Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:29 AM - Re: What is up with this 50? (kp)
2. 09:24 AM - Re: What is up with this 50? (Roger Baker)
3. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: VPCI-415 Heavy Duty Degreaser (Dave Laird)
4. 03:19 PM - Re: Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
5. 04:49 PM - Re: Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
6. 06:21 PM - Re: Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety (Brian Lloyd)
7. 06:21 PM - Re: What is up with this 50? (bill wade)
8. 06:52 PM - Re: Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety (Shinden33)
9. 06:52 PM - Re: What is up with this 50? (Tim Gagnon)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What is up with this 50? |
...and here's the full set as found.
Before you'll get excited the there're all spoken for years ago....this set
of photos is 10+ years old.
kp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Baker" <f4ffm2@adelphia.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: What is up with this 50?
> It is certainly modified.
>
> I was told that it was modified for a movie to look like a Great
> Patriotic War fighter plane. Come to think of it, it does resemble a
> Lavochkin quite a bit. Attached is a photo that I took of at at
> Zhukovsky on August 23rd.
>
> Roger
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Nov 4, 2007, at 7:07 AM, GreasySideUp wrote:
>
>> <greasysideup@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Never seen one like this before, what is the deal with the turtle
>> deck. Is this stock or modded? Listed as an 87
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=143771#143771
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Attachments:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/1987_yak_50_204.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> <pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution</a>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List</a>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com</a>
>
> </b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What is up with this 50? |
Hi KP,
Do you (or does anybody) know what was the name of the movie?
Would be fun to see.
,
Roger__________________________________________________________
On Nov 5, 2007, at 12:28 AM, kp wrote:
> ...and here's the full set as found.
>
> Before you'll get excited the there're all spoken for years
> ago....this set of photos is 10+ years old.
>
> kp
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Baker" <f4ffm2@adelphia.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 3:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: What is up with this 50?
>
>
>> It is certainly modified.
>>
>> I was told that it was modified for a movie to look like a Great
>> Patriotic War fighter plane. Come to think of it, it does resemble a
>> Lavochkin quite a bit. Attached is a photo that I took of at at
>> Zhukovsky on August 23rd.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
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: VPCI-415 Heavy Duty Degreaser |
Hi Jon,
I've used the white, non-abrasive version of Goop hand cleaner to
clean the belly of my CJ a few times, works REALLY well...
but i don't make a habit of using it because i've always been
concerned that it might not be friendly with aluminum...although it
seems fine on my hands!!
Lately my favorite cleaners are by a company called Aero Cosmetics.
They make a general cleaner/wax called "Wash Wax All" that's pretty
good on the top of the wings etc....
But they also make a "Belly Wash" version that is probably better
suited to radial engined planes in general, since we
get them so oily!!
And also, for really getting the tougher stuff of the belly they have
a "Wash Wax All Degreaser" that is good.
I bought a case online...
http://www.aero-cosmetics.com/products.php
They say all their products "Meets Boeing Aircraft spec. D6-17487"
I am not affiliated with them in any form or fashion...
Dave Laird
N63536 1983 CJ6A "Betty"
Dallas (ADS)
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: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety |
Understood.
Waiting on Drew.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Winkelmann, CFI
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 21:10
Subject: Yak-List: Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety
--> <capav8r@gmail.com>
Mark:
I did a cut and paste directly from the RPA web site. Go take a look at
the FAQs on the site.
Below is from the "What to Bring to an RPA Clinic or Fly-in Page....
2. Flight Suit - Yep, this ain't the Bonanza Club, we wear flight suits
for a lot of reasons, safety, FOD receptacle, standardization, public
awareness, respect. Nomex or other fire retardant material is your call,
but a cheap investment to help save your skin when getting out of a
burning aircraft.
3. Parachutes - Up to you, but we get mighty close together in
formation. Extended Trail often meets the definition of aerobatics, so
if you have a backseater, FARS says ya gotta provide one with a current
repack date. Lots of people share in the RPA.
