
>
> *
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: | FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf
Here's the link, but I don't know why you'd want to file a new one to
change your OL's. I would send in a copy of your original with the
other items. If you don't have it, you can order a CDROM of all your
aircrafts paperwork from the FAA.
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Sapp
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
Could not find http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf/ anyone able
to download the form?
Doug Sapp
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
How do you do order the CDROM?
Craig Schneider wrote:
> http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf
>
> Here's the link, but I don't know why you'd want to file a new one to
> change your OL's. I would send in a copy of your original with the
> other items. If you don't have it, you can order a CDROM of all your
> aircrafts paperwork from the FAA.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Doug Sapp
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:17 AM
> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>
> Could not find http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf/ anyone able
> to download the form?
>
> Doug Sapp
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> *
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
=46rom the EAA Warbirds Home Page....
"EAA and the Warbirds of America (WOA) received terrific news this week
from the FAA regarding experimental exhibition operating limitations
for former military aircraft in Groups I, II, and III. The FAA has
announced a process to allow for a letter of deviation, permitting
owners to conduct proficiency flights beyond the 300 nm (piston) and
600 nm (turbine) radius of operations stipulated in a section of FAA
Order 8130.2F."
Read the entire article at
http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/news/2007%20-%2009_18%20-
%20EAA%20Warbirds%20of%20America,%20Industry%20Achieve%20Major%20Breakth
rough.html
It is IMPORTANT to note this is not an automatic authorization to
disregard your Operating Limitations. You still need to apply for the
letter of deviation with your local FSDO, the procedure of which is
detailed in this article.
Happy flying!
Barry
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
office (909) 606-4444
cell - -(949) 300-5510
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
www.cj6.com
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients.-If the
reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, use, dissemination, forwarding or copying of
this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately by
reply e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message and all
attachments from your system.- Thank you
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: MF'ing air system! Yak-50 |
One guy's opinion is as good as the next in politics and religion, but
physics is testable, provable, and consistant. Bernoulli's law has nothing
to do with the gear retraction matter. Mark and Brian are right.
>From: Yak Pilot <yakplt@yahoo.com>
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: UOTERE: Yak-List: Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50
>Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Doc...... I disagree. :-)
>
> Mark
>
>
>viperdoc <viperdoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Mark,
>You are absolutely correct in your reference to Boyle's law, Charles Law,
>and Avagadro's law as they reference fluids at rest. In this case you are
>looking at a fluid in motion. The term "fluid" applies to both a liquid and
>a gas. A tube (line) having a constriction section between a larger
>diameter
>inlet and the outlet section is called a "venture tube". In this case, a
>smaller diameter tube in between two larger diameter tubes (lines). Whereas
>point a is the entry point and point b is the exit point of the fluid as it
>flows from the larger diameter tube to the end of the smaller diameter tube
>you have introduced a constriction. So basically, you have flow thru a
>constriction. In other words when you have a fluid flowing through a pipe
>of
>varying cross-sectional area there can be no accumulation between a and b,
>provided that fluid is incompressible. Hence the mass of the fluid passing
>through the cross section A1 with speed v1 must equal the mass passing in
>the same time (t) through cross section A2 with speed v2, where rho (p) is
>the density of the fluid (since my computer does not do the Greek alphabet,
>rho is p in this case).
>A1v1pt = A2v2pt
>So since A1v1 = A2v2, it follows that the speed of flow in a pipe is
>greater
>in those regions where there is a constriction in the cross-section area
>(A). [The smaller diameter tube (line)]. Furthermore, the speed is greater
>at point b than at a, the fluid experiences an acceleration between a and
>b.
>This requires an accelerating force. This accelerating force can be present
>only if the pressure at point a is greater than the pressure a point b. So
>in a steady flow of a fluid, the pressure is least where the speed is
>greatest. So when a gas or a liquid enters the narrow part of the tube (the
>constriction), it speeds up in the narrow part of the tube (line) and there
>is a corresponding drop in pressure.
>Bernoulli's theorem looks at the relationship between the pressure at any
>point in a fluid and velocity of the fluid at that point. The movement of
>the particles of fluid in a linear line through the tube is defined as a
>streamline. Bernoulli's theorem states that at any two points along a
>streamline the sum of the pressure, the kinetic energy per unit volume, and
>the potential energy per unit volume has the same value.
>Now the mathematical expression of that is as follows:
>P1 +1/2pv1 squared + pgh1 = P2 = 1/2 pv2 squared +pgh2.
>P = pressure
>P = rho (density)
>V = volumne
>g = gravity
>h = head [in a pressure- depth relation the depth (h) is frequently called
>the "head"]. In a Pressure head, the h is equal to P/pg {p = rho (density
>of
>the fluid) and g = gravity}
>So applying Bernoulli's theorem to the case of a horizontal pipe that has a
>constriction you can determine the rate of flow of the fluid passing
>through
>if you know the pressure of the fluid and the area of the pipe at the
>widest
>part or at the narrowest part by simply rearranging the equation for the
>unknown.
>So if you want to know P2 (the exit pressure for the narrow segment)
>rearrange the equation to read as:
>P2 = P1 + pg(h1-h2) +p/2(v1 squared - v2 squared).
