Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:17 AM - Re: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety (Craig Payne)
2. 06:00 AM - Re: What is up with this 50? (kp)
3. 09:20 AM - FAST Formation Flight Safety (cjpilot710@aol.com)
4. 09:59 AM - HGU-55 vs David Clarke (CJcanuck)
5. 10:38 AM - Re: HGU-55 vs David Clarke (Herb Coussons)
6. 12:22 PM - Re: HGU-55 vs David Clarke (Roger Kemp)
7. 12:42 PM - Re: HGU-55 vs David Clarke (ByronMFox@aol.com)
8. 01:05 PM - Re: HGU-55 vs David Clarke (Stephen Fox)
9. 01:24 PM - Re: FAST Formation Flight Safety (Roger Kemp)
10. 02:01 PM - Re: Last day of the tour & nomex (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
11. 02:02 PM - Re: Yak-52 com radio side tone (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
12. 02:11 PM - Re: A Possible Solution to the Nomex/Flight Suit Issue (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
13. 02:33 PM - Re: HGU-55 vs David Clarke (Tim Gagnon)
14. 02:55 PM - Brain buckets (Doug Sapp)
15. 03:23 PM - A letter to the RPA (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
16. 03:44 PM - Re: A letter to the RPA (ByronMFox@aol.com)
17. 04:02 PM - Re: FAST Formation Flight Safety (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
18. 04:33 PM - Re: A letter to the RPA (Roger Kemp)
19. 06:39 PM - Re: HGU-55 vs David Clarke (Brian Lloyd)
20. 07:52 PM - Re: HGU-55 vs David Clarke (Tim Gagnon)
21. 07:57 PM - Re: Brain buckets (Tim Gagnon)
22. 08:12 PM - Re: Re: Brain buckets (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
23. 08:47 PM - Re: Re: Brain buckets (cjpilot710@aol.com)
24. 10:03 PM - FS: Harmon Rocket Project (Harry Hirschman)
25. 10:58 PM - Re: Re: Brain buckets (fish@aviation-tech.com)
26. 11:54 PM - Re: A letter to the RPA (frank)
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: FAST, Formation Flight, Safety |
>
>
> Better question: has anyone actually been denied training because they
> weren't wearing a flight suit?
>
Well maybe not denied training, but I'm not sure who will give a check ride without
the applicant wearing one...no patches required. More than 1 guy had to borrow
a suit, and a 'chute for a check hop.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
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? |
Filming was abandoned as the FSU ran out of funds prior to the collapse of
the USSR.
There may be footage somewhere in the Moscow Archives but I've been
unsuccessful in teasing any out.
For what its worth I don't think the subject aeroplane in this thread is one
of the ones in my photos.
I think it was modified in Lithuania a few years after the featured ones but
was possibly born
of inspiration from them..
I've seen it before in Lithuania that's for certain. The frame number would
reveal all as the aircraft
in my photos were sequentially numbered....... all constructed on behalf of
the film company.
kp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Baker" <f4ffm2@adelphia.net>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: 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: | FAST Formation Flight Safety |
"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. "
In my some what fragmented memory as a FAST and RPA check pilot I don't
remember anyone ever being refused training at an RPA training event. Lots of
times we had T6/SNJ, T-34, or even new RPA members show up and they may or may
not have had on a flight suit. They are NOT turned away. So your statement
above is convoluted and incorrect in its characterization of the whole
association.
In truth at most check pilot meetings (both RPA and FAST) to wear or not
wear a flight suit is seldom, if ever, discussed. The far more important issues
are is what is happening in the formations. Are the standards good enough,
need they be changed, and what changes are good or no good? Should certain
areas be focused on more or less? Etc. We just recently spent a lot of
discussion time (somewhat "passionate" at times) on manual changes for timed
interval takeoffs and landings. This all BEFORE the OSH and California accidents.
To say or infer that RPA worries more about uniforms than safety of flight,
is categorically wrong and it is not fair to the guys who have either more
time, more experience, and back ground in the subject than you. And this in no
way infer a judgement on your skills BTW.
If you ever went to a RPA airshow event, you may have noticed, that most
(admittedly not all) put on their flight suit just before interring their planes
and take off their flight suits as soon as leaving their planes. If RPA was
all that "dictatorial" and image conscious, they would be required at all
times - no?
RPA Briefing at OSH 2007. How many flight suits do you see?
The comradery I see at RPA airshows/events is not on what one is wearing but
the fun and mutual respect these folks have for each other.