I'll let Drew clarify what he wrote.
Then, I think it is up to Darrell to decide. From an organization
standpoint, I do understand the RPA wanting its members to look "the
part" at events. Be it nomex or another material the pilot chooses.
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=143519#143519
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: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety |
Brian, you may be missing THE point, although the ones you make are of course perfectly
accurate, and you already know what I am about to say..... You were here
last time as well.
And Craig, Drew replied to me off line that Flight Suits are in fact still required
for training in the RPA. That is why I sat down and wrote the following
email. In my mind, this message ends the issue (at least from my perspective).
There is a movie, the title of which is: "The 10 Things I Hate About You", and
in that movie a "nerd" comes over to a table of "Cool Guys" in High School and
gives one of the guys there some valuable information about how to score with
his girlfriend. The Cool Guy asks the Nerd, "Why are you telling me this, what
do you get out of it?" and the Nerd answers: "Well hey, when I am walking down
the hallway, and you see me, you say hello and speak to me like a buddy".
The Cool Guy replies: "Yeah, I get it, you get to be COOL BY ASSOCIATION".
When push comes to shove, anyone here who remembers this issue from the last time
it came up will admit that when it came right down to it, the REAL issue is
that some people who wear flight suits want to be "COOL BY ASSOCIATION". The
MAJORITY of people who wear the darn things when they don't HAVE to, will concur.
Although sometimes you have to beat it out of them with a freaking stick!
Even in the MILITARY, there is a certain "Badge of Honor" that comes with those
that wear the ole Poopie Suit or BAG as it is sometimes known.
I have avoided being totally honest and candid about this whole Flight Suit issue.
Any old-timers that still read this list remember it all from before, where
it took MONTHS to finally come to the truth.
Folks, that truth is this: The RPA likes to look good in front of the public.
In fact they are very serious about how the public views them, because a lot of
what they do INVOLVES performing in front of the public. They also like to
cast an image that has ties to that of the military. The order, the discipline,
the training, the professionalism, the elitism, all of which a lot of our military
organizations have earned by centuries of tradition, the RPA would like
to have as well, and hope to get by following some of the same guidelines and
examples that the military has established. The wearing of Flight Suits is
just one example of this. Sure, lots of other reasons are given for wearing it,
and some members will fight until the death before admitting the central reason.
That's OK by me. I have no problem with that. It's their organization
and they have every right to do with it as they will, explanations not required.
However, here's the deal. There are a lot of pilots on this planet that would
like to fly formation. They may fly a Cessna, or a P-51 Mustang, it really does
not matter which. They want to do it, and they want to do it in as safe a
way as possible, but make no mistake THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT, one way or the other.
They don't really care about the image of the RPA, nor do they necessarily
want to participate in RPA events. They would like to get the training,
and they would like to have the FAST card that recognizes their achievements in
this area. Some of these people may eventually become strong RPA supporters
and decide that they really like wearing Flight Suits, WHATEVER. That's ok!
But when it comes right down to it, the biggest safety issue that will ever be
faced by pilots flying airplanes in formation, is their proximity to each other
and how well they are trained to operate in that proximity.
IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
ANY pilot, or group of pilots that decide to try formation flying without any training
at all increase the risk by a large margin. Any sane person knows that.
RPA members should know that fact INTIMATELY.
To DENY any person, or group of pilots FORMATION TRAINING, simply because they
will not wear a Flight Suit (you name the reason why not) says something very
bad about that organization. VERY BAD. In my personal and very strong opinion
anyway.
It defacto says: "We'd rather you go out and attempt formation flight on your own
with no training what-so-ever, than to allow you to train with us without wearing
a Flight Suit.
THAT is the bottom line.
Some folks have suggested that I should make formal inputs to the RPA through "proper
channels". I thought about that, and decided that if they don't get the
idea from people who read and write regarding this issue on this List Server,
then writing them in a more formal fashion will have the same chance of changing
anything as me wearing my Flight Suit while participating in formation flight.