>Now having said all that, Bernoulli's theorem has many applications. The
>carb is an atomizer, the filter pump is an aspirator, and our wing, the air
>foil. Last but not least is the 2 year old child lying on the stretcher in
>ER unable to breath due to bacterial epiglotitis obstructing the larynx
>caused by Strep. In this case, the orifice (larynx) is narrowed by a
>edematous epiglottis impeding flow of air. By manipulating the viscosity of
>the gas by adding helium to the O2, we can support that child (maintain the
>%Sat = 02 saturation) long enough to get them to the OR to intubate them. I
>did not discuss viscosity as it affects the flow of a fluid through a
>constriction did I?
>For a further explaination, I refer you to College Physics by , Weber,
>White, Manning and Waygand, Chapter 13, "Fluids in Motion", pp.241-255.
>Well
>you do not have to go to my specific textbook, anyone that discusses fluid
>mechanics can clarify this.
>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, September 14, 2007 4:45 PM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: UOTERE: Yak-List: Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50
>
>MALS-14 64E"
>
>Uh Doc... I think highly of you my friend, but with all due respect, I
>think the gas from the beans you ate last night might be influencing
>your line of thinking here. Bernoulli's Principle does not apply in this
>case. There is no "Venturi" no matter how hard you try to make it look
>that way, and even if there was, the rules that impact the question do
>not come from Mr. Bernoulli. Instead you might want to remember Mr.
>Boyle. To wit:
>Quote:
>
>The mathematical equation for Boyle's law is:
>
>where:
>
>p denotes the pressure of the system.
>V is the volume of the gas.
>k is a constant value representative of the pressure and volume of the
>system.
>
>So long as temperature remains constant at the same value the same
>amount of energy given to the system persists throughout its operation
>and therefore, theoretically, the value of k will remain constant.
>However, due to the derivation of pressure as perpendicular applied
>force and the probabilistic likelihood of collisions with other
>particles through collision theory, the application of force to a
>surface may not be infinitely constant for such values of k, but will
>have a limit when differentiating such values over a given time.
>
>Forcing the volume V of the fixed quantity of gas to increase, keeping
>the gas at the initially measured temperature, the pressure p must
>decrease proportionally. Conversely, reducing the volume of the gas
>increases the pressure.
>
>Boyle's law is commonly used to predict the result of introducing a
>change, in volume and pressure only, to the initial state of a fixed
>quantity of gas. The "before" and "after" volumes and pressures of the
>fixed amount of gas, where the "before" and "after" temperatures are the
>same (heating or cooling will be required to meet this condition), are
>related by the equation:
>
>p1V1 = p2V2
>Boyle's law, Charles's Law, and Gay-Lussac's Law form the combined gas
>law. The three gas laws in combination with Avogadro's law can be
>generalized by the ideal gas law.
>
>END QUOTE
>
>So yes Tim... ANY line that you put between the tank and the original
>line that is smaller than the original could CLEARLY cause this to
>happen. In addition you have added LENGTH (I think?) If you have, then
>your line from your new tank to where you hook it to the old line (did
>you run it the whole way?) to be safe should have been even LARGER than
>what was original.
>
>Sorry to disagree with you Doc, but ... You must have been breathing
>some of the NOS.....
>
>Mark Bitterlich
>N50YK
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
>Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 22:44
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50
>
>
>Answer...quit possible. This being based on Bernolli's principle. A
>small line introduces a venture effect. There will be a drop in pressure
>at the point that the smaller line is connected to the larger line.
>There is an increase in pressure at the point of constriction with
>resistance to flow.
>At the point of dilation past the point of constriction there is a drop
>in pressure with a decrease in flow. The pressure will be lower in the
>system past the point of restriction. The density of air is also a
>factor too, but for this agreement you can assume that number is
>constant.
>Doc
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
>Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:03 PM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50
>
>
>Let me ask this..would a smaller diameter line than original cause
>enough a restriction to explain the problems I am having.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134285#134285
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft Office Live!
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: MF'ing air system! Yak-50 |
One guy's opinion is as good as the next in politics and religion, but
physics is testable, provable, and consistant. Bernoulli's law has nothing
to do with the gear retraction matter. Mark and Brian are right.
>From: Yak Pilot <yakplt@yahoo.com>
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: UOTERE: Yak-List: Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50
>Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Doc...... I disagree. :-)
>
> Mark
>
>
>viperdoc <viperdoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Mark,
>You are absolutely correct in your reference to Boyle's law, Charles Law,
>and Avagadro's law as they reference fluids at rest. In this case you are
>looking at a fluid in motion. The term "fluid" applies to both a liquid and
>a gas. A tube (line) having a constriction section between a larger
>diameter
>inlet and the outlet section is called a "venture tube". In this case, a
>smaller diameter tube in between two larger diameter tubes (lines). Whereas
>point a is the entry point and point b is the exit point of the fluid as it
>flows from the larger diameter tube to the end of the smaller diameter tube
>you have introduced a constriction. So basically, you have flow thru a
>constriction. In other words when you have a fluid flowing through a pipe
>of
>varying cross-sectional area there can be no accumulation between a and b,
>provided that fluid is incompressible. Hence the mass of the fluid passing
>through the cross section A1 with speed v1 must equal the mass passing in
>the same time (t) through cross section A2 with speed v2, where rho (p) is
>the density of the fluid (since my computer does not do the Greek alphabet,
>rho is p in this case).
