Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:58 AM - Re: yak 50 (bill wade)
2. 06:00 AM - Re: yak 50 (Dave Jester)
3. 06:32 AM - Re: yak 50 (A. Dennis Savarese)
4. 08:22 AM - Re: yak-50 (Barry Hancock)
5. 08:38 AM - Re: Cj-6a Manuals (Doug Sapp)
6. 08:40 AM - Red Star aircraft on the big screen (Barry Hancock)
7. 10:35 AM - Re: Re: yak-50 (Roger Kemp)
8. 11:02 AM - Yak 50 mishap, FAST, RPA Manual (Drew)
9. 12:13 PM - FAST, Formation Flight, Safety (Craig Winkelmann)
10. 12:32 PM - Re: Red Star aircraft on the big screen (ByronMFox@aol.com)
11. 02:54 PM - Re: Red Star aircraft on the big screen (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
12. 03:19 PM - CJ- 6A propeller TBO (gena perevedentsev)
13. 03:33 PM - Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
14. 05:30 PM - Re: Cj-6a Manuals (Roger Bieberdorf)
15. 05:44 PM - Re: Cj-6a Manuals (Brian Lloyd)
16. 07:25 PM - Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety (Craig Winkelmann, CFI)
17. 07:38 PM - Re: Red Star aircraft on the big screen (Craig Winkelmann, CFI)
18. 10:18 PM - Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety (Gpw678@aol.com)
19. 11:43 PM - Re: Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety (Brian Lloyd)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Do any of the pilot-owners of the injured ships monitor this list? if so an
d the airplane that got its tail chewed off is a 52 and would like some par
ts I have a Yak 52 fuselage and tail 1982 vintage I believe.=0ABill Wade=0A
bwade154@yahoo.com=0ABroadalbin NY=0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A=0A=0A =0A----- Or
iginal Message ----=0AFrom: Dave Jester <djester@gjtbs.com>=0ATo: yak-list@
matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:10:10 PM=0ASubject: Re: Y
ak-List: yak 50=0A=0A=0AMark: I guess what I am inartfully saying is that
I do not know the circumstances surrounding the accident. Nothing is certa
in in our flying and accidents do occur. What you are comfortable and comp
etent in should control. Although there are people that I trust and do sec
tion land with in my birddog, I can count those people on one hand. I agre
e that I would have to know my flight lead very well before I would do it.
There is a risk in that as well, but I love formation flying and I will c
ontinue to do so. I apoligize if anyone took my comments as questioning th
e skill and competence of the pilots at issue. =0A=0A----- Original Message
-----=0AFrom: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com <owner-yak-list-server@m
atronics.com>=0ATo: yak-list@matronics.com <yak-list@matronics.com>=0ASent:
Tue Oct 30 18:46:49 2007=0ASubject: RE: Yak-List: yak 50=0A=0A--> Yak-List
message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>=0A=0ADave, if you don't feel comfortable doing A
NYTHING, you shouldn't do it.=0A=0A=0AI feel comfortable section landing my
YAK-50 with any number of other=0Aaircraft. I have done it, I continue to
do it, and will do it tomorrow=0Aand the next day, as long as I know the p
erson who is lead. I am much=0Amore worried flying a section to landing as
lead than I am as wingman by=0Athe way. =0A=0AOf course I have my own limi
tations. They deal with wind speed and=0Adirection over the deck, the perf
ormance capabilities of the airplane I=0Aam flying with, the experience and
knowledge of the other guy, how many=0Atimes we have done it together, etc
., etc. =0A=0ASometimes I say yes, sometimes I say no. I am sure that the
two guys=0Awho touched each other are now wishing they would have said no.
I am=0Aalso quite sure they will learn from it and be safer pilots in the
=0Afuture. =0A=0AI hear you loud and clear when you say that you are not pa
ssing=0Ajudgment, my only question would be... If you WERE passing judgment
,=0Awhat would be different in what you have already said? =0A=0ARespectful
ly,=0A=0AMark Bitterlich=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: owner-y
ak-list-server@matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Dave Jester=0ASent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:42=0ATo: yak
-list@matronics.com=0ASubject: RE: Yak-List: yak 50=0A=0AIn all my formatio
n training, they preached against section landings in=0Atail wheeled aircra
ft. It is not the accepted standard for FAST that I=0Aam aware of and I wo
uld not attempt it. It is far too easy to lose=0Adirectional control and p
rang the airplane. It is much better to=0Astagger land with separation bet
ween the A/C (assuming a big wide=0Arunway) or to stagger land with enough
distance between the A/C (on a=0Anot so wide runway). That would allow for
a margin of safety should one=0Aof the ships get squirrelly on landing and
roll out. I wasn't there so=0AI am not passing judgment; I just believe t
hat planes shouldn't "bump"=0Aon the runway. =0A=0A=0A=0Adave jester=0A
=0A________________________________=0A=0AFrom: owner-yak-list-server@matron
ics.com=0A[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Denn
is=0ASavarese=0ASent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:22 AM=0ATo: yak-list@mat
ronics.com=0ASubject: Re: Yak-List: yak 50=0A=0A=0A=0AYou're right on the m
oney Dave. It IS unsafe, especially for a poor=0Avisibility Yak 50. The T
D will fall into that same category. Yes, it=0Awas a section formation lan
ding. This is precisely why I will NOT do=0Aformation landings. I don't d
o formation flying for a living and I=0Adon't HAVE to do it if I don't want
to. As far as I'm concerned, only=0Afull time demonstration teams should
do formation landings because they=0Apractice it every day they fly.=0A=0A
Dennis=0A=0A=0A=0A ----- Original Message -----=0A=0A From: D
ave Jester <mailto:djester@gjtbs.com> =0A=0A To: yak-list@matronics.
com=0A=0A Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:06 AM=0A=0A Subj
ect: RE: Yak-List: yak 50=0A=0A =0A=0A Was this a true sectio
n formation landing? If, yes, why is a=0Atail wheel group landing in forma
tion? Doesn't seem safe to me. =0A=0A =0A=0A dave jester=0A
=0A =0A________________________________=0A=0A=0A From: owner-y
ak-list-server@matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Terry Lewis=0A Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 8:40 PM
=0A To: yak-list@matronics.com=0A Subject: Yak-List: yak 50
=0A=0A =0A=0A Speaking of YAK 50,s.=0A=0A I found on t
he NTSB web site that on Oct 06 at El Cajon Ca. a=0Acouple of YAK 50,s bum
ped on landing . Number three was hit by number=0Afour in a formation landi
ng.=0A=0A No one was hurt. The N numbers were N 509ra and N 950ms.