Since the dawn of human evolution, we have evolved because as a species we
banded together. We killed off the mammoths as groups, we defeated the Japs
and Nazis as a group. In every group there must be a leader or leaders. And
when there are leaders, there are those who don't like their leaders because
their bear skin was tighter fitting or they didn't like the fact his dick
might was bigger. Who knows. But without a leadership, be it chief or elected
president, there is only anarchy. Is there a place for the anarchist? Yes.
But only temporally. :)
My question here is, why is your loin cloth so up tight over a mundane issue
like wearing a flight suit? Are you doing it because you really believe the
whole association is totally fucked up or you just don't like some one
personally? A lot of people out side of RPA who have control (FAA) over the
entire formation issue, don't think so. And the rest of FAST don't think so
either. The new RPA manual is being used as a template (flight suits not
included) for other signatories manuals.
Since both you and Brains, have said those were you last words - does that
mean I win? I bet not. :-)
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
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: | HGU-55 vs David Clarke |
Hi All!
I'm starting to shop for my Xmas list and I'm keen to get an HGU-55 helmet from
Flightsuits.com. I'd like to know if there are any problems with compatibility
with a set of David Clarke's when using the built-in intercom of a Garmin SL-40
Comm radio.
How good are the standard earpieces for noise attenuation? Is the ANR option worth
the money? How much room is there between the top of the helmet and a standard
canopy? How effective is the visor?
Any and all info would be appreciated!
Mike
C-GYMK
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144184#144184
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: HGU-55 vs David Clarke |
Just a note on Flightsuits - they are very slow and hard to deal
with. It's like they do not want a sale. From inquiry about options,
shipping a fitting kit, replacing a fitting kit, getting a quote - I
had to call and keep them on the ball. They never initiated any
contact even with followups. After much back and forth and waiting I
did get a nice helmet from them. I have the ANR, but I am not sure it
is worth the cost. I use the helmet in a Yak 52 and 55. At high
power settings the ANR "pops" trying to reduce the noise. I am trying
some better fit seals for the ears but I think I would just order
without the ANR especially if you wear glasses. I have not had the
same problems with a FlightCom ANR headset. If you decide to get the
ANR it is worth the 40$ to hardwire the power supply in. (no
batteries and no box to keep track of)
The helmet comms work well in the 52. No issues with the back seat
headset.
Herb
On Nov 6, 2007, at 11:58 AM, CJcanuck wrote:
>
> Hi All!
>
> I'm starting to shop for my Xmas list and I'm keen to get an HGU-55
> helmet from Flightsuits.com. I'd like to know if there are any
> problems with compatibility with a set of David Clarke's when using
> the built-in intercom of a Garmin SL-40 Comm radio.
>
> How good are the standard earpieces for noise attenuation? Is the
> ANR option worth the money? How much room is there between the top
> of the helmet and a standard canopy? How effective is the visor?
>
> Any and all info would be appreciated!
>
> Mike
> C-GYMK
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144184#144184
>
>
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: | HGU-55 vs David Clarke |
I thought about ANR also but just went to wearing foam ear plugs under my
Oregon Aero noise attenuating ear muffs in my HGU-55 helmet. I was lucky,
life support made up my helmet initially. When we changed over to IPPB mask,
that required making up a new helmet. I got the old one.
Sometimes my life support guys will do work on the side if you (obviously)
have all the pieces when it needs to be done.
The fitting of the helmet itself is easy if you use the Oregon Aero foam
skull cap. They are not having to pour a special foam cranium cushion and
cover it with leather as in the old days. All you need is to figure out the
size of your hat to fit the helmet.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herb Coussons
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: HGU-55 vs David Clarke
Just a note on Flightsuits - they are very slow and hard to deal
with. It's like they do not want a sale. From inquiry about options,
shipping a fitting kit, replacing a fitting kit, getting a quote - I
had to call and keep them on the ball. They never initiated any
contact even with followups. After much back and forth and waiting I
did get a nice helmet from them. I have the ANR, but I am not sure it
is worth the cost. I use the helmet in a Yak 52 and 55. At high
power settings the ANR "pops" trying to reduce the noise. I am trying
some better fit seals for the ears but I think I would just order
without the ANR especially if you wear glasses. I have not had the
same problems with a FlightCom ANR headset. If you decide to get the
ANR it is worth the 40$ to hardwire the power supply in. (no
batteries and no box to keep track of)
The helmet comms work well in the 52. No issues with the back seat
headset.
Herb
On Nov 6, 2007, at 11:58 AM, CJcanuck wrote:
>
> Hi All!
>
> I'm starting to shop for my Xmas list and I'm keen to get an HGU-55
> helmet from Flightsuits.com. I'd like to know if there are any
> problems with compatibility with a set of David Clarke's when using
> the built-in intercom of a Garmin SL-40 Comm radio.