>A1v1pt = A2v2pt
>So since A1v1 = A2v2, it follows that the speed of flow in a pipe is
>greater
>in those regions where there is a constriction in the cross-section area
>(A). [The smaller diameter tube (line)]. Furthermore, the speed is greater
>at point b than at a, the fluid experiences an acceleration between a and
>b.
>This requires an accelerating force. This accelerating force can be present
>only if the pressure at point a is greater than the pressure a point b. So
>in a steady flow of a fluid, the pressure is least where the speed is
>greatest. So when a gas or a liquid enters the narrow part of the tube (the
>constriction), it speeds up in the narrow part of the tube (line) and there
>is a corresponding drop in pressure.
>Bernoulli's theorem looks at the relationship between the pressure at any
>point in a fluid and velocity of the fluid at that point. The movement of
>the particles of fluid in a linear line through the tube is defined as a
>streamline. Bernoulli's theorem states that at any two points along a
>streamline the sum of the pressure, the kinetic energy per unit volume, and
>the potential energy per unit volume has the same value.
>Now the mathematical expression of that is as follows:
>P1 +1/2pv1 squared + pgh1 = P2 = 1/2 pv2 squared +pgh2.
>P = pressure
>P = rho (density)
>V = volumne
>g = gravity
>h = head [in a pressure- depth relation the depth (h) is frequently called
>the "head"]. In a Pressure head, the h is equal to P/pg {p = rho (density
>of
>the fluid) and g = gravity}
>So applying Bernoulli's theorem to the case of a horizontal pipe that has a
>constriction you can determine the rate of flow of the fluid passing
>through
>if you know the pressure of the fluid and the area of the pipe at the
>widest
>part or at the narrowest part by simply rearranging the equation for the
>unknown.
>So if you want to know P2 (the exit pressure for the narrow segment)
>rearrange the equation to read as:
>P2 = P1 + pg(h1-h2) +p/2(v1 squared - v2 squared).
>Now having said all that, Bernoulli's theorem has many applications. The
>carb is an atomizer, the filter pump is an aspirator, and our wing, the air
>foil. Last but not least is the 2 year old child lying on the stretcher in
>ER unable to breath due to bacterial epiglotitis obstructing the larynx
>caused by Strep. In this case, the orifice (larynx) is narrowed by a
>edematous epiglottis impeding flow of air. By manipulating the viscosity of
>the gas by adding helium to the O2, we can support that child (maintain the
>%Sat = 02 saturation) long enough to get them to the OR to intubate them. I
>did not discuss viscosity as it affects the flow of a fluid through a
>constriction did I?
>For a further explaination, I refer you to College Physics by , Weber,
>White, Manning and Waygand, Chapter 13, "Fluids in Motion", pp.241-255.
>Well
>you do not have to go to my specific textbook, anyone that discusses fluid
>mechanics can clarify this.
>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, September 14, 2007 4:45 PM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: UOTERE: Yak-List: Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50
>
>MALS-14 64E"
>
>Uh Doc... I think highly of you my friend, but with all due respect, I
>think the gas from the beans you ate last night might be influencing
>your line of thinking here. Bernoulli's Principle does not apply in this
>case. There is no "Venturi" no matter how hard you try to make it look
>that way, and even if there was, the rules that impact the question do
>not come from Mr. Bernoulli. Instead you might want to remember Mr.
>Boyle. To wit:
>Quote:
>
>The mathematical equation for Boyle's law is:
>
>where:
>
>p denotes the pressure of the system.
>V is the volume of the gas.
>k is a constant value representative of the pressure and volume of the
>system.
>
>So long as temperature remains constant at the same value the same
>amount of energy given to the system persists throughout its operation
>and therefore, theoretically, the value of k will remain constant.
>However, due to the derivation of pressure as perpendicular applied
>force and the probabilistic likelihood of collisions with other
>particles through collision theory, the application of force to a
>surface may not be infinitely constant for such values of k, but will
>have a limit when differentiating such values over a given time.
>
>Forcing the volume V of the fixed quantity of gas to increase, keeping
>the gas at the initially measured temperature, the pressure p must
>decrease proportionally. Conversely, reducing the volume of the gas
>increases the pressure.
>
>Boyle's law is commonly used to predict the result of introducing a
>change, in volume and pressure only, to the initial state of a fixed
>quantity of gas. The "before" and "after" volumes and pressures of the
>fixed amount of gas, where the "before" and "after" temperatures are the
>same (heating or cooling will be required to meet this condition), are
>related by the equation:
>
>p1V1 = p2V2
>Boyle's law, Charles's Law, and Gay-Lussac's Law form the combined gas
>law. The three gas laws in combination with Avogadro's law can be
>generalized by the ideal gas law.
>
>END QUOTE
>
>So yes Tim... ANY line that you put between the tank and the original
>line that is smaller than the original could CLEARLY cause this to
>happen. In addition you have added LENGTH (I think?) If you have, then
>your line from your new tank to where you hook it to the old line (did
>you run it the whole way?) to be safe should have been even LARGER than
>what was original.
>
>Sorry to disagree with you Doc, but ... You must have been breathing
>some of the NOS.....