=0A=0A Looks similar to Oshkosh but with better results.=0A=0A
Terry=0A=0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A
=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronic
s.=0Acom/Navigator?Yak-List=0A href="http://forums.matronics.com">
===================0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=C2
=C2=B7=BA~=B0=C3=AD=C2=B2,=C3=9Eg(=93=C5-=C3=93M4=C3=93
G=C3=9Aq=C3=BC=C2=A2=C3=AA=C3=A2z=C2=B9=C3=9E=C3=81=C3=8A.=C2=AE'=C2=AB8^a
=C2=A9=C5-=C3=8BD=84=A2=C2=A8=C2=A5=C5-=C3=AE=EF=BD,z=C3=98^1=C2
=ABk=C2=A2x=C5=93=C2=B0=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B4W=C5=A1=C2=B6=C3=AA=C3=9E=C2=B0=C3
'=C2=AF=C5-=C2=AD=C2=A2=C2=BBhn=C2=BA0=C2=B1=C3=AD=C3=A9=C5=A1
=C5=B8"=C3=A2=C2=B2=C3=9B=C2=AD=C5-X=C2=AD=B0=C3=AB,=C2=B9=C3=88Z
=C2=B2=C3=98^J=C3=C3=ACr=C2=B8=C2=A9=C2=B6*'=C2=B2=93 x+r=C2=AFy'
=C5=A1=C2=AD=C3=88C=C2=A3 =C3=A5=C2=A1=C2=A7{ =C2=AC=EF=BD=C2=AE=C5=92,x
(Z=C2=B4P=C3=B8h=C2=B6=B9!j=C2=B7=C5=A1=EF=BD=C3=99=C2=AEr=C2=AEr
=C2=A8=C2=AD=C3=BA-=C2=B7=C5=B8m=C2=A7=C3=C3=B0=C3=83 =C5=A1=C2
=B6=C2=BA'=B0=C3=8B=C2=A2o=C3=8Dj=C3=B8 j=C3=9A+a=C2=A9=C5-=C3=8Ba
=C2=B6=C3=9A=C30=84=A2=C2=ABk=C2=A2x=C5=93=C2=B1=C3=8A&=C3=BC=C3'
=C2=AF=C5-=C2=AD=C2=A2=C2=B6=EF=BD=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B7=C3=B64E=C5=924N4
=82=AC=99X@E9L=C5=A1=84=A2=C3=A8+y=C2=AB\=C2=A2{^=C5=BE=C3=99
=C3=A8=C3=81=C2=A9l=C2=A1=C2=AB=C3=9A=C5-V=BA=A2=C3=AB=C3=A2j
=C3=98^Y=C3=C3=85=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2=B6=C2=A1=C2=AD=C3=A7-=C3
=9Bi=C3=C3=B7=C3=A8=C2=AE=C3=A9=C2=AC=84=A2=C2=ABk=C2=A2x=C5=93=C2=B1
=C3=8A&-=C3=9Bi=C3=C3=B7=C3=A8=C2=AE=C3=A9=C2=AC=84=A2=C2=ABk
=C2=A2x=C5=93=C2=B1=C3=8A&=C3=BD=C2=AF=C3=9B=C3=BD=C3=BA'=C2=B7=C3=BAk{=C3
=B6=C3=A8w/=C3=A1=C2=B6i=0A=0A_____________________________________________
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 |
|
V2VsbCBzYWlkIE1hcmsgYW5kIHBvaW50IHRha2VuLiAgSSBhbSBhbHNvIHBsZWFzZWQgdGhhdCBu
byBvbmUgd2FzIGh1cnQuICBJIHRvbyBzaGFsbCBjb250aXVuZSB0byBmbHkgZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFu
ZCBob3BlIHRoYXQgSSBhbSBsdWNreSBlbm91Z2ggdG8gYXZvaWQgYW4gYWNjaWRlbnQuICBJdCBp
cyB3aGF0IG1ha2VzIGxpZmUgd29ydGggbGl2aW5nLiAgSSBzd2VhdCBtb3JlIGluIGZvcnR5IG1p
bnV0ZXMgb2YgZm9ybWF0aW9uIGZseWluZyB0aGVuIGluIG11Y2ggbW9yZSB0aW1lIHdvcmtpbmcg
b3V0Lg0KDQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBvd25lci15YWstbGlz
dC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbSA8b3duZXIteWFrLWxpc3Qtc2VydmVyQG1hdHJvbmljcy5j
b20+DQpUbzogeWFrLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbSA8eWFrLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbT4N
ClNlbnQ6IFR1ZSBPY3QgMzAgMTg6MDE6MzMgMjAwNw0KU3ViamVjdDogUkU6IFlhay1MaXN0OiB5
YWsgNTANCg0KLS0+IFlhay1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAiQml0dGVybGljaCwgTWFy
ayBHIENJViBEZXQgQ2hlcnJ5IFBvaW50LCBNQUxTLTE0IDY0RSIgPG1hcmsuYml0dGVybGljaEBu
YXZ5Lm1pbD4NCg0KRGF2ZSwgbWFueSBwZW9wbGUgaW4gdGhpcyB3b3JsZCBsaXZlIGZvciBkb2lu
ZyB0aGluZ3MgdGhhdCBvdGhlcnMgd291bGQNCmNvbnNpZGVyIHRvIGJlIGxlc3MgdGhhbiBzYWZl
LiAgVGhlIGxpc3QgaXMgZW5kbGVzcywgYW5kIEkgYW0gbm90IGdvaW5nDQp0byBpbnN1bHQgeW91
IGJ5IGxpc3RpbmcgZXhhbXBsZXMuICANCg0KQW55IHRpbWUgYW55b25lIGhhcyBhbiBhY2NpZGVu
dCBkb2luZyBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIG1hbnkgdGhpbmdzIHRoYXQgd2UgYXJlDQpub3QgbGlzdGluZyBo
ZXJlLCBpdCB0aGVuIGJlY29tZXMgdmVyeSBlYXN5IGZvciBzb21lb25lIHRvIHNheSB0aGUgdmVy
eQ0KZXhhY3Qgc2FtZSB0aGluZyB0aGF0IHlvdSBkaWQuICBJLkUuICJUaGF0IGRvZXNuJ3Qgc2Vl
bSBzYWZlIHRvIG1lLCB3aHkNCndlcmUgdGhleSBkb2luZyB0aGF0PyINCg0KVGhlcmUgcHJvYmFi
bHkgYXJlIGEgbG90IG9mIGJldHRlciBhbnN3ZXJzIHRvIHRoaXMgdGhhbiBtaW5lLCBidXQgSSds
bA0KZ2l2ZSBpdCBhIHNob3Q6ICBCZWNhdXNlIHRoZXkgZW5qb3kgZG9pbmcgaXQgdmVyeSBtdWNo
LCB3aGF0IHRoZXkgd2VyZQ0KZG9pbmcgd2FzIGFib3ZlIGJvYXJkIGFuZCBsZWdhbCwgQU5EIHRo