>
> How good are the standard earpieces for noise attenuation? Is the
> ANR option worth the money? How much room is there between the top
> of the helmet and a standard canopy? How effective is the visor?
>
> Any and all info would be appreciated!
>
> Mike
> C-GYMK
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144184#144184
>
>
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: HGU-55 vs David Clarke |
In a message dated 11/6/07 10:39:23 AM, drc@wscare.com writes:
> Just a note on Flightsuits - they are very slow and hard to deal-
> with.- It's like they do not want a sale.
>
Have had just the opposite experience with Flight Suits, Mike. No problems.
In the course of time, how-ever, I did replace their ear muffs and lining wi
th
those offered by Oregon Aero only because I couldn't resist when I was at
their booth at OSH. I have Headsets Inc (http://www.headsetsinc.com/) ANR ge
ar in
he helmet as well. Also satisfied, and I believe it's the same electronics
that Flight Suits installs. Have noted ,though, that it is not compatible wi
th a
friend's Lightspeed headset. He can hear the intercom well but the radio is
faint.
None of this is reponsive to your question. Don't know about
Headsets/Flightsuits compatiblity with your Garmin radio and David Clark hea
dsets. ...Blitz
**************************************
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: HGU-55 vs David Clarke |
Like my brother, Blitz, I have had just the opposite experience. I
will say I did have some issue with the ANR cutting in and out and
popping and sent it back three time for fixes the third and final
time I had the power for the ANR rigged so the power came off a
cigarette lighter jack in my 52 cockpit. Solved all the problems.
Stephen Fox
Consulting Partner/Facilitator & Trainer
thinkx Intellectual Capital
Think Exponentially
308 Columbus Ave. #2
Boston, MA 02116
http://www.thinkxic.com
email: steve.fox@thinkxic.com
Boston Office: 617-379-0865
New Hampshire: 603.924.8660
Cell: 603.547.0448
SKYPE: jstephenfox
On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:42 PM, ByronMFox@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/6/07 10:39:23 AM, drc@wscare.com writes:
>
>
>> Just a note on Flightsuits - they are very slow and hard to deal
>> with. It's like they do not want a sale.
>
>
> Have had just the opposite experience with Flight Suits, Mike. No
> problems. In the course of time, how-ever, I did replace their ear
> muffs and lining with those offered by Oregon Aero only because I
> couldn't resist when I was at their booth at OSH. I have Headsets
> Inc (http://www.headsetsinc.com/) ANR gear in he helmet as well.
> Also satisfied, and I believe it's the same electronics that Flight
> Suits installs. Have noted ,though, that it is not compatible with
> a friend's Lightspeed headset. He can hear the intercom well but
> the radio is faint.
>
> None of this is reponsive to your question. Don't know about
> Headsets/Flightsuits compatiblity with your Garmin radio and David
> Clark headsets. ...Blitz
>
>
> **************************************
>
>
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 |
RPA Briefing at OSH 2007. How many flight suits do you see?
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
Is this like "Find Elmo"? If so, I see one! Can you find him?
:>))
Doc
_____
See what
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: | Last day of the tour & nomex |
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby said:
>It does not matter to get up set about the nomex issue. It would not
matter one iota to the dissenters, if 75% members voted to wear them.
They would not ever accept it.
And the exact opposite is also true. This shows how it is an emotional
issue and not a logical one.
> It does not matter that guys with the same back grounds, experiences,
and smarts as they, made those decisions with the best of intention for
those with far less experience.
Jim, if you are at all familiar with law, you will find that "intent" is
one of the hardest, if not impossible things in the world to prove. I
will listen and honor anything you say about your own intent. When you
quote the intent of others, I will respectfully question that statement
simply because you are ASSUMING that. In the end, a person with the
honest intent that you quote should review any decision based on new
facts. I think a lot of "new facts" have been brought up during the
months and months that this debate has run and that this should lead to
an honest review of it, and not an automatic dismissal.
> And even those decisions were a compromise from far more
"restrictions".
Why is this so? Are you saying that the RPA had a lot more
regimentation in mind? Never mind. This goes somewhere even I don't
want to venture into.
>They never really want to be part of the sprite-de-corp because they
consider it juvenile.
Excuse me Jim, that's "Esprit de Corps". Sprite is what you drink from
a soda can. And if you think it petty for me to point out, I will
mention that I am a Vet., retired from the United States Marine Corps,
continue to work as a combat advisor (regarding EW only) and Field
Engineer to the Corps, and buddy, if you are going to quote it, take the
time to get the spelling right.
> One simply need read the bemeaning statements they make about how some
folks look in "bags". I often wonder if they ever made those same view
about nomex to their CO's or to their corp while they played the game.