>
>Mark Bitterlich
>N50YK
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
>Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 22:44
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50
>
>
>Answer...quit possible. This being based on Bernolli's principle. A
>small line introduces a venture effect. There will be a drop in pressure
>at the point that the smaller line is connected to the larger line.
>There is an increase in pressure at the point of constriction with
>resistance to flow.
>At the point of dilation past the point of constriction there is a drop
>in pressure with a decrease in flow. The pressure will be lower in the
>system past the point of restriction. The density of air is also a
>factor too, but for this agreement you can assume that number is
>constant.
>Doc
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
>Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:03 PM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50
>
>
>Let me ask this..would a smaller diameter line than original cause
>enough a restriction to explain the problems I am having.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134285#134285
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Share your special parenting moments!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
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: UOTE Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50 |
You're 0 for 2. Bernoulli's principal has nothing to do with the line
restriction to the bottle and airplane wings use the Coanda effect, not
Bernoulli. Get out your calculator and calculate the amount of "vacuum"
that must exist to lift a wing with loading of 50 psf. Wings can't make
that much lift with Bernoulli.
>From: "Craig Winkelmann, CFI" <capav8r@gmail.com>
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: UOTE Re: MF'ing air system! Yak-50
>Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:14:51 -0700
>
>
>Doc:
>
>Gotta give it to ya...pullin' out those old textbooks. I've packed mine
>away. However, from my engineering days, you are right on with Mr.
>Bernoulli. Air is a "fluid" that is in motion, hence his law applies.
>
>By the way, some folks don't think Bernoulli's Law applies to aircraft
>wings as the reason for them generating lift. Check out
>http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/airflylvl3.htm for a different view of
>lift!!
>
>Craig
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134602#134602
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Discover sweet stuff waiting for you at the Messenger Cafe. Claim your
treat today!
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_SeptHMtagline2
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
What does the Airworthiness Certificate say? Experimental, what? If
the Exhibition category is checked, then yes it does apply.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Sarah Tobin
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
Not sure why my post came out like it did, but my question is, does
anyone know if this would apply to Yak 55s? doesn't sound like it
does,not being a former military a/c.
Smash
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Craig,
The reason is because the OL's and it's wording must be in accordance
with the current Order, 8130.2F. Many OL's were written when previous
versions were in place. Even though they are all fundamentally the
same, the FSDO Inspector is required to use the present version of the
Order when issuing new OL's. Remember, any change to the OL's requires
issuance of a new airworthiness certificate as well because they are
married together. That's why one must also submit the 8130-6,
Application for Airworthiness Certificate.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Schneider
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf
Here's the link, but I don't know why you'd want to file a new one to
change your OL's. I would send in a copy of your original with the
other items. If you don't have it, you can order a CDROM of all your
aircrafts paperwork from the FAA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Sapp
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:17 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
Could not find http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf/ anyone able
to download the form?
Doug Sapp
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Ok, that was good for a chuckle.
It would be hard for them to argue LOTS of stuff... but they don't argue,
they just hand down rules.
'Till we're not happy. :-)
>From: Cliff Coy <cliff@gesoco.com>
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:41:01 -0400
>
>
>My recommendation is to simply submit the request and wait for them to ask
>questions. More than likely the ASI receiving the request won't know the
>difference or much care.
>
>It can be argued that all Soviet Union aircraft were "military" aircraft
>regardless of type.
>
>At the root of this issue is the FAA's responsibility for "public safety".
>It would hard for them to argue that an experimental homebuilt Pitts with
>unrestricted range is inherently safer than a production built Yak-55.
>
>Cheers,
>Cliff
>
>Sarah Tobin wrote:
>
>>Not sure why my post came out like it did, but my question is, does anyone
>>know if this would apply to Yak 55s? doesn't sound like it does,not being
>>a former military a/c.
>> Smash
>>
>>*
>>
>>
>>*
>>
>
>
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: | FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
To order the CDROM with all the FAA filings on your aircraft, go to the fol
lowing link and following instructions:
http://162.58.35.241/e.gov/ND/airrecordsND.asp
From: DaBear
Sent: Wed 9/19/2007 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
How do you do order the CDROM?
Craig Schneider wrote:
> http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf
>
> Here's the link, but I don't know why you'd want to file a new one to
> change your OL's. I would send in a copy of your original with the
> other items. If you don't have it, you can order a CDROM of all your
> aircrafts paperwork from the FAA.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Doug Sapp
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:17 AM
> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>
> Could not find http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf/ anyone able
> to download the form?
>
> Doug Sapp
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> *
> *
>
>
> *
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: | FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Dennis,
In talking this morning with the FAA, I will go the easy route first. I wi
ll submit a letter to my FSDO asking to add an addendum (of which I will wr
ite and submit at the same time) to my OL's, striking the reference to the
300 mile....... referencing and including the FAA memo dated Sept. 11. I
n the past my FSDO has allowed addendums, as it makes it much easier for h
im.
Craig
From: A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Wed 9/19/2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
Craig,
The reason is because the OL's and it's wording must be in accordance with
the current Order, 8130.2F. Many OL's were written when previous versions
were in place. Even though they are all fundamentally the same, the FSDO I
nspector is required to use the present version of the Order when issuing n
ew OL's. Remember, any change to the OL's requires issuance of a new airwo
rthiness certificate as well because they are married together. That's why
one must also submit the 8130-6, Application for Airworthiness Certificate
.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf
Here's the link, but I don't know why you'd want to file a new one to chang
e your OL's. I would send in a copy of your original with the other items.