ZXkgdHJhaW5lZCB2ZXJ5IGhhcmQgdG8gZG8gaXQgYXMNCnNhZmVseSBhcyB0aGV5IGNvdWxkLCBi
dXQgaW4gdGhlIHByb2Nlc3Mgc29tZXRoaW5nIHdlbnQgd3JvbmcgYW5kIHRoZXJlDQp3YXMgYW4g
YWNjaWRlbnQuIA0KDQpJIGZvciBvbmUgYW0gdmVyeSBzb3JyeSB0aGVyZSB3YXMgYW4gYWNjaWRl
bnQgYXQgYWxsLCBidXQgYW0gZXh0cmVtZWx5DQpoYXBweSB0aGF0IG5vIG9uZSB3YXMgaHVydCwg
YW5kIGFzIGFuIEFtZXJpY2FuIHdpbGwgc3VwcG9ydCB0aGVtDQp3aG9sZWhlYXJ0ZWRseSB3aGVu
IHRoZXkgaG9wIGludG8gYW5vdGhlciBhaXJjcmFmdCBhbmQgdHJ5IHRvIGRvIGl0DQphZ2FpbiB0
b21vcnJvdy4gIFRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHRha2UgY2VydGFpbiByaXNrcyBpbiBsaWZlIGlzIGlu
IG15IG1pbmQNCndoYXQgbWFrZXMgbGlmZSB3b3J0aCBsaXZpbmcuICANCg0KT2YgY291cnNlIGV2
ZXJ5b25lIGlzIGVudGl0bGVkIHRvIGhpcyBvciBoZXIgb3duIG9waW5pb24sIGFuZCB0aGF0IGlz
DQphbHNvIHdoYXQgbWFrZXMgdGhpcyBjb3VudHJ5IGdyZWF0LiANCg0KUmVzcGVjdGZ1bGx5LCAN
Cg0KTWFyayBCaXR0ZXJsaWNoDQogDQogICANCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0N
CkZyb206IG93bmVyLXlhay1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQpbbWFpbHRvOm93bmVy
LXlhay1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgRGF2ZSBKZXN0ZXIN
ClNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIE9jdG9iZXIgMzAsIDIwMDcgMTE6MDYNClRvOiB5YWstbGlzdEBtYXRy
b25pY3MuY29tDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogWWFrLUxpc3Q6IHlhayA1MA0KDQpXYXMgdGhpcyBhIHRy
dWUgc2VjdGlvbiBmb3JtYXRpb24gbGFuZGluZz8gIElmLCB5ZXMsIHdoeSBpcyBhIHRhaWwgd2hl
ZWwNCmdyb3VwIGxhbmRpbmcgaW4gZm9ybWF0aW9uPyBEb2Vzbid0IHNlZW0gc2FmZSB0byBtZS4g
IA0KDQogDQoNCmRhdmUgamVzdGVyDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
DQoNCkZyb206IG93bmVyLXlhay1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQpbbWFpbHRvOm93
bmVyLXlhay1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgVGVycnkgTGV3
aXMNClNlbnQ6IE1vbmRheSwgT2N0b2JlciAyOSwgMjAwNyA4OjQwIFBNDQpUbzogeWFrLWxpc3RA
bWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KU3ViamVjdDogWWFrLUxpc3Q6IHlhayA1MA0KDQogDQoNClNwZWFraW5n
IG9mIFlBSyA1MCxzLiANCg0KSSBmb3VuZCBvbiB0aGUgTlRTQiB3ZWIgc2l0ZSB0aGF0IG9uIE9j
dCAwNiBhdCBFbCBDYWpvbiBDYS4gIGEgY291cGxlIG9mDQpZQUsgNTAscyBidW1wZWQgb24gbGFu
ZGluZyAuIE51bWJlciB0aHJlZSB3YXMgaGl0IGJ5IG51bWJlciBmb3VyIGluIGENCmZvcm1hdGlv
biBsYW5kaW5nLg0KDQpObyBvbmUgd2FzIGh1cnQuIFRoZSBOIG51bWJlcnMgd2VyZSBOIDUwOXJh
IGFuZCBOIDk1MG1zLg0KDQpMb29rcyBzaW1pbGFyIHRvIE9zaGtvc2ggYnV0IHdpdGggYmV0dGVy
IHJlc3VsdHMuIA0KDQpUZXJyeQ0KDQogDQogDQogDQoNCg0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCl8tPSAgICAgICAgICAt
IFRoZSBZYWstTGlzdCBFbWFpbCBGb3J1bSAtDQpfLT0gVXNlIHRoZSBNYXRyb25pY3MgTGlzdCBG
ZWF0dXJlcyBOYXZpZ2F0b3IgdG8gYnJvd3NlDQpfLT0gdGhlIG1hbnkgTGlzdCB1dGlsaXRpZXMg
c3VjaCBhcyB0aGUgU3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ucyBwYWdlLA0KXy09IEFyY2hpdmUgU2VhcmNoICYgRG93
bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5IEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLA0KXy09IFBob3Rvc2hhcmUsIGFuZCBtdWNo
IG11Y2ggbW9yZToNCl8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vTmF2aWdhdG9y
P1lhay1MaXN0DQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIE5FVyBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZP
UlVNUyAtDQpfLT0gU2FtZSBncmVhdCBjb250ZW50IG5vdyBhbHNvIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEgdGhl
IFdlYiBGb3J1bXMhDQpfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQpfLT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PQ0KDQoNCg0K
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 |
|
Both were Yak 50's.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: bill wade
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: yak 50
Do any of the pilot-owners of the injured ships monitor this list? if
so and the airplane that got its tail chewed off is a 52 and would like
some parts I have a Yak 52 fuselage and tail 1982 vintage I believe.