Every Skipper I know refers to them as bags, and if you look bad in one
in the Corps, you find a new occupation.
> And now I hit the sack. Tomorrow I get to play with the B-24 one last
time for a while. Than I get to play with my CJ. Thus continues the
game of life - "bags" and all. :)
You're no different than me Pappy, you just have a different opinion
than I do.
Mark Bitterich
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: | Yak-52 com radio side tone |
Try a new radio. If the problem goes away, you have a bad receiver
sub-audio board that attaches to the main receiver board of the radio.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Painter
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 16:22
Subject: Yak-List: Yak-52 com radio side tone
One of our Yak-52's com (standard Russian radio) has lost its side tone.
No change we know of that would have affected it. Ideas?
Jerry Painter
Wild Blue Aviation
www.JP@FlyWBA.com
www.FlyWBA.com
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: | A Possible Solution to the Nomex/Flight Suit Issue |
Craig,
The last time this issue came up, it safety issues of everything from
Flight Suits to boots, to gloves, to tee-shirts, was debated. Some of
the people debating the issues were bon-e-fide experts from various
service branches, many of them on active duty, or at least Reserve
positions.
All of the comments you make here are well thought out and worthwhile,
but none of them address the one concession that I think the majority of
people that debate this issue are upset about. That being, "having to
wear a Flight Suit for formation training". That should be struck from
the RPA rule book. Once it is, what everybody wears to RPA Events is up
to them, and if I were a member, I would support the majority.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Winkelmann, CFI
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 16:05
Subject: Yak-List: A Possible Solution to the Nomex/Flight Suit Issue
--> <capav8r@gmail.com>
Folks:
Let me first preface this with the fact that I know many of you have
been thru this issue before. However, it seems as though no real
solution was found or there would not be the vehement responses posted
by some members of the community.
I understand organizational value of a uniform for many reasons. All
groups from your local softball team to the Boy Scouts to the military
wear uniforms. So the founders of the RPA wanted participants at RPA
events to look like they were part of an organization and not just a
gaggle of pilots who fly airplanes the have engines that turn the wrong
way and leak oil all over the ground.
So I was thinking about why my cadets, their parents and us senior
members go out and spend money to buy uniforms for CAP. It is so we can
participate in what CAP offers and not just be a member. You see, CAP
has people who pay dues that we never see at meetings, in airplanes or
anywhere else. Then there are those of us who buy uniforms so we can
participate because we find value in not just being a member but
participating in the organization. The value of participation is the
training, fun, friendship, etc.
Now for the good part. CAP has two types of uniforms. One is a
military style uniform and the other is called a corporate uniform. To
wear military style uniforms, you must meet height, weight and grooming
standards of the USAF. The sage green flight suit is one of these along
with Class A, Class B and BDUs.
To be inclusive of members who do not want to, or cannot, meet grooming
standards, or height weight requirements, in comes the corporate
uniform. It is a blue sport shirt with the CAP logo (two styles
approved) and grey pants and black shoes. There is also an alternate
flight suit that is navy blue and is not made of nomex.
So here is what the RPA could do. Come up with an alternate uniform to
the flight suit for RPA events. It could be something like the RPA red
polo shirt (with logo) and some color pants, and appropriate shoes.
This way, those who want to wear flight suits can and those that don't
could wear the alternate uniform and could participate in RPA events.
This keeps the organization cohesive, fosters esprit-de-corps, and is
inclusive of all members.
Thanks for your time. Thoughts please,
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=143824#143824
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: HGU-55 vs David Clarke |
Just remember the -55/P offers virtually no impact protection. They are not intended
to. They are there for earphones and a place to put an oxygen mask. Not
much more.
I find the helmet restricts headroom in the -50 and I have been using a cloth helmet
with DC's. It offers better attenuation and is a whole lot cheaper. Plus,
like Doc, I got my helmet for free via the ANG.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144224#144224
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 |
|
Tim or anyone,
I have heard this same statement ("55 offers very little impact
protection") many times, but have never actually seen any "official"
testing results that might confirm claim. Could anyone out there tell
me where the impact rating of all the various helmets could be found?
What is the best helmet for impact protection?
Always Yakin,
Doug
Tim Gagnon wrote:
>
>Just remember the -55/P offers virtually no impact protection. They are not intended
to. They are there for earphones and a place to put an oxygen mask. Not
much more.