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 23:06
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety
On Nov 2, 2007, at 6:10 PM, Craig Winkelmann, CFI wrote:
> 2. Flight Suit - Yep, this ain't the Bonanza Club, we wear flight
> suits for a lot of reasons, safety,
Well, we have already determined that Nomex provides little protection from fire
but increases the risk of hyperthermia so it appears that safety is not a particularly
good reason to wear Nomex.
> FOD receptacle,
Yes, this is useful.
> standardization,
Huh. I thought that the procedures manual ensured this. It's the suit? OK.
> public awareness,
"Daddy, daddy! Look at the men in the funny green suits!" There was once a time
when I cut a dashing figure in Nomex. Not anymore. I am more likely to hear,
"daddy, is that man going to have a baby like mommy?" Sorry but I just can't fake
it anymore with the poopy suit on.
> respect.
Huh. I always thought respect had to be earned on the basis of knowing your airplane
inside and out, flying it better than anyone else (or at least trying to),
and then helping others to reach that pinnacle. But hell, if all it takes is
a $90 nomex suit ... well, count me in!
> Nomex or other fire retardant material is your call, but a cheap
> investment to help save your skin when getting out of a burning
> aircraft.
If it really provided me more protection then I would go along with it.
I just have two beefs with it:
1. it is my airplane and this being a country of self-determination, I should get
to wear what I want to in my own aircraft, even at an RPA event;
2. I think it detracts from safety as hyperthermia is a much greater risk than
fire in the cockpit.
Well, it's been interesting.
--
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 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety |
On Nov 5, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Brian, you may be missing THE point, although the ones you make are
> of course perfectly accurate, and you already know what I am about
> to say..... You were here last time as well.
And still am here. I beat around the bush this time.
> And Craig, Drew replied to me off line that Flight Suits are in
> fact still required for training in the RPA. That is why I sat
> down and wrote the following email. In my mind, this message ends
> the issue (at least from my perspective).
>
> There is a movie, the title of which is: "The 10 Things I Hate
> About You", and in that movie a "nerd" comes over to a table of
> "Cool Guys" in High School and gives one of the guys there some
> valuable information about how to score with his girlfriend. The
> Cool Guy asks the Nerd, "Why are you telling me this, what do you
> get out of it?" and the Nerd answers: "Well hey, when I am walking
> down the hallway, and you see me, you say hello and speak to me
> like a buddy".
>
> The Cool Guy replies: "Yeah, I get it, you get to be COOL BY
> ASSOCIATION".
>
> When push comes to shove, anyone here who remembers this issue from
> the last time it came up will admit that when it came right down to
> it, the REAL issue is that some people who wear flight suits want
> to be "COOL BY ASSOCIATION". The MAJORITY of people who wear the
> darn things when they don't HAVE to, will concur. Although
> sometimes you have to beat it out of them with a freaking stick!
> Even in the MILITARY, there is a certain "Badge of Honor" that
> comes with those that wear the ole Poopie Suit or BAG as it is
> sometimes known.
Yup. I suppose I could repost my humorous message from a couple of
years back on the topic but those who laughed last time would still
laugh and those who found it offensive would still find it offensive.
Nothing gained.
> I have avoided being totally honest and candid about this whole
> Flight Suit issue. Any old-timers that still read this list
> remember it all from before, where it took MONTHS to finally come
> to the truth.
>
> Folks, that truth is this: The RPA likes to look good in front of
> the public. In fact they are very serious about how the public
> views them, because a lot of what they do INVOLVES performing in
> front of the public. They also like to cast an image that has ties
> to that of the military. The order, the discipline, the training,
> the professionalism, the elitism, all of which a lot of our
> military organizations have earned by centuries of tradition, the
> RPA would like to have as well, and hope to get by following some
> of the same guidelines and examples that the military has
> established. The wearing of Flight Suits is just one example of
> this. Sure, lots of other reasons are given for wearing it, and
> some members will fight until the death before admitting the
> central reason. That's OK by me. I have no problem with that.