Bill Wade
bwade154@yahoo.com
Broadalbin NY
----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Jester <djester@gjtbs.com>
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: yak 50
Mark: I guess what I am inartfully saying is that I do not know the
circumstances surrounding the accident. Nothing is certain in our
flying and accidents do occur. What you are comfortable and competent
in should control. Although there are people that I trust and do
section land with in my birddog, I can count those people on one hand.
I agree that I would have to know my flight lead very well before I
would do it. There is a risk in that as well, but I love formation
flying and I will continue to do so. I apoligize if anyone took my
comments as questioning the skill and competence of the pilots at issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com>
To: yak-list@matronics.com <yak-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tue Oct 30 18:46:49 2007
Subject: RE: Yak-List: yak 50
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Dave, if you don't feel comfortable doing ANYTHING, you shouldn't do
it.
I feel comfortable section landing my YAK-50 with any number of other
aircraft. I have done it, I continue to do it, and will do it
tomorrow
and the next day, as long as I know the person who is lead. I am much
more worried flying a section to landing as lead than I am as wingman
by
the way.
Of course I have my own limitations. They deal with wind speed and
direction over the deck, the performance capabilities of the airplane
I
am flying with, the experience and knowledge of the other guy, how
many
times we have done it together, etc., etc.
Sometimes I say yes, sometimes I say no. I am sure that the two guys
who touched each other are now wishing they would have said no. I am
also quite sure they will learn from it and be safer pilots in the
future.
I hear you loud and clear when you say that you are not passing
judgment, my only question would be... If you WERE passing judgment,
what would be different in what you have already said?
Respectfully,
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Jester
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:42
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Yak-List: yak 50
In all my formation training, they preached against section landings
in
tail wheeled aircraft. It is not the accepted standard for FAST that
I
am aware of and I would not attempt it. It is far too easy to lose
directional control and prang the airplane. It is much better to
stagger land with separation between the A/C (assuming a big wide
runway) or to stagger land with enough distance between the A/C (on a
not so wide runway). That would allow for a margin of safety should
one
of the ships get squirrelly on landing and roll out. I wasn't there
so
I am not passing judgment; I just believe that planes shouldn't "bump"
on the runway.
dave jester
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
Savarese
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:22 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: yak 50
You're right on the money Dave. It IS unsafe, especially for a poor
visibility Yak 50. The TD will fall into that same category. Yes, it
was a section formation landing. This is precisely why I will NOT do
formation landings. I don't do formation flying for a living and I
don't HAVE to do it if I don't want to. As far as I'm concerned,
only
full time demonstration teams should do formation landings because
they
practice it every day they fly.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Jester <mailto:djester@gjtbs.com>
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: yak 50
Was this a true section formation landing? If, yes, why is a
tail wheel group landing in formation? Doesn't seem safe to me.
dave jester
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Lewis
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 8:40 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: yak 50
Speaking of YAK 50,s.
I found on the NTSB web site that on Oct 06 at El Cajon Ca. a
couple of YAK 50,s bumped on landing . Number three was hit by number
four in a formation landing.
No one was hurt. The N numbers were N 509ra and N 950ms.
Looks similar to Oshkosh but with better results.
Terry
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List" target=_blank
rel=nofo;
http:====================
=C2=C2=B7?=BA~?=B0=C3=AD=C2=B2,=C3zg(?"=C5
=C3"M4=C3"G=C3sq=C3=BC=C2=A2=C3=AA=C3=A2z=C2=B9=C3z=C3=81=C3S.=C2=AE'=C2=AB
8^a=C2=A9=C5 =C3<D"=A2=C2=A8=C2=A5=C5
=C3=AE=EF=BD,z=C3~^1=C2=ABk=C2=A2x=C5"=C2=B0=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B4W=C5=A1=C2
=B6=C3=AA=C3z=C2=B0=C3-=C2=AF=C5
=AD=C2=A2=C2=BBhn=C2=BA0=C2=B1=C3=AD?=C3=A9=C5=A1=C5=B8"=C3=A2=C2=B2
=C3>=AD=C5
X=AD?=B0=C3=AB,=C2=B9=C3^Z=C2=B2=C3~^J=C3=C3=ACr=C2=B8=C2=A9=C2=B6*
'=C2=B2?" x+r=C2=AFy'=C5=A1=AD=C3^C=C2=A3 =C3=A5=C2=A1=C2=A7{
=C2=AC=EF=BD=C2=AE=C5',x(Z=C2=B4P=C3=B8h=C2=B6?=B9!j=C2=B7=C5=A1=EF
=BD=C3T=C2=AEr=C2=AEr=C2=A8=AD=C3=BA?
=C2=B7=C5=B8m=C2=A7=C3=C3=B0=C3f
=C5=A1=C2=B6=C2=BA'?=B0=C3<=C2=A2o=C3=8Dj=C3=B8 j=C3s+a=C2=A9=C5
=C3<a=C2=B6=C3s=C30"=A2=C2=ABk=C2=A2x=C5"=C2=B1=C3S&=C3=BC=C3-=C2=AF
=C5
=AD=C2=A2=C2=B6=EF=BD=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B7=C3=B64E=C5'4N4,=AC?TX@E9
L=C5=A1"=A2=C3=A8+y=C2=AB\=C2=A2{^=C5=BE=C3T=C3=A8=C3=81=C2=A9l=C2=A1=C2
=AB=C3s=C5
V?=BA?=A2=C3=AB=C3=A2j=C3~^Y=C3=C3.=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2=B6=C2=A1
=AD=C3=A7?