>
>I find the helmet restricts headroom in the -50 and I have been using a cloth
helmet with DC's. It offers better attenuation and is a whole lot cheaper. Plus,
like Doc, I got my helmet for free via the ANG.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144224#144224
>
>
>
>
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: | A letter to the RPA |
From: Mark Bitterlich
Subject: Mandatory Wearing of Flight Suits
It is the opinion of many people, including myself, that it is not in
the best interests of overall General Aviation Flight Safety for the RPA
to mandate the wearing of Flight Suits during training events. While it
is understood that the RPA has the right and the means to set standards
of its members, and especially so during operations in front of the
public, it remains counter to the best interests and safety of the
general flying populace to deny Formation Flight training to any person
who is already properly licensed by the FAA, but who for what ever
reason they declare, will not wear a Flight Suit.
It is a very safe assumption that pilots who desire to fly formation and
apply to the RPA to teach them, and are then denied participation simply
over the RPA rule that they must wear a flight suit, or be refused
training are going to:
1. Do it anyway. And when they do, the chance of them being involved
in an accident increases by a high percentage.
2. Are going to leave with a very dim view of the RPA and instead of
generating support will do their best to make other pilots aware of what
they perceive to be an unsubstantiated prejudice.
3. Will continue to participate in the predictable email discussions on
Internet Forums, as has once again recently been the case on the "Yak
List".
It is the consensus of opinion of MANY pilots, after long debate, that
the additional safety that a Flight Suit provides is at best
questionable. Its use in General Aviation, including Formation Flight
has not received the official documentation to prove anything other
than: "It seems to be a good idea by and large". But so does the
wearing of Flight Boots, Flight Gloves, cotton underwear, a helmet, and
every other safety item a person may care to list, military oriented or
otherwise. To focus on just the flight suit, to the point of denying
training is so against reasonable logic that it begs the question of an
alternative agenda.
If the RPA demands that Flight Suits continue to be worn by their
instructors during said training events, this of course should remain an
RPA decision. However, the STUDENTS participating in said training
should have the OPTION to wear a flight suit, but not the "or else"
DIRECTIVE to do so.
To this end, please accept this letter as an official request to drop
the mandatory wearing of Flight Suits for any and all TRAINING EVENTS,
whether or not these training events also happen to coincide with RPA
FLIGHT EVENTS in front of the public.
R/S,
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
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: A letter to the RPA |
Thanks for your initiative, Mark. Perhaps we can put this discussion to
rest. I concur with your suggestion if only because the rant has become as
wearisome as listening to my once adolescent sons discuss the merits of automobile
seat belts and driving in flip-flops. For all I care, my wingman can wear a
thong just so he doesn't run into me. ...Blitz
**************************************
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: | FAST Formation Flight Safety |
cjpilot710@aol.com Jim "Pappy" Goolsby said:
>In my some what fragmented memory as a FAST and RPA check pilot I don't
remember anyone ever being refused training at an RPA training event.
Lots of times we had T6/SNJ, T-34, or even new RPA members show up and
they may or may not have had on a flight suit. They are NOT turned
away. So your statement above is convoluted and incorrect in its
characterization of the whole association.
Mark.bitterlich@navy.mil Mark "Bad Bullets" Bitterlich replies:
No Jim, my statement is not convoluted or incorrect, and my memory is
anything but fragmented. You need to go read your own organizations
rules and talk to your own organizations leaders. The RPA Vice
President took the rule right out of the book and presented it here, and
confirmed with me personally that this is what it said. So point that
shaking finger someplace else than in my face ok?
> To say or infer that RPA worries more about uniforms than safety of
flight, is categorically wrong and it is not fair to the guys who have
either more time, more experience, and back ground in the subject than
you. And this in no way infer a judgement on your skills BTW.
Jim, I am glad that you have said this. It tells me that if I were
RIGHT about what I have been saying here, you would be just as upset as
I am. That's a good thing. So stand by for a shock.
Here is your RPA RULE, it is a direct quote and confirmed by your Vice
President. Read it and weep.
"A Flight Suit will be worn by the pilots flying in a training/display
formation sortie at RPA events/clinics. Flight Leads will enforce this
policy with their Wingmen"
So, since I assume you are a Flight Lead, then you must:
1. Not read your own rules?
2. Disregard your own rules?
3. Only comply with the rules you think make sense?
Ok, I admit it... I am being a little too sarcastic here, but YOU were
the one pointing the finger and claiming everything I said was WRONG
Jim.
> If you ever went to a RPA airshow event, you may have noticed, that
most (admittedly not all) put on their flight suit just before interring
their planes and take off their flight suits as soon as leaving their
planes. If RPA was all that "dictatorial" and image conscious, they
would be required at all times - no?
I am absolutely sure you are correct. Once again, let me point out that
I have no argument or debate about what the RPA mandates that it's
members wear or do not wear at RPA Events in front of the public. All I
am asking is that they drop the mandatory wear of Flight Suits for
students looking for Formation Training. Do you disagree with that? If
so why?