If you don't have it, you can order a CDROM of all your aircrafts paperwo
rk from the FAA.
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Sapp
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
Could not find http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf/ anyone able to d
ownload the form?
Doug Sapp
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronhref
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
I just got off the telephone with AIR-230, Aircraft Certification Branch
in Washington who were the preparers of the Memorandum. I must admit, I
was incorrect in my interpretation and the WOA statements in the
announcement are 100% accurate . As it was explained to me, if we
presently have a certificated airplane in the Experimental Exhibition
category, until we apply for and receive a new airworthiness certificate
and updated operating limitations without the proficiency area
restriction, we're bound by our present OL's.
So if you want to have your OL's updated to eliminate the proficiency
area, you either submit your paperwork to your local FSDO or have a DAR
do it for you. Using the FSDO is free. Using a DAR is not, BUT it can
be done much quicker.
Best regards,
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Schneider
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
To order the CDROM with all the FAA filings on your aircraft, go to
the following link and following instructions:
http://162.58.35.241/e.gov/ND/airrecordsND.asp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: DaBear
Sent: Wed 9/19/2007 11:58 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
How do you do order the CDROM?
Craig Schneider wrote:
> http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf
>
> Here's the link, but I don't know why you'd want to file a new one to
> change your OL's. I would send in a copy of your original with the
> other items. If you don't have it, you can order a CDROM of all your
> aircrafts paperwork from the FAA.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Doug Sapp
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:17 AM
> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>
> Could not find http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf/ anyone able
> to download the form?
>
> Doug Sapp
> *
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> *
> *
>
>
> *
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
I don't want to start an argument, I want to give you something to think
about. There are FARs that require you have an airworthiness certificate
and your ops limits are an attachment to it.
If my wife wrote a memo to her sister saying that I didn't need to comply
with ops limit #17, do you think the ramp inspector would view that as
trumping my airworthiness certificate's requirements?
The memo of interest is from one FAA office to another FAA office directing
them to remove the proficiency limit of xxx miles from order 8130.2F. I
don't believe that it trumps the ops limits requirments either. It does
provide a basis for getting new ops limits without the limitation.
As you know, when 8130.2f is changed to a more restrictive stance, such as
when they added the 300/600 mile limit, it didn't apply to the airplanes
that already had ops limits without the mileage limit (the grandfathered
airplanes). It seems to me the same applies now.
The use of the term "former military aircraft" in the memo is curious. FAA
order 8130 says "Many of the aircraft applying for
experimental-exhibition..." but the exp-exhibition certificate is certainly
not limited to former military aircraft.
If I had a IAR-823 or a Yak-50, I'd ask FSDO for new ops limits based on the
memo. If they brought up the former military issue, I'd say it was
certified under the same guidelines as former military and if walks like a
duck and quacks like a duck...
I hope you find this useful. I have no intention of responding to rebuttals
or speculating on what any given FSDO will do.
>From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:58:53 -0500
>
>After reading and rereading the FAA Memorandum and relating it to the
>posting by WOA whereas WOA says in the announcement, "All former military
>experimental exhibition aircraft in Groups I, II, and III currently
>operating and with the flight proficiency 300/600 mile limitations on their
>operating limitations must continue to operate under the issued limitations
>until such time they get their operating limitations updated from their
>local FSDO.
>
>However, within the Memorandum it states in the second paragraph,
>"......Group I, II, III former military aircraft with a special
>airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the purpose of
>exhibition (that's us!) are no longer required to comply with the 300 and
>600 nautical mile proficiency flight required by Order 8130.2F, Change 3,
>Paragraph 158."
>
>According to the Memorandum, the proficiency area is eliminated, effective
>with the Memorandum. Period...end of sentence. The Memorandum does NOT
>say anything about aircraft with existing operating limitions must continue
>to operate under the existing limitations until their OL's are changes.
>The Memorandum DOES say, "Owners/Operators of former military aircraft that
>currently have a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental
>category for the purpose of exhibition (that's us) may apply to have the
>above limitation removed." That paragraph refers to removing the
>limitation as written in the OL's. It does not mean the proficiency area
>limitation as currently written in the existing OL's remains in effect
>until such time as the OL's are reissued with the elimination of the
>proficiency area. I believe it is intended to mean the proficiency area is
>eliminated effective with the Memorandum and one must apply to have the
>OL's revised to remove the proficiency area statement (thus a
>rewrite/reissue of the OL's) from the aircraft operating limitations.
>
>If the FAA wanted the aircraft with existing experimental exhibition
>airworthiness certificates and operating limitations to have to continue to
>comply with the 300/600 NM proficiency area, they would have clearly stated
>that in the Memorandum. But the Memorandum clearly says "Group I, II, III
>former military aircraft with (that means exisiting) a special
>airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the purpose of
>exhibition ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE 300 AND 600 NAUTICAL
>MILE PROFICIENCY FLIGHT REQUIRED BY ORDER 8130.2F, CHANGE 3."