=C3>i=C3=C3=B7=C3=A8=C2=AE=C3=A9=C2=AC"=A2=C2=ABk=C2=A2x=C5"=C2=B1=C3
S&?
=C3>i=C3=C3=B7=C3=A8=C2=AE=C3=A9=C2=AC"=A2=C2=ABk=C2=A2x=C5"=C2=B1=C3
S&=C3=BD=C2=AF=C3>=C3=BD=C3=BA'=C2=B7=C3=BAk{=C3=B6=C3=A8w/=C3=A1=C2=B6i
_____________________________________________
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 |
|
Gang,
Despite my better judgement, here goes.
1) The incident in SD was NOT a section landing. Why are people so
quick to post things as fact when they don't know the facts? It is
potentially very damaging. Look, I've been guilty of same, but have
learned that it's just not prudent to comment on specifics if I
wasn't there because the damage that can result is far more
substantive than the potential gain of "being right" or "looking
smart". I just creates problems.
2) The tragic landing accident at OSH by the P-51's was NOT a
section landing. It was a classic case of lost sight.
3) The new RPA Formation Manual has some very good guidelines,
repeat guidelines, on formation landings. Talon is dead on, 90% (at
least) have not cracked the manual in the last year (or 5). It's a
good read..and far and away the most comprehensive formation manual
available to civilians. If you are a formation pilot, or thinking
about being a formation pilot, it is your responsibility to the
community, in my opinion, to read it. How you apply it is up to
you...unless you go to a clinic where I'm quite sure ALL of the IP's
will know and follow the guidelines (said with a bit of frustrated
sarcasm). Get the manual here: http://www.flyredstar.org/
T_WingPilotCourse.aspx
4) The most important thing we can take away from this, in my
opinion, is that the incidents in OSH and SD drive home the
importance of a clear and thorough brief. You don't have to brief 45
minutes for a 30 minute hop, but a brief covering all the basic
points and a willingness by and responsibility of each member of the
flight to ask for clarification or elaboration on points of conduct/
procedure IS ESSENTIAL EVERY TIME. The guys who dorked it up in SD
are VERY good VERY experienced pilots, same thing in OSH.
Complacency kills.
Someone kick this soap box out from under me before I get in more
trouble....
Bdog
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cj-6a Manuals |
Matt,
I have the complete bound and translated manuals in stock @ $25.00 ea.
or I would be happy to copy pages 2-8 for you at no charge.
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
matt salkeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Was wondering if anyone out there has part of a manual, specifically,
> from the "Type - 6 Primary Trainer Maintenance Manual" in chapter 1,
> section 1 "preliminary aircraft preparation".... I'm missing pages
> 2-8. Thanks for any info out there,
>
> cheers,
>
> Matt Salkeld (CJ-6A, S/N 5232011)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Are you ready for Windows Live Messenger Beta 8.5 ? Get the latest for
> free today! <http://entertainment.sympatico.msn.ca/WindowsLiveMessenger>
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Red Star aircraft on the big screen |
Here is the link to the trailer for the Movie in which 3 L-39's were
extensively involved. This is the best flying footage shot by
Hollywood in a long, long time. If the acting is any good, the movie
will do well... ;) As an aside and a shameless plug, we maintained
all 8 aircraft used in the shoot which saw over 200 total flight
hours within two one week periods. We did not miss a single launch
in that time....it was great fun.
http://www.afterburnerfilms.com/feature-films/fast-glass/
The movie is due out in the Spring...if it ever gets out of the court
system.
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
office (714) 730-3958
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 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 |
|
Bdog,
You are absolutely correct. The NTSB report states the #3 drifted infront of
4 and 4 floated the landing because of the strong crosswinds.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: yak-50
<bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Gang,
Despite my better judgement, here goes.
1) The incident in SD was NOT a section landing. Why are people so
quick to post things as fact when they don't know the facts? It is
potentially very damaging. Look, I've been guilty of same, but have
learned that it's just not prudent to comment on specifics if I
wasn't there because the damage that can result is far more
substantive than the potential gain of "being right" or "looking
smart". I just creates problems.
2) The tragic landing accident at OSH by the P-51's was NOT a
section landing. It was a classic case of lost sight.
3) The new RPA Formation Manual has some very good guidelines,
repeat guidelines, on formation landings. Talon is dead on, 90% (at
least) have not cracked the manual in the last year (or 5). It's a
good read..and far and away the most comprehensive formation manual
available to civilians. If you are a formation pilot, or thinking
about being a formation pilot, it is your responsibility to the
community, in my opinion, to read it. How you apply it is up to
you...unless you go to a clinic where I'm quite sure ALL of the IP's
will know and follow the guidelines (said with a bit of frustrated
sarcasm). Get the manual here: http://www.flyredstar.org/
T_WingPilotCourse.aspx
4) The most important thing we can take away from this, in my
opinion, is that the incidents in OSH and SD drive home the
importance of a clear and thorough brief. You don't have to brief 45
minutes for a 30 minute hop, but a brief covering all the basic
points and a willingness by and responsibility of each member of the
flight to ask for clarification or elaboration on points of conduct/
procedure IS ESSENTIAL EVERY TIME. The guys who dorked it up in SD
are VERY good VERY experienced pilots, same thing in OSH.
Complacency kills.
Someone kick this soap box out from under me before I get in more
trouble....
Bdog
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: | Yak 50 mishap, FAST, RPA Manual |
Folks,
Please listen, without ego, bias or judgment. I will talk a little about these
mishaps and more, excuse the use of the term "I", in all accounts, countless volunteers
have helped in all areas...
My name is Drew Blahnick, average joe pilot, in 2001-2 was board elected as president of the "Yak Pilots Assoc" (YPA) and changed the name to RedStar Pilots Assoc (RPA), designed the website at www.flyredstar.org , published the "Ecom" electronic newsletter system, if you wear an RPA patch from the association store, whether the members patch or the "CJ or yak driver", they started on my laptop's photoshop program. If you've had a chance to enjoy any aspect of this infrastructure, just give this a listen,
There is an aricle coming out in this qtrs Red Alert magazine on takeoff and landing
procedures and mishaps...
For two years this december, the attention/effort will have been centered around
providing an updated comprehensive formation manual that is not, repeat, not
for "trainees", but for all civil formation interested pilots regardless of qualification.
