Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:51 AM - Re: Rob Davies Interview (After Crash) (Sam Sax)
2. 08:04 AM - CJ Booster Pump Operation (Elmar)
3. 08:44 AM - Re: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe. (Yak Pilot)
4. 08:55 AM - Re: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe. (kevin pilling)
5. 12:19 PM - Prop not cycling during run up (Thomas Geoghegan)
6. 01:51 PM - Re: Prop not cycling during run up (T A LEWIS)
7. 05:54 PM - Re: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe. (Etienne Verhellen)
8. 10:00 PM - Re: Prop not cycling during run up (Walter Lannon)
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: Rob Davies Interview (After Crash) |
Incredible!
Sam Sax
Miami
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLQsJS7zQOM
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLQsJS7zQOM&feature=youtu.be>
&feature=youtu.be
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: | CJ Booster Pump Operation |
If one does not want to change the
original chinese wobble pump
configuration but still wants to
keep the right hand on the stick,
could this person not replace the
wobble pump handle with a windshield
wiper motor? Those have a good reputation
to be reliable and have several speed
settings.
cheers
Elmar
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: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe. |
Mr. Verhellen,
Having talked to quite a number of pilots that have been subject to the recent
groundings in that area, all of which have stated that you have been involved
in bringing "your version" of certain information to the attention of the CAA
to where they (the CAA) felt that they had to take action.
I agree that in the strict definition of the word, "responsible" is probably not
the best word to use. On the other hand, "catalyst" most definitely is.
The rest of your posting is couched in phrases and terms that are in fact EXACTLY
accurate (as far as they go anyway), but are incomplete in spelling out the
full story.
The bottom line is that in most cases when dealing with official agencies that
control aircraft in ANY country, the best advice is to "LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE".
You decided to ignore that old and sage advice, and beat very hard on the table
until the agency in question took action that you fully expected and had
in mind as a goal. Can I prove that here and now? No, not easily, and you fully
well know that too. So I will have to register that comment by saying: "This
is true in my humble opinion".
I've been involved with email and the ARPA/DARPA/MILNET since the early 1980's,
and am very familiar with the tactics used to mislead and misrepresent the truth.
Public postings (such as this forum) allow a person to totally twist reality
in an attempt to gain public respect and recognition and it becomes next
to impossible for the majority of readers to ever know "what really happened",
or what the exact truth of the matter being discussed.
As lucky as folks are in the United States, (and a lot of other places as well),
everyone is also aware that all it takes is one person with some kind of personal
agenda to make things totally miserable for everyone else. That kind of
thing is universal in nature. Of course people that do that kind of thing ALWAYS
deny it.
I know the answer from you that this posting might generate, but keep one thing
in mind... the readers on the Yak List are by and large, pretty darn smart.
Our ego's are sometimes a little bit out of control (I speak for myself), but
the IQ level is really up there.
Bottom Line: You're right, I am very lucky to live no where near you (excuse me,
I mean Belgium) and own a YAK.
--- On Tue, 7/12/11, Etienne Verhellen <janie@yak52.fr> wrote:
> From: Etienne Verhellen <janie@yak52.fr>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe.
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 2:23 PM
> "Etienne Verhellen" <janie@yak52.fr>
>
> Hi all !
>
> Under a topic called "Yak-52 Fuel Tanks" (!!), on Jun 24,
> 2011,
> Didier BLOUZARD from France wrote this :
>
> "Etienne, Last week I was in a meeting with Belgium CAA and
> they told us about your mails to them. you have succeeded in
> grouding all the russian registered YAK in Belgium and
> France and Netherland will probably follow the move. We all
> thank you for your huge effort in telling everywhere that a
> RAK YAK is more dangerous than the other registrations. The
> result is in temporarily grouding. BRAVO. Now you can be
> known as the man who grouded the YAK
> We will remember that. Thanks again
> Didier BLOUZARD"
>
> A few remarks :
>
> 1. Didier, please read the title of the topic before
> posting.
> The title was "Yak-52 Fuel Tanks" but
> unfortunately your post has
> nothing to do with it.
> Please start a new topic if you have problems
> you would like to discuss
> on the Yak-list.
>
> 2. You had a meeting with the Belgian CAA. Good for you !
>
> 3. I was NOT there. I do NOT know what the Belgian CAA told
> you.
> And I do NOT know what YOU told the Belgian
> CAA.
> But I can assure you I have never ashed them
> to ground Yaks in
> Belgium :) [Exclamation]
> As you probably know, I fly a Yak in Belgium
> myself :D
>
> 4. Nevertheless, you write that Russian registered Yaks
> (RAxxxxK) have
> been grounded in Belgium ... You write :
> "Grounded in Belgium AND France AND
> Netherland will probably
> follow". A little bit of a
> confusing statement to say the least :
> * Grounded in Belgium AND France WITH Netherland to follow
> the move
>
>
> OR
> * Grounded in Belgium WITH France AND the Netherland to
> follow the move ?????
>
> 5. YOU then imply that I am responsable for this temporary
> grounding !!?!!
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Come on Didier, let's be serious for a moment !
>
> I want to make it clear to everyone reading the Yak-list
> that :
>
> 1. as far as I am aware, Russian "registered" Yaks
> (RAxxxxK) have not
> been grounded in Belgium. I have not seen any
> document/letter issued
> by the Belgian CAA stating what you write
> Didier. So please, before
> posting in the future, make sure what you
> write is correct instead
> of spreading harmlful rumours.