>
>I will be contacting WOA sometime today and will ask them why they
>interpreted the Memorandum to mean the 300/600 mile proficiency area
>elimination only applies AFTER the OL's have been reissued. Why would the
>FAA want to create an unbelieveable mound of paperwork for themselves by
>requiring existing OL's to be reissued before the elimination of the
>proficiency area went into effect? I believe the intent of the Memorandum
>was to first, announce the elimination of the restriction (300/600 mile
>proficiency area) and then, at the owner/operators request, update their
>OL's to reflect the change.
>
>My recommendation is to carry a copy of the letter with you just in case
>you get ramped checked. If you do get into a discussion with an FAA
>inspector, focus on the words "are no longer required to comply". It does
>not say "will no longer be required to comply until after the existing
>operating limitions are reissued."
>
>Dennis
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jim Selby" <alikatz@mbay.net>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:21 PM
>Subject: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>
>
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft Office Live!
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
You're correct. That's the only way to go. I was hoping they would
have used the KISS method. But no! They had to make it difficult. It
would have been so easy to say, "Carry a copy of the Memorandum in the
aircraft". Surely that would have sufficed rather than creating this
paperwork nightmare for the local FSDO's.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Schneider
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:46 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
Dennis,
In talking this morning with the FAA, I will go the easy route first.
I will submit a letter to my FSDO asking to add an addendum (of which I
will write and submit at the same time) to my OL's, striking the
reference to the 300 mile....... referencing and including the FAA
memo dated Sept. 11. In the past my FSDO has allowed addendums, as it
makes it much easier for him.
Craig
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Wed 9/19/2007 1:12 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
Craig,
The reason is because the OL's and it's wording must be in accordance
with the current Order, 8130.2F. Many OL's were written when previous
versions were in place. Even though they are all fundamentally the
same, the FSDO Inspector is required to use the present version of the
Order when issuing new OL's. Remember, any change to the OL's requires
issuance of a new airworthiness certificate as well because they are
married together. That's why one must also submit the 8130-6,
Application for Airworthiness Certificate.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Schneider
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf
Here's the link, but I don't know why you'd want to file a new one
to change your OL's. I would send in a copy of your original with the
other items. If you don't have it, you can order a CDROM of all your
aircrafts paperwork from the FAA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Sapp
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:17 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
Could not find http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf/ anyone
able to download the form?
Doug Sapp
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronhre
f="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
p://forums.matronics.com/
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Lift (was: MF'ing air system! Yak-50) |
On Sep 19, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
> You're 0 for 2. Bernoulli's principal has nothing to do with the
> line restriction to the bottle and airplane wings use the Coanda
> effect, not Bernoulli. Get out your calculator and calculate the
> amount of "vacuum" that must exist to lift a wing with loading of
> 50 psf. Wings can't make that much lift with Bernoulli.
Generation of lift is a very interesting topic. I can imagine a
thread on how lift is produced consuming lots of bandwidth as well as
producing a fair amount of heat. (These kinds of things tend to
produce more heat than light on the subject.) Still, it might be both
interesting and enlightening at some level.
OTOH, I suspect that there will also be much testosterone and ruffled
feathers.
Regardless, I think that the topic is really interesting as there are
several non-obvious physical properties at work and I would like to
discuss my ideas on the matter with someone.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+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-Exupry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
No argument Ron. You're analogy is accurate.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>
> I don't want to start an argument, I want to give you something to think
> about. There are FARs that require you have an airworthiness certificate
> and your ops limits are an attachment to it.
>
> If my wife wrote a memo to her sister saying that I didn't need to comply
> with ops limit #17, do you think the ramp inspector would view that as
> trumping my airworthiness certificate's requirements?
>
> The memo of interest is from one FAA office to another FAA office
> directing them to remove the proficiency limit of xxx miles from order
> 8130.2F. I don't believe that it trumps the ops limits requirments
> either. It does provide a basis for getting new ops limits without the
> limitation.
>
> As you know, when 8130.2f is changed to a more restrictive stance, such as
> when they added the 300/600 mile limit, it didn't apply to the airplanes
> that already had ops limits without the mileage limit (the grandfathered
> airplanes). It seems to me the same applies now.
>
> The use of the term "former military aircraft" in the memo is curious.
> FAA order 8130 says "Many of the aircraft applying for
> experimental-exhibition..." but the exp-exhibition certificate is
> certainly not limited to former military aircraft.
>
> If I had a IAR-823 or a Yak-50, I'd ask FSDO for new ops limits based on
> the memo. If they brought up the former military issue, I'd say it was
> certified under the same guidelines as former military and if walks like a
> duck and quacks like a duck...
>
> I hope you find this useful. I have no intention of responding to
> rebuttals or speculating on what any given FSDO will do.
>
>
>>From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:58:53 -0500
>>
>>After reading and rereading the FAA Memorandum and relating it to the
>>posting by WOA whereas WOA says in the announcement, "All former military
>>experimental exhibition aircraft in Groups I, II, and III currently
>>operating and with the flight proficiency 300/600 mile limitations on
>>their operating limitations must continue to operate under the issued
>>limitations until such time they get their operating limitations updated
>>from their local FSDO.