> It's their organization and they have every right to do with it as
> they will, explanations not required.
>
> However, here's the deal. There are a lot of pilots on this planet
> that would like to fly formation. They may fly a Cessna, or a P-51
> Mustang, it really does not matter which. They want to do it, and
> they want to do it in as safe a way as possible, but make no
> mistake THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT, one way or the other. They don't
> really care about the image of the RPA, nor do they necessarily
> want to participate in RPA events. They would like to get the
> training, and they would like to have the FAST card that recognizes
> their achievements in this area. Some of these people may
> eventually become strong RPA supporters and decide that they really
> like wearing Flight Suits, WHATEVER. That's ok!
>
> But when it comes right down to it, the biggest safety issue that
> will ever be faced by pilots flying airplanes in formation, is
> their proximity to each other and how well they are trained to
> operate in that proximity.
>
> IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
>
> ANY pilot, or group of pilots that decide to try formation flying
> without any training at all increase the risk by a large margin.
> Any sane person knows that. RPA members should know that fact
> INTIMATELY.
>
> To DENY any person, or group of pilots FORMATION TRAINING, simply
> because they will not wear a Flight Suit (you name the reason why
> not) says something very bad about that organization. VERY BAD.
> In my personal and very strong opinion anyway.
>
> It defacto says: "We'd rather you go out and attempt formation
> flight on your own with no training what-so-ever, than to allow you
> to train with us without wearing a Flight Suit.
>
> THAT is the bottom line.
>
> Some folks have suggested that I should make formal inputs to the
> RPA through "proper channels". I thought about that, and decided
> that if they don't get the idea from people who read and write
> regarding this issue on this List Server, then writing them in a
> more formal fashion will have the same chance of changing anything
> as me wearing my Flight Suit while participating in formation flight.
I understand Mark and I concur with your analysis. This is why I made
the not-so-subtle comments about how it is the flight suit that
receives the respect, not the pilot's performance.
But you and I seem to be the die-hard libertarians of the group. And
as a die-hard libertarian we all get to do a couple of things:
1. I get to choose what I wear in my cockpit.
2. You get to choose whether or not you want to fly with me, on my
wing, or let me fly on your wing.
3. The RPA gets to choose how people play in their sandbox.
So Mark, as a libertarian, don't you agree that they have the right
to determine with whom they will associate and for what reason? They
have chosen to discriminate on the basis of dress code and I support
that. We already have too many people telling us with whom we must
associate and I am not one to force my beliefs on anyone else. So
they get to enforce their dress code and I get to decide if I want to
put on the poopy suit and play with them or not put on the poopy suit
and go play somewhere else. Welcome to freedom of choice.
You know, a reasonable approach to this would be for us to stage a
training session where you get to wear anything you want in your
cockpit. We can teach from the RPA formation manual and get people
signed off for their FAST cards (if they want 'em) but definitely
ensure that they have the requisite knowledge and fear-of-god
required for safe formation flying. It wouldn't be RPA because we
might not be wearing a bag but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a
duck, and flies like a duck ...
And if someone really wants a FAST card signed by the RPA they can
train however they want to get competent, put on the bag, and go get
a check-ride at an RPA function.
Freedom of choice.
But please folks, don't tell me that I should wear a Nomex flight
suit for safety reasons. That is horse-hockey and we all know it. You
want me to wear a flight suit for the reasons Mark has so clearly and
eloquently elucidated.
And I am personally done with this topic. No more shall anyone hear
from me on this in this forum.
Anybody in the vicinity of SAC want to go fly some form? I have
Tyson's Yak-52 I have promised to fly and I could use some practice.
If its warm I will probably wear shorts and a light shirt. If its
cold I might put on the ol' bag over my long undies. But the emphasis
will be on the flying.