Forget this idea of it being "FAST" only, or "FAST Clique", or "Only
applies to airshows with wavered airspace and an IIC" - you will note that
the manual almost never uses the word or initials "FAST"...this manual is not
regulatory and should not be looked at in that way, this is just sourced knowledge
derived from the best sources we could find (such as the USAF and US Navy
and western Air Forces, as well as current civil operating practices). Some
may react that any organizaional manual must be too "conservative", - read the
takeoff interval and/or runway lineup guidance , it's different from what your
used to being provided in past "formation manuals".
Is it made up? We flew to Pensacola for a personal tour of the US Navy basic formation
program, obtained their guidance documents, no less than 9 phone interviews
with AETC/UPT and ACC officers from Nellis to Randolph, along with inspecting
training documents and procedures that have been "cooking", evolving for
decades through such platforms as the T-34, T-37, T-38, T-6...looked at civil
formation accidents,
When the basic content was complete, I formed an RPA check pilot panel and asked
them to look at the procedures in the new manual, asked them to not worry about
grammer and layout, look at procedures. You can bet there were disagreements,
hard to change mindsets, some varying tolerance levels...to end some stalemates,
we then went out and video taped procedures, folks thought it would never
end ;)
Originally this effort was for a combined RPA - national FAST formation universal
training manual with Mike Filuccis help as FAST president and principal co-author
(like the old T-34 manual concept that would apply to all groups), but
this concept has thankfully changed; FAST national will now produce "broad standards"
for 2008 and beyond, addressed mainly to the signatories, their instructors
(leads), and all check pilots, helping standardize such things as how we
communicate in formation and what an evaluation will look like, this supports
safe interfly among aviation groups, but each signatory, such as the RPA, is
responsible for their own member-training, thus your formation manual...yours
is by far the most comprehensive document in civil formation - please don't write
off the information as "just fast", that would be incorrect - this is just
knowledge derived from sources that can help civil formation pilots, nothing
more, nothing less...
Mishaps:
First, let me clarify a term so I don't get hate mail;
In the manual you will read about "Element landings", this is interchangeable with
the term "Section Landing". Both mean the same thing - Landing in close formation,
or "landing on one's wing". There is effectively no interval.
I know someone asked this: Neither recent accident, Oshkosh (strong conjecture)
or RPA (confirmed), was an element/section landing. These were what the manual
calls "Interval Landings", as when you land from an overhead pattern and take
up alternating sides of the runway ("staggered interval") with X number of seconds
between aircraft. Easy enough...The manual now also lays out other interval
landing options, such as taditional "Hot-Cold" procedures...Whether interval
or element/section, such operations are "formation", with multiple aircraft
moving on the runway...
As both accidents involved TW aircraft of course, a contributing factor for both
was forward visibility [during interval landings], but other issues were present,
such as communication (lack there of), etc. In all cases, the new formation
manual deals effectively with these issues if you read and absorb it. Just
reading and applying the red "warning and caution boxes" will help you stear
clear of such mishaps. Again, watch for the nex Red Alert article specifically
on takeoff and landing.
By the way, the toughest part of this research was in Tailwheel procedures. Why?
The military moved away from TW aircraft in the 1950s with such aircraft as
the T-28 - I could find scant procedural information for the mass training of
formation pilots from the era of TW aircraft. Would this help? Maybe not, but
it gives us a benchmark, just reading the yak list reveals that there are as many
ways to skin a cat as there are TW pilots...The T-34 manual was of course
too thin, so we looked at current "general TW operating practices (NATA/T-6, Fighters/P-51,
etc.) and TW formation accidents for clues to where the guidance
should lay...in no way does this manual attempt to "restrict" anyone, forget
comments about "regulations" or "club/clique rules", this is about indentifying
safe operating practices, nothing more folks.
If you have questions and inputs, the manual is a living document, please email
me directly, I'm collecting all your intelligence. Leads and instructors, you
will find "instructor note" boxes throughout the manual, these came from your
personal experiences - if you see something that needs to be added, let us know.
By the way, one clear line through several mishaps is execution of procedures with
minimal/no briefing/discussion, with pilots who might have marginal recent
currency - about all of us at one time or another right!?!. Now watch this; the
clincher that then seals the deal in almost all that were looked at is a lack
of communication at the point of no return; there was a question about "what
is going on", but you've been bred to "stay off the radios", "wingmans job is
to be there", "he knows what he's doing" and in one mishap, a controller probably
thinking "they fly warbirds, they know what there doing"...
Brief it (especially takeoff and landing procedures)...practice it...
"communicate away the confusion in it"...debrief it...drink beer to it...
A great process I think, hope you agree...
Sincerely,
Drew
PS: I flew lower than I should have with friends last year, I screw sh_t up too,
you bet, this yak post is designed to help us all have a good time....
Drew Blahnick/305.803.9158
Vice president/FAST
CJ/Y50/L29 Type
__________________________________________________
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: | FAST, Formation Flight, Safety |
I have read the jabs at FAST posted here. I am new to formation flight and
the RPA. I have had the distinct opportunity to fly with Drew Blahnick and
proofread the new RPA formation manual. I also helped provide the student
perspective as I was learning formation while proofreading the documents.
Flying has some inherent risks to it. Formation flying adds to those
risks. Drew has spent countless hours writing and rewriting the manual. He
has used manuals from the Air Force, Navy, former formation manuals, etc,
etc to draft the new version. It is an excellent work. The chapter on
tactical formation is in the works.
FAST was a way to increase the safety of formation flight for members of the
signatories, of which the RPA is one. As a CFI, I try to make sure that my
students are safe. FAST is doing the same for those who wish to fly in
formation. Can you go learn formation from a former military pilot or
someone who knows formation flight and never crack open a FAST document.
Sure. But why would you? How do you know, for instance, if the hand and
aircraft signals you learn are the same ones someone else knows? What about
recommended takeoff and landing intervals? FAST standardized all this so
that the folks flying T-6s, T-28s, P-51s, Yak-52s, CJs, L-39s, L-29, etc,
etc all learn formation flight in a similar fashion. This increases the
safety of the learning process and formation flight. Watch any Heritage
Flight at an airshow and you'll see why this is important.