>>
>>However, within the Memorandum it states in the second paragraph,
>>"......Group I, II, III former military aircraft with a special
>>airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the purpose of
>>exhibition (that's us!) are no longer required to comply with the 300 and
>>600 nautical mile proficiency flight required by Order 8130.2F, Change 3,
>>Paragraph 158."
>>
>>According to the Memorandum, the proficiency area is eliminated, effective
>>with the Memorandum. Period...end of sentence. The Memorandum does NOT
>>say anything about aircraft with existing operating limitions must
>>continue to operate under the existing limitations until their OL's are
>>changes. The Memorandum DOES say, "Owners/Operators of former military
>>aircraft that currently have a special airworthiness certificate in the
>>experimental category for the purpose of exhibition (that's us) may apply
>>to have the above limitation removed." That paragraph refers to removing
>>the limitation as written in the OL's. It does not mean the proficiency
>>area limitation as currently written in the existing OL's remains in
>>effect until such time as the OL's are reissued with the elimination of
>>the proficiency area. I believe it is intended to mean the proficiency
>>area is eliminated effective with the Memorandum and one must apply to
>>have the OL's revised to remove the proficiency area statement (thus a
>>rewrite/reissue of the OL's) from the aircraft operating limitations.
>>
>>If the FAA wanted the aircraft with existing experimental exhibition
>>airworthiness certificates and operating limitations to have to continue
>>to comply with the 300/600 NM proficiency area, they would have clearly
>>stated that in the Memorandum. But the Memorandum clearly says "Group I,
>>II, III former military aircraft with (that means exisiting) a special
>>airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the purpose of
>>exhibition ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE 300 AND 600 NAUTICAL
>>MILE PROFICIENCY FLIGHT REQUIRED BY ORDER 8130.2F, CHANGE 3."
>>
>>I will be contacting WOA sometime today and will ask them why they
>>interpreted the Memorandum to mean the 300/600 mile proficiency area
>>elimination only applies AFTER the OL's have been reissued. Why would the
>>FAA want to create an unbelieveable mound of paperwork for themselves by
>>requiring existing OL's to be reissued before the elimination of the
>>proficiency area went into effect? I believe the intent of the Memorandum
>>was to first, announce the elimination of the restriction (300/600 mile
>>proficiency area) and then, at the owner/operators request, update their
>>OL's to reflect the change.
>>
>>My recommendation is to carry a copy of the letter with you just in case
>>you get ramped checked. If you do get into a discussion with an FAA
>>inspector, focus on the words "are no longer required to comply". It does
>>not say "will no longer be required to comply until after the existing
>>operating limitions are reissued."
>>
>>Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Jim Selby" <alikatz@mbay.net>
>>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:21 PM
>>Subject: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>>
>>
>> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft Office Live!
>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Is it Just Me, or Has This Been a Bad Year for Flying in Airshows... |
Folks:
With the recent loss of the Hawker Hurricane, it seems like this year had
more fatalities for airshow and RPA aircraft than prior years. Am I
mistaken?? So far:
-RPA - 3 Yaks (non-airshow flight, 2 fatal, 1 injuries), and 2 L-39's (1at
Reno, 1 at Tico)
-P-51 and P-51 copy (at OSH)
-Hawker Hurricane in England (Susex Airshow)
-three fatalities at Reno (two in addition to the L-39 above)
-US Navy Blue Angels - F-18
-Ziln Mid-air in Poland
-Pitts S2S at Dayton
-Experimental plane enroute OSH
-Canadian Forces Snowbirds - CT - 114 Tutor (seatbelt failure)
-SNJ-2 Geico Skytyper - NAS Oceana
This list seems like a lot to me, or am I just more in tune this year? My
heart goes out to all the families and friends of the pilots of each of the
planes above.
Craig
--
"The fruit of love is service. The fruit of services is peace, and peace
begins with a smile."
- Mother Theresa
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Is it Just Me, or Has This Been a Bad Year for Flying in |
Airshows...
Theres more - 23 in total this year.
>From Des Barker:
31/12/1998
17
31/12/1999
13
31/12/2000
14
31/12/2001
21
31/12/2002
20
31/12/2003
16
31/12/2004
19
31/12/2005
19
31/12/2006
24
31/12/2007
23
And we had another here in SA last week. Don't know if that was counted yet.
This a total of fatalities from display flying.
Jorgen
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Winkelmann
Sent: 19 September 2007 10:43 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Is it Just Me, or Has This Been a Bad Year for Flying in
Airshows...
Folks:
With the recent loss of the Hawker Hurricane, it seems like this year had
more fatalities for airshow and RPA aircraft than prior years. Am I
mistaken?? So far:
-RPA - 3 Yaks (non-airshow flight, 2 fatal, 1 injuries), and 2 L-39's (1at
Reno, 1 at Tico)
-P-51 and P-51 copy (at OSH)
-Hawker Hurricane in England (Susex Airshow)
-three fatalities at Reno (two in addition to the L-39 above)
-US Navy Blue Angels - F-18
-Ziln Mid-air in Poland
-Pitts S2S at Dayton
-Experimental plane enroute OSH
-Canadian Forces Snowbirds - CT - 114 Tutor (seatbelt failure)
-SNJ-2 Geico Skytyper - NAS Oceana
This list seems like a lot to me, or am I just more in tune this year? My
heart goes out to all the families and friends of the pilots of each of the
planes above.