--
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 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: What is up with this 50? |
Want to see a movie with a Yak 52 in it try Recon 7 Down its not out yet (s
oon) but there are some trailers out if you do a search for it.=0A=0A=0A---
-- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Roger Baker <f4ffm2@adelphia.net>=0ATo: ya
k-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, November 5, 2007 12:20:07 PM=0ASubject
: Re: Yak-List: What is up with this 50?=0A=0A--> Yak-List message posted b
y: Roger Baker <f4ffm2@adelphia.net>=0A=0AHi KP,=0A=0A Do you (or does
anybody) know what was the name of the movie? =0AWould be fun to see.=0A
=0A=E1=DF=D0=E1=D8=D1=DE,=0A=0ARoger_______________________________________
___________________=0AOn Nov 5, 2007, at 12:28 AM, kp wrote:=0A=0A> ...and
here's the full set as found.=0A>=0A> Before you'll get excited the there'r
e all spoken for years =0A> ago....this set of photos is 10+ years old.=0A
>=0A> kp=0A> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Baker" <f4ffm2@adelp
hia.net>=0A> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>=0A> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 20
07 3:30 PM=0A> Subject: Re: Yak-List: What is up with this 50?=0A>=0A>=0A>>
It is certainly modified.=0A>>=0A>> I was told that it was modified for a
movie to look like a Great=0A>> Patriotic War fighter plane. Come to think
of it, it does resemble a=0A>> Lavochkin quite a bit. Attached is a photo
that I took of at at=0A>> Zhukovsky on August 23rd.=0A>>=0A>> Roger=0A>>
=0A>>=0A>=0A>=0A> ---------------------------------------------------------
=========================0A
l.yahoo.com
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: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety |
I don't usually join these melee's but what Mark stated is correct:
The RPA's rule says "We'd rather you go out and attempt formation flight on
your own with no training what-so-ever, than to allow you to train with us
without wearing a Flight Suit."
In the adoption of this rule the RPA states that it prioritizes flight suits
over providing safety training. (Flight suits do not provide for safety in
this environment. Data shows that.) Furthermore, you can't go down to the
local FBO and get formation training. For most folk outlets for this sort
of training are few a far between so freedom of choice isn't the best
arguement either.
Better question: has anyone actually been denied training because they
weren't wearing a flight suit?
S
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Brian, you may be missing THE point, although the ones you make are of
> course perfectly accurate, and you already know what I am about to
> say..... You were here last time as well.
>
> And Craig, Drew replied to me off line that Flight Suits are in fact still
> required for training in the RPA. That is why I sat down and wrote the
> following email. In my mind, this message ends the issue (at least from
> my perspective).
>
> There is a movie, the title of which is: "The 10 Things I Hate About You",
> and in that movie a "nerd" comes over to a table of "Cool Guys" in High
> School and gives one of the guys there some valuable information about how
> to score with his girlfriend. The Cool Guy asks the Nerd, "Why are you
> telling me this, what do you get out of it?" and the Nerd answers: "Well
> hey, when I am walking down the hallway, and you see me, you say hello and
> speak to me like a buddy".
>
> The Cool Guy replies: "Yeah, I get it, you get to be COOL BY ASSOCIATION".
>
> When push comes to shove, anyone here who remembers this issue from the
> last time it came up will admit that when it came right down to it, the
> REAL issue is that some people who wear flight suits want to be "COOL BY
> ASSOCIATION". The MAJORITY of people who wear the darn things when they
> don't HAVE to, will concur. Although sometimes you have to beat it out of
> them with a freaking stick! Even in the MILITARY, there is a certain
> "Badge of Honor" that comes with those that wear the ole Poopie Suit or
> BAG as it is sometimes known.
>
> I have avoided being totally honest and candid about this whole Flight
> Suit issue. Any old-timers that still read this list remember it all from
> before, where it took MONTHS to finally come to the truth.
>
> Folks, that truth is this: The RPA likes to look good in front of the
> public. In fact they are very serious about how the public views them,
> because a lot of what they do INVOLVES performing in front of the public.
> They also like to cast an image that has ties to that of the military.