> The comradery I see at RPA airshows/events is not on what one is
wearing but the fun and mutual respect these folks have for each other.
Great. I hope you continue to have fun.
> Since the dawn of human evolution, we have evolved because as a
species we banded together. We killed off the mammoths as groups, we
defeated the Japs and Nazis as a group. In every group there must be a
leader or leaders. And when there are leaders, there are those who
don't like their leaders because their bear skin was tighter fitting or
they didn't like the fact his dick might was bigger. Who knows. But
without a leadership, be it chief or elected president, there is only
anarchy. Is there a place for the anarchist? Yes. But only
temporally. :)
Jim, we are talking about formation training for people that ask for it.
Not the President, Japs, Nazi's, or a guy with a 12 inch dick.
> My question here is, why is your loin cloth so up tight over a mundane
issue like wearing a flight suit?
My question right back at you is why you insist on supporting a RPA rule
that you tell me is not followed anyway?
> Are you doing it because you really believe the whole association is
totally fucked up or you just don't like some one personally?
I am doing it because as a pilot I think RPA has tremendous potential.
I also think that formation training is necessary and should be provided
and promoted where-ever possible, and that this training should take
precedence over what a person wears inside of his or her own aircraft.
> A lot of people out side of RPA who have control (FAA) over the entire
formation issue, don't think so. And the rest of FAST don't think so
either. The new RPA manual is being used as a template (flight suits
not included) for other signatories manuals.
I could care less.
> Since both you and Brains, have said those were you last words - does
that mean I win? I bet not. :-)
You're right.
Mark Bitterlich
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: | A letter to the RPA |
Mark, All,
I really do not care what you were when flying your YAK/CJ/Albatros/Mig ect.
I have not seen anyone denied training at a clinic that I have organized in
the name of the RPA or Red Air. You can fly in your under ware for all I
care.
If you fly in my aircraft all I care about is that your pockets are empty!
Nota..nothing.empty.that is all I want. The flight suit provides flash
protection in an ejection not shake and bake protection after a pancake. It
is a place to keep items secure in the pockets. I personally carry a
multipurpose knife when I fly. When I have flown in jeans with it in my
pocket, I have had to hunt it down in the cockpit after an episode of acro.
So I went back to wearing a flight suit or a pair of shorts during the hot
months with secure pockets so that damned knife does not end up in my torque
tube or elevator!
I agree, it is wrong to deny training based on attire. But, if you plan on
flying nude don't expect to be in my flight! Well unless she (female-
she.not the she its running around in their gay way) is at least an 8,. well
if she wants to hangout. ok, I'll buy off on that! Just don't leave any FOD
in my cockpit! The other problem see there is a flight safety one.a major
distraction in fingertip for sure!
Okay, enough of that!
Wear what you want.just please secure all your pockets or empty them so you
do not accidentally become a hazard because fod has screwed up your
controls.
Doc
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: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: Yak-List: A letter to the RPA
From: Mark Bitterlich
Subject: Mandatory Wearing of Flight Suits
It is the opinion of many people, including myself, that it is not in the
best interests of overall General Aviation Flight Safety for the RPA to
mandate the wearing of Flight Suits during training events. While it is
understood that the RPA has the right and the means to set standards of its
members, and especially so during operations in front of the public, it
remains counter to the best interests and safety of the general flying
populace to deny Formation Flight training to any person who is already
properly licensed by the FAA, but who for what ever reason they declare,
will not wear a Flight Suit.
It is a very safe assumption that pilots who desire to fly formation and
apply to the RPA to teach them, and are then denied participation simply
over the RPA rule that they must wear a flight suit, or be refused training
are going to:
1. Do it anyway. And when they do, the chance of them being involved in an
accident increases by a high percentage.
2. Are going to leave with a very dim view of the RPA and instead of
generating support will do their best to make other pilots aware of what
they perceive to be an unsubstantiated prejudice.
3. Will continue to participate in the predictable email discussions on
Internet Forums, as has once again recently been the case on the "Yak List".
It is the consensus of opinion of MANY pilots, after long debate, that the
additional safety that a Flight Suit provides is at best questionable. Its
use in General Aviation, including Formation Flight has not received the
official documentation to prove anything other than: "It seems to be a good
idea by and large". But so does the wearing of Flight Boots, Flight
Gloves, cotton underwear, a helmet, and every other safety item a person may
care to list, military oriented or otherwise. To focus on just the flight
suit, to the point of denying training is so against reasonable logic that
it begs the question of an alternative agenda.