Craig
--
"The fruit of love is service. The fruit of services is peace, and peace
begins with a smile."
- Mother Theresa
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: Reno - Unlimited Gold |
True Dennis, but that was after #2 blew his engine and # 3 was disqualified.
He did beat a Seafury with a 3350 in it.
Jim Griffin
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:42 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Reno - Unlimited Gold
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> Yak 11 runs second to Rare Bear.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/954-full.html#196153
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:12 AM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> Craig,
> The reason is because the OL's and it's wording must be in
> accordance with the current Order, 8130.2F. Many OL's were written
> when previous versions were in place. Even though they are all
> fundamentally the same, the FSDO Inspector is required to use the
> present version of the Order when issuing new OL's. Remember, any
> change to the OL's requires issuance of a new airworthiness
> certificate as well because they are married together. That's why
> one must also submit the 8130-6, Application for Airworthiness
> Certificate.
And as to whether or not you need to get a new LOL, your point about
it being married to the AC is significant. Your existing LOL is
married to your AC. It currently has the 300nm limit on it therefore
even tho' the 300nm limit has been rescinded, it still appears on
your LOL and therefore is still a part of your OL. If you want it off
you need a new LOL issued by the FSDO along with a new AC.
It matters because it is still on the piece of paper. You can't
change that paper without changing the AC too. Remember, what is
written on the piece of paper is *always* more important and
significant than the rule book.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+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-Exupry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
But if the FAA would have simply said, "This Memorandum, when carried in the
aircraft, removes the restriction of the 300/600 NM proficiency area." But
no, they want to create paperwork havoc for the local FSDO guys. Wait
until the local FSDO inspectors get inundated with the requests. It will
take MONTHS to get your new OL's and Airworthiness Certificate.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-1927@lloyd.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:12 AM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>
>> Craig,
>> The reason is because the OL's and it's wording must be in accordance
>> with the current Order, 8130.2F. Many OL's were written when previous
>> versions were in place. Even though they are all fundamentally the
>> same, the FSDO Inspector is required to use the present version of the
>> Order when issuing new OL's. Remember, any change to the OL's requires
>> issuance of a new airworthiness certificate as well because they are
>> married together. That's why one must also submit the 8130-6,
>> Application for Airworthiness Certificate.
>
> And as to whether or not you need to get a new LOL, your point about it
> being married to the AC is significant. Your existing LOL is married to
> your AC. It currently has the 300nm limit on it therefore even tho' the
> 300nm limit has been rescinded, it still appears on your LOL and
> therefore is still a part of your OL. If you want it off you need a new
> LOL issued by the FSDO along with a new AC.
>
> It matters because it is still on the piece of paper. You can't change
> that paper without changing the AC too. Remember, what is written on the
> piece of paper is *always* more important and significant than the rule
> book.
>
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
> brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
> +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-Exupry
>
> PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
> PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
>
>
>
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Take the slash ( / ) off the end of the address.
Your welcome, Jim B
>>> Doug Sapp <rvfltd@televar.com> 9/19/2007 10:17 AM >>>
Could not find http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf/ anyone able to
download the form?
Doug Sapp
=====================
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:45 PM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> But if the FAA would have simply said, "This Memorandum, when
> carried in the aircraft, removes the restriction of the 300/600 NM
> proficiency area." But no, they want to create paperwork havoc for
> the local FSDO guys. Wait until the local FSDO inspectors get
> inundated with the requests. It will take MONTHS to get your new
> OL's and Airworthiness Certificate.
I know and I agree. OTOH, it makes a very simple but perverse sort of
sense. The guy in the field doesn't need to know nufin' but, "what's
it say in da LOL? If'n it sez it in da' LOL, dat's what matters."
This makes it very easy for a guy with an IQ of 80 to be a field
inspector.
So, to make it easy for the guy in the field to determine if your
airplane is airworthy, he looks at your AC which refers him to your
LOL. He reads that. It says you have to be within 300nm. He doesn't
need anything more nor does he need to think about it.
Frankly, I *WANT* a new LOL so I don't have to get into an argument
in the field with the field inspector with an IQ of 80 because that
is *precisely* the guy I'm going to get when I am ramp-checked.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+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-Exupry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
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 YouTube, i just saw the video of the Hawker Hurricane accident at
Shoreham.
It looks like he attempted a Slip S. Hit a accelerated stall at about the
60 degree nose down point. The broke right about 20 degrees and looked like
it went in at that angle. It happened very quickly. Good guy and airplane
gone.
Guys the earth and aerodynamics don't know your name or who you are. They
are unforgiving of violations.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
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: Reno - Unlimited Gold |
Dennis,
Mat Jackson, Sea Fury (Dreadnaught) finished second, but was
disqualified for breaking the deadline. Funny how the
mustangs are not finishing the races these days.....
Fly Safe
John Fischer
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Reno - Unlimited Gold
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> Yak 11 runs second to Rare Bear.
>
>
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/954-full.html#196153
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ===
>
>
>
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 |
|
There isn't much of anything in Jean other than slot machines and sand.
Which direction are you coming from?
S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelley Monroe
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:14 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: Jean NV.
Is there any Yak members at Jean, Nv. 0L7 or around the Las Vegas area? I
am planning a trip their and may need some advice. Thanks Kelley
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! --
|