> The order, the discipline, the training, the professionalism, the elitism,
> all of which a lot of our military organizations have earned by centuries
> of tradition, the RPA would like to have as well, and hope to get by
> following some of the same guidelines and examples that the military has
> established. The wearing of Flight Suits is just one example of this.
> Sure, lots of other reasons are given for wearing it, and some members
> will fight until the death before admitting the central reason. That's OK
> by me. I have no problem with that. It's their organization and they
> have every right to do with it as they will, explanations not required.
>
> However, here's the deal. There are a lot of pilots on this planet that
> would like to fly formation. They may fly a Cessna, or a P-51 Mustang, it
> really does not matter which. They want to do it, and they want to do it
> in as safe a way as possible, but make no mistake THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT,
> one way or the other. They don't really care about the image of the RPA,
> nor do they necessarily want to participate in RPA events. They would
> like to get the training, and they would like to have the FAST card that
> recognizes their achievements in this area. Some of these people may
> eventually become strong RPA supporters and decide that they really like
> wearing Flight Suits, WHATEVER. That's ok!
>
> But when it comes right down to it, the biggest safety issue that will
> ever be faced by pilots flying airplanes in formation, is their proximity
> to each other and how well they are trained to operate in that proximity.
>
> IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
>
> ANY pilot, or group of pilots that decide to try formation flying without
> any training at all increase the risk by a large margin. Any sane person
> knows that. RPA members should know that fact INTIMATELY.
>
> To DENY any person, or group of pilots FORMATION TRAINING, simply because
> they will not wear a Flight Suit (you name the reason why not) says
> something very bad about that organization. VERY BAD. In my personal and
> very strong opinion anyway.
>
> It defacto says: "We'd rather you go out and attempt formation flight on
> your own with no training what-so-ever, than to allow you to train with us
> without wearing a Flight Suit.
>
> THAT is the bottom line.
>
> Some folks have suggested that I should make formal inputs to the RPA
> through "proper channels". I thought about that, and decided that if they
> don't get the idea from people who read and write regarding this issue on
> this List Server, then writing them in a more formal fashion will have the
> same chance of changing anything as me wearing my Flight Suit while
> participating in formation flight.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
> N50YK
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 23:06
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2007, at 6:10 PM, Craig Winkelmann, CFI wrote:
>
>> 2. Flight Suit - Yep, this ain't the Bonanza Club, we wear flight
>> suits for a lot of reasons, safety,
>
> Well, we have already determined that Nomex provides little protection
> from fire but increases the risk of hyperthermia so it appears that safety
> is not a particularly good reason to wear Nomex.
>
>> FOD receptacle,
>
> Yes, this is useful.
>
>> standardization,
>
> Huh. I thought that the procedures manual ensured this. It's the suit? OK.
>
>> public awareness,
>
> "Daddy, daddy! Look at the men in the funny green suits!" There was once a
> time when I cut a dashing figure in Nomex. Not anymore. I am more likely
> to hear, "daddy, is that man going to have a baby like mommy?" Sorry but I
> just can't fake it anymore with the poopy suit on.
>
>> respect.
>
> Huh. I always thought respect had to be earned on the basis of knowing
> your airplane inside and out, flying it better than anyone else (or at
> least trying to), and then helping others to reach that pinnacle. But
> hell, if all it takes is a $90 nomex suit ... well, count me in!
>
>> Nomex or other fire retardant material is your call, but a cheap
>> investment to help save your skin when getting out of a burning
>> aircraft.
>
> If it really provided me more protection then I would go along with it.
>
> I just have two beefs with it:
>
> 1. it is my airplane and this being a country of self-determination, I
> should get to wear what I want to in my own aircraft, even at an RPA
> event;
>
> 2. I think it detracts from safety as hyperthermia is a much greater risk
> than fire in the cockpit.
>
> Well, it's been interesting.
>
> --
> 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 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: What is up with this 50? |
It was probably some sort of East German porn....with airplanes. Would that not
be the best film ever!??
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144069#144069
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! --
|