Additionally, if you don't want to wear a chute or nomex that is fine. All
FAST is saying is that for events where FAST rules apply, you must
follow FAST guidelines. As far as chutes are concerned, remember there is a
FAR specifying when one is to be worn. Some aspects of formation flight may
venture into areas where the bank or pitch attitude of your aircraft will
require you to wear one. Are you less safe without a chute and not wearing
nomex? I think you are. But it is your life and your skin. You decide.
You want to break FARs, your choice.
All we need to do is keep bending aluminum and the FAA will start taking a
look at the safety of warbird operation and could place restrictions on
formation flight. Then we all lose.
Go read the new manual. Keep an open mind. I know for a fact that it was
written with the key concept of safety of the pilots and our aircraft in
mind.
Fly often, stay safe,
Craig Winkelmann, CFI
Nanchang CJ-6
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: Red Star aircraft on the big screen |
Did you do any flying in it, Barry? I noticed your L-39 and Lancair.
...Blitz
**************************************
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: | Red Star aircraft on the big screen |
Pretty damn impressive Barry!
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:36
Subject: Yak-List: Red Star aircraft on the big screen
Here is the link to the trailer for the Movie in which 3 L-39's were
extensively involved. This is the best flying footage shot by Hollywood
in a long, long time. If the acting is any good, the movie will do
well... ;) As an aside and a shameless plug, we maintained all 8
aircraft used in the shoot which saw over 200 total flight hours within
two one week periods. We did not miss a single launch in that
time....it was great fun.
http://www.afterburnerfilms.com/feature-films/fast-glass/
<http://www.afterburnerfilms.com/feature-films/fast-glass/>
The movie is due out in the Spring...if it ever gets out of the court
system.
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
office (714) 730-3958
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 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: | CJ- 6A propeller TBO |
Would anybody have the lifetime/TBO limitation figures for CJ-6a propeller (J9-G1)
. Without this data the company which carried out previous overhaul was
able to give us only 250 hours 5 years TBO. Prop/ aircraft manufacturer service
bulletin, logbook stamp would be a great help.
Thank you.
Gena Perevedentsev.
West London Airclub
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.
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: | FAST, Formation Flight, Safety |
Well... Sorry, I can't help it Craig... And I hope I don't blow a good
future friendship with a neighbor!
I agree with everything you said, and my hat is off to RPA and FAST in
99.8% of all areas. It's that 0.2% that I post about here. So to
everyone reading this, please keep the percentages in proportion.
You said this: "Additionally, if you don't want to wear a chute or nomex
that is fine. All FAST is saying is that for events where FAST rules
apply, you must follow FAST guidelines. As far as chutes are concerned,
remember there is a FAR specifying when one is to be worn. Some aspects
of formation flight may venture into areas where the bank or pitch
attitude of your aircraft will require you to wear one. Are you less
safe without a chute and not wearing nomex? I think you are. But it is
your life and your skin. You decide. You want to break FARs, your
choice."
I have been told on more than one occasion that a FAST training session
is obviously a time where FAST rules apply, and that makes sense really.
There is an RPA FAST guideline that says that Flight Suits must be worn.
Drew and I have talked about this personally in the past, and the reason
for this point of view has been clearly discussed until the horse is
dead and buried. I would like to make the suggestion that Flight Suits
not be required for FAST TRAINING. Instead the wording to be changed to
"recommended but not required". On the other hand, for events where the
RPA is showing the flag... As in events where RPA FAST card members are
flying and representing RPA itself, I personally have no problem
what-so-ever with ANY organization specifying a dress code. Period...
End of stories (as Sergei would say). However, it is my firm opinion,
and it will never change... That worthwhile pilot training (and FAST
training most certainly meets that definition) should never be withheld
simply because a person does not own, or desire to wear (whatever) a
Flight Suit. Please, no one bring up the first word about "SAFETY".
This issue has been decided LONG ago.
Second, as you said, there is a FAR that specifies when parachutes shall
be worn. I would like to suggest here that the RPA rules be changed to
read: RPA members and trainees will wear parachutes as specified in the
FAR". Keep in mind Craig that single seat aircraft pilots are NOT
required to wear a chute, and yes... I have checked with four FISDO's on
that issue, it is accurate.
In your posting you said: " But it is your life and your skin. You
decide. You want to break FARs, your choice."
If that is in fact RPA's current stance on parachutes, then please
disregard this posting... But I don't think that it is. I would very
much like to be wrong, so if I am ... Lay it on me, please.
Respectfully,
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Winkelmann
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 15:12
Subject: Yak-List: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety
I have read the jabs at FAST posted here. I am new to formation flight
and the RPA. I have had the distinct opportunity to fly with Drew
Blahnick and proofread the new RPA formation manual. I also helped
provide the student perspective as I was learning formation while
proofreading the documents.
Flying has some inherent risks to it. Formation flying adds to those
risks. Drew has spent countless hours writing and rewriting the manual.
He has used manuals from the Air Force, Navy, former formation manuals,
etc, etc to draft the new version. It is an excellent work. The
chapter on tactical formation is in the works.
FAST was a way to increase the safety of formation flight for members of
the signatories, of which the RPA is one. As a CFI, I try to make sure
that my students are safe. FAST is doing the same for those who wish to
fly in formation. Can you go learn formation from a former military
pilot or someone who knows formation flight and never crack open a FAST
document. Sure. But why would you? How do you know, for instance, if
the hand and aircraft signals you learn are the same ones someone else
knows? What about recommended takeoff and landing intervals? FAST
standardized all this so that the folks flying T-6s, T-28s, P-51s,
Yak-52s, CJs, L-39s, L-29, etc, etc all learn formation flight in a
similar fashion. This increases the safety of the learning process and
formation flight. Watch any Heritage Flight at an airshow and you'll
see why this is important.
Additionally, if you don't want to wear a chute or nomex that is fine.
All FAST is saying is that for events where FAST rules apply, you must
follow FAST guidelines. As far as chutes are concerned, remember there
is a FAR specifying when one is to be worn. Some aspects of formation
flight may venture into areas where the bank or pitch attitude of your
aircraft will require you to wear one. Are you less safe without a
chute and not wearing nomex? I think you are. But it is your life and
your skin. You decide. You want to break FARs, your choice.
All we need to do is keep bending aluminum and the FAA will start taking
a look at the safety of warbird operation and could place restrictions
on formation flight. Then we all lose.