If the RPA demands that Flight Suits continue to be worn by their
instructors during said training events, this of course should remain an RPA
decision. However, the STUDENTS participating in said training should have
the OPTION to wear a flight suit, but not the "or else" DIRECTIVE to do so.
To this end, please accept this letter as an official request to drop the
mandatory wearing of Flight Suits for any and all TRAINING EVENTS, whether
or not these training events also happen to coincide with RPA FLIGHT EVENTS
in front of the public.
R/S,
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
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: HGU-55 vs David Clarke |
On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:58 AM, CJcanuck wrote:
>
> Hi All!
>
> I'm starting to shop for my Xmas list and I'm keen to get an HGU-55
> helmet from Flightsuits.com. I'd like to know if there are any
> problems with compatibility with a set of David Clarke's when using
> the built-in intercom of a Garmin SL-40 Comm radio.
>
> How good are the standard earpieces for noise attenuation? Is the
> ANR option worth the money? How much room is there between the top
> of the helmet and a standard canopy? How effective is the visor?
I found that the standard ear seals and fit kit left something to be
desired. After hearing complaints of poorly fitting helmets, I opted
to have my helmet fitted by Oregon Aero. I purchased a "bare" helmet
from Flight Suits (nothing to fit it to your head and with the bare
earspeakers dangling by their wires). Oregon Aero then provides
everything that goes into the helmet to make it fit your head and
ears. The result was a *very* comfortable helmet (I literally wore it
16 hours one day) that does an excellent job of passive noise
attenuation. It would probably work well with ANR earspeakers and
electronics but I never felt the need.
As for the visor, I found I wanted both smoked and clear. They work
well and are much better than sunglasses.
Clearance on top depends on the length of your torso. I certainly
have never had a problem sitting up high enough to see and having my
helmet clear the canopy.
As for compatibility with other headsets, that is more of an audio-
panel or intercomm issue. Good audio panels and/or intercomms have
separate amplifiers for each headset. I would *NOT* try to use the
intercom built into the SL-40 for anything. Having to open a menu on
the display to set the level and squelch is just too annoying. You
really want something with a knob you can grab and quickly adjust.
Get yourself a good intercom from PS Engineering with separate level
controls for your two seats. You will be much happier in the long run.
--
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 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: HGU-55 vs David Clarke |
I have a high contrast visor and it works well in the Herk,,,,
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144282#144282
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: Brain buckets |
Doug,
This comes from our life support folks. I will ask them if there is something to
provide some evidence to the claim. BUT, from personal experience and wearing
the damn thing for more hours than I would like to think, they are paper thin
and only really have styrofoam for impact protection. NOW..I think the new issue
helmets may be made of kevlar and offer better protection...but at what price?
There is a helmet out there that offers great protection but I cannot remember
the name of them. They are not cheap....but neither is your head![/i]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144283#144283
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Brain buckets |
Most of the really serious Unlimited aerobatic guys and the Red Bull
pilots wear the one I think you are talking about Tim. It is NOT a
military model. It DOES have a visor and the shell is very much like
one would find on a motorcycle. I will check out Hubie Tolson's and see
if I can get the name. Knowing him, it would have to be the best of the
best, or else he would not put it on his noggin.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 22:56
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Brain buckets
Doug,
This comes from our life support folks. I will ask them if there is
something to provide some evidence to the claim. BUT, from personal
experience and wearing the damn thing for more hours than I would like
to think, they are paper thin and only really have styrofoam for impact
protection. NOW..I think the new issue helmets may be made of kevlar and
offer better protection...but at what price?
There is a helmet out there that offers great protection but I cannot
remember the name of them. They are not cheap....but neither is your
head![/i]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144283#144283
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: | Re: Brain buckets |
I have a classic looking leather helmet made by Campbell in New Zealand.
I've owned it about 5 years with no problems. The electronics are very good
and external noise is taken care of by an excellent fit over the ears.
Campbell makes them custom fit so you can keep them on for hours at a time. It
is a
Kevlar shell covered will real leather. I don't know what the liner is
made of but its quite comfortable for hours on end. Split lens RAF type goggles
top out the WW2 effect. They even fit over my glasses.
The helmet has save me from considerable hurt. Those that saw me at AYS
last January missed the step deplaning a CJ, can attest I hit the ground with
a
great deal of force. My parachute cushioned my body and my helmet absorbed
the force when my head hit the ground. With out it I believe I would have had
a serious head injury.
Anyway this helmet is not cheap, but you get what you pay for in this case
and I recommend it.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
In a message dated 11/6/2007 11:13:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mark.bitterlich@navy.mil writes:
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Most of the really serious Unlimited aerobatic guys and the Red Bull
pilots wear the one I think you are talking about Tim. It is NOT a
military model. It DOES have a visor and the shell is very much like
one would find on a motorcycle. I will check out Hubie Tolson's and see
if I can get the name. Knowing him, it would have to be the best of the
best, or else he would not put it on his noggin.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 22:56
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Brain buckets
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@fuse.net>
Doug,
This comes from our life support folks. I will ask them if there is
something to provide some evidence to the claim. BUT, from personal
experience and wearing the damn thing for more hours than I would like
to think, they are paper thin and only really have styrofoam for impact
protection. NOW..I think the new issue helmets may be made of kevlar and
offer better protection...but at what price?
There is a helmet out there that offers great protection but I cannot
remember the name of them. They are not cheap....but neither is your
head![/i]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144283#144283
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: | FS: Harmon Rocket Project |
Posting on behalf of a friend...
I am selling a partially complete Harmon Rocket project for a friend that has gone
west. The workmanship is top notch and no expense has been spared on parts
and accessories. More information is available at the link below.
http://web.mac.com/tanker74/iWeb/tanker74.mac/Rocket%20details.html
or
http://web.mac.com/tanker74 > Rocket Details
Contact: Chuck Lees
E-mail tanker74@mac.com
Cell Phone: 650.388.2641 0900 till 1800 Pacific Time
__________________________________________________
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: Brain buckets |
Tim/Mark,
I beleive the helmet you are refering to is a GALLET HELMET.
As for crash protection, the Helo helmets normally provide
more protection in a crash then the fixed wing helmets. Try
an SPH-4B (Kevlar shell and duel visor) or the HGU-56/P. The
SPH-4B was an interim helmet until the HGU-56/P was ready to
be put into service.
If you are going to purchase an SPH-4B, be carefull, not to
buy an SPH-4A, with a dual visor (Interim modification). On
the SPH-4B they changed the retension system and addeed
crushable ear cups.
Fly Safe
John Fischer
> In a message dated 11/6/2007 11:13:23 P.M. Eastern
> Standard Time, mark.bitterlich@navy.mil writes:
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV
> Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Most of the really serious Unlimited aerobatic guys and
> the Red Bull pilots wear the one I think you are talking
> about Tim. It is NOT a military model. It DOES have a
> visor and the shell is very much like one would find on a
> motorcycle. I will check out Hubie Tolson's and see if I
> can get the name. Knowing him, it would have to be the
> best of the best, or else he would not put it on his
> noggin.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Tim Gagnon Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 22:56
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Brain buckets
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon"
> <NiftyYak50@fuse.net>
>
> Doug,
>
> This comes from our life support folks. I will ask them
> if there is something to provide some evidence to the
> claim. BUT, from personal experience and wearing the damn
> thing for more hours than I would like to think, they are
> paper thin and only really have styrofoam for impact
> protection. NOW..I think the new issue helmets may be
> made of kevlar and offer better protection...but at what
> price?
>
> There is a helmet out there that offers great protection
> but I cannot remember the name of them. They are not
> cheap....but neither is your head![/i]
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144283#144283
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | A letter to the RPA |
Wearing a uniform is a sign of subservience or submission to a higher
authority. In effect, to wear a uniform suggests you are under the
control
of somebody or something. In order to conform people may wear any of a
thousand different "uniforms". The Boy scouts, cops, the military,
McDonalds
and even circus clowns have to wear a "uniform".
All military members must wear a uniform.......but the commander in
chief
does not wear a uniform. Wouldn't it be funny if the commander in chief
were
required to wear a uniform? Wouldn't it suggest that he was under the
control of somebody or something?
Having to wear a uniform can be a good thing. For example, if you need
someone to do your fighting for you or you need someone to serve dinner
in
your restaurant or you need someone to enforce your laws. These people
need
to be controlled.
To wear a uniform is to show subservience. To wear the uniform may give
the
wearer a sense of pride or a sense of "belonging" i.e........ an
identity
that go's beyond one's own character or sense of self worth. So do you
think
for yourself or subject yourself to someone's authority?
Americans (Yak Drivers) are an independent lot. They resent anyone from
telling them what they "HAVE" to do. Is it any wonder many people don't
like
to wear a uniform? It's a sign of maturity, both personally and
intellectually, to realize you don't "HAVE" to wear "the clown suit"
anymore. Most people who have the financial means to own and fly
aircraft
have gone beyond the need to "identify" with any particular, subservient
group.....................Are you the chauffeur in uniform or the boss
telling him what to do? To have reached the level of maturity whereby
you
realize you are subservient to no one signifies self reliance, rugged
individualism and independence of thought that is uniquely American.
The bottom line is that it's the wimps who need the crutch of a uniform
to
wear.
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! --
|