Go read the new manual. Keep an open mind. I know for a fact that it
was written with the key concept of safety of the pilots and our
aircraft in mind.
Fly often, stay safe,
Craig Winkelmann, CFI
Nanchang CJ-6
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: Cj-6a Manuals |
Doug;
If there is ANYTHING that has made me want to keep the CJ-6 (besides the fun
of flying the bird); it is your product support and dedication to our Aircraft!
Thanks! Roger B
Doug Sapp <rvfltd@televar.com> wrote:
Matt,
I have the complete bound and translated manuals in stock @ $25.00 ea. or I would
be happy to copy pages 2-8 for you at no charge.
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
matt salkeld wrote: .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage
{ FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } Hi,
Was wondering if anyone out there has part of a manual, specifically, from the
"Type - 6 Primary Trainer Maintenance Manual" in chapter 1, section 1 "preliminary
aircraft preparation".... I'm missing pages 2-8. Thanks for any info out
there,
cheers,
Matt Salkeld (CJ-6A, S/N 5232011)
---------------------------------
Are you ready for Windows Live Messenger Beta 8.5 ? Get the latest for free today!
__________________________________________________
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cj-6a Manuals |
On Oct 31, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Roger Bieberdorf wrote:
> Doug;
> If there is ANYTHING that has made me want to keep the CJ-6
> (besides the fun of flying the bird); it is your product support
> and dedication to our Aircraft! Thanks! Roger B
Roger, I already sent the pages to you in an email. Didn't you
receive them?
--
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 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: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety |
Mark:
First, let me tell you that I believe in open debate and that two parties can agree
to disagree. So no worries on future friendships!!
Here are the RPA guidelines from the website:
Do I have to wear a flight suit to fly at RPA events?
Flight suits are ONLY REQUIRED during Formation Training sorties conducted at RPA
events. However,we strongly urge you to wear a nomex flight suit during all
your flying in your warbird. You will find just about everyone who attends RPA
Fly-Ins is in a flight suit. It's an important piece of safety equipment that
if maintained, may save your skin during an aircraft accident/fire. Besides,
where else are you going to put the formation or membership patch?
Do I have to wear a parachute when flying at RPA events?
Only if you are conducting formation training with a backseat instructor (or occupant),
in this case you must have a parachute for both seats with current repack
as directed by Federal Aviation Regulations concerning aerobatics. Almost
all RPA FormationTraining sorties will meet the definition of aerobatic flight
due to manuevers flown, so we are meeting the regs. If you don't have a chute
for your backseat for the RPA FAST fly-in, let the ortganizer know, often we
can share and cover folks needs.
SO....you only need nomex at an RPA EVENT. If you are flying locally doing training,
or flying for fun nomex is optional and not required. I think this supports
your comment of "On the other hand, for events where the RPA is showing
the flag... As in events where RPA FAST card members are flying and representing
RPA itself, I personally have no problem what-so-ever with ANY organization
specifying a dress code."
As far as chutes are concerned, you are 100% correct that a single seat aircraft
is exempt AND so is a two-seat aircraft if only one person is in the plane.
I see nothing in the above RPA statement that conflicts with this.
As an aside, single layer nomex provided little in the way of true fire protection.
If you really want fire protection, you need to wear stuff like race car
drivers do or wear something like carbon-x undergarments. I own five nomex suits
(OK, I'm nuts but the last two I bought brand new on eBay for $3 each) mostly
because we wear them in Civil Air Patrol flying (yeah, yeah, yeah - Cessna
172s and 182s). There are other options in CAP, but those uniforms contain
polyester and I don't like wearing polyester stuff as it will melt to you in a
fire. Wearing nomex is hot but I prefer it over polyester!
Regards,
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=143056#143056
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: Red Star aircraft on the big screen |
Barry:
Wicked cool footage!! By the way, you are modest in your comment on "maintaining
the aircraft" as your guys did a Herculean job of field rebuilding the Lancair
to meet shoot deadlines, etc.
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=143063#143063
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: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety |
Hi all,
Not sure if you can help.
We fly often here in South Africa in our Yaks and like you guys have
formation courses. (Basic formation to aero formation and some tail chase fun)
We usually have between 12 and 20 per course which is 5 days long and 3
sorties a day. For instructors, we fly in RAF fast jet guys and use local SAAF
guys and also some ex air force guys. All of which are great guys and
awesome pilots (as you would expect)
My question is, I wonder how our SOP's differ from yours? Is there any way I
can get a copy of your fast manual? I will be happy to send over a copy of
our SOP's to any of you.
Ours are mostly based on what the RAF use, but changed a little to
accommodate Yaks. SAAF sops are also largely based on the RAF, so there is very
little
to do to bring all up to speed.
Thanks for your help,
Fly safe, have fun
Gerald Williams
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: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety |
On Oct 31, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Craig Winkelmann, CFI wrote:
> As an aside, single layer nomex provided little in the way of true
> fire protection.
So there is no real technical reason to wear one. Hmm.
> If you really want fire protection, you need to wear stuff like
> race car drivers do or wear something like carbon-x undergarments.
> I own five nomex suits (OK, I'm nuts but the last two I bought
> brand new on eBay for $3 each) mostly because we wear them in Civil
> Air Patrol flying (yeah, yeah, yeah - Cessna 172s and 182s). There
> are other options in CAP, but those uniforms contain polyester and
> I don't like wearing polyester stuff as it will melt to you in a
> fire. Wearing nomex is hot but I prefer it over polyester!
So which is a greater risk to a pilot: fire in the cockpit or heat
prostration/heatstroke? I know that I have overheated and suffered
impaired performance on more than one occasion while flying on a
summer day while wearing a Nomex flight suit. I can't remember when
*anyone* has had a cockpit fire.
That's the problem with risk analysis. Cockpit fire scares the snot
out of everyone so we of course want to provide protection. OTOH, the
greater risk probably comes from an impaired lead or wingman who has
flown several hops, hasn't had enough water, and is dehydrated and
overheated. This is a much more likely scenario than cockpit fire and
a Nomex flight suit certainly doesn't help.
Does anyone know if they make Nomex kilts? Now *that* would be a hoot.
--
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
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! --
|