>
> 2. Finally, unlike yourself I do not meet with the Belgian
> CAA and
> (unfortunately ! [Wink] ) I have
> certainly no influence on their
> decisions [Exclamation]
>
> There are indeed issues with RA registrations in
> Continental Europe,
> especially following a few fatal accidents in France :
> http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=121933
> http://paris-ile-de-france.france3.fr/info/crash-d-un-avion-deux-morts-68527285.html?onglet=videos&id-video=vanv_CRASH_AVION_TOU_1407653_00YJMIIP_250420111808_F3
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> http://www.lecharpeblanche.fr/2011/04/25/deux-morts-dans-le-crash-dun-yak-52/
>
> For info, the UK CAA has established a framework to legally
> operate and maintain Yaks.
>
> I have attached the 2 letters from the UK CAA explaining
> why RA (and LY)registrations were grounded in the UK. In a
> nutshell, Yakovlev aircraft DO NOT meet the requirements
> applicable to civil aircraft certification that would allow
> a Standard Certificate of Airworthiness to be issued
> according to the provisions of Article 33 of the ICAO
> Convention (Annex 6) with respect to the mutual
> acceptability of such certificates within any ICAO
> Contracting State. That's why Yaks are EXPERIMENTAL in the
> States.
> They are lucky in the US of A.
>
> We have to put up with non uniformed "rules" and
> incompetent CAAs in Europe !
>
> As you know Didier, Yaks have been grounded in France
> before, as you can read on page 11 of this report :
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> Yakovlev aircraft were grounded in France in February 2002
> because they were not "civilian certified" ... etc.
> "En France, les avions de construction russes (Yak 12, 50,
> 52, 54, 55 et Sukho 26, 29 et 31) ont t
> interdits de vol en fvrier 2002 par la Direction
> Gnrale delAviation Civile (DGAC) car ils
> n'taient pas immatriculs sur un registre civil et
> parce que leur rgime de certification ne pouvait tre
> dtermin clairement".
>
> YOU did not write BRAVO to the Yak-list to congratulate me
> then ! [Rolling Eyes]
>
> Also read the conclusion ( in French !) on page 19 of this
> report :
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> The French CAA and EASA should take appropriate measures !
> "La DGAC et lEASA devraient clarifier la situation
> et prendre, en consquence, les dispositions
> ncessaires".
> That's exactly what I wrote in this article :
> http://www.emagazine.flightinternational.com/1Z4dd63f96463e4012.cde/page/47
> Isn't it time national aviation authorities (EASA ?) agreed
> on common standards to maintain and operate Yaks in Europe
> ?
>
> SO, if you have genuine concerns about RA registrations in
> France or in Continental Europe, Didier, I would be more
> than happy to help.
>
> But acting as you do, contacting the Belgian CAA and
> spreading false informations on the Yak-list is CERTAINLY
> not going to help !
>
> A constructive approach would be a better tactic.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Etienne.
>
> Yak 52 "janie".
> UK registered G-CBSS.
> Maintained and operated under the supervision of the UK
> CAA.
> http://fanairplane.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=9763
> http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6867609
> http://fanairplane.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=7325
> http://www.airliners.net/photo/955944/L/
> http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=861131
> http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1011615
> http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/129003L.html
> http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=01058969
> http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=6195
> http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=2901
> Etc ... etc ... ! 8)
> * Get instruction from an experienced Yak flight instructor
> to avoid this :
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2010/g-ak100612/pdf/g-ak100612.pdf
> * Make sure your aircraft is properly maintained.
> Obvious I know but some people think they will save a few
> bucks by doing it on the cheap (flight instruction and
> maintenance) ...
> not a very good idea long term ...
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> --------
> http://www.flyforfun.be/?q=yaks
> http://www.planecheck.com/eu/index.asp?ent=dv&id=6711
> http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/san07/page1.html
> http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/1029467/L/Yakovlev-Yak-52/G-CBSS/Etienne-Verhellen/
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346095#346095
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/groundingrussiandirective_814.doc
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/groundinglithuaniandirective_146.doc
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rapport_bea_yak_ra_3332k_920.pdf
>
>
>
>
> Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: | Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe. |
.....and don't ever forget that "they" ,from whatever agency in whatever country,
monitor these lists too !
kp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Yak Pilot
Sent: 13 July 2011 16:42
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe.
Mr. Verhellen,
Having talked to quite a number of pilots that have been subject to the recent
groundings in that area, all of which have stated that you have been involved
in bringing "your version" of certain information to the attention of the CAA
to where they (the CAA) felt that they had to take action.
I agree that in the strict definition of the word, "responsible" is probably not
the best word to use. On the other hand, "catalyst" most definitely is.
The rest of your posting is couched in phrases and terms that are in fact EXACTLY
accurate (as far as they go anyway), but are incomplete in spelling out the
full story.
The bottom line is that in most cases when dealing with official agencies that
control aircraft in ANY country, the best advice is to "LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE".
You decided to ignore that old and sage advice, and beat very hard on the table
until the agency in question took action that you fully expected and had
in mind as a goal. Can I prove that here and now? No, not easily, and you fully
well know that too. So I will have to register that comment by saying: "This
is true in my humble opinion".
I've been involved with email and the ARPA/DARPA/MILNET since the early 1980's,
and am very familiar with the tactics used to mislead and misrepresent the truth.
Public postings (such as this forum) allow a person to totally twist reality
in an attempt to gain public respect and recognition and it becomes next
to impossible for the majority of readers to ever know "what really happened",
or what the exact truth of the matter being discussed.
As lucky as folks are in the United States, (and a lot of other places as well),
everyone is also aware that all it takes is one person with some kind of personal
agenda to make things totally miserable for everyone else. That kind of
thing is universal in nature. Of course people that do that kind of thing ALWAYS
deny it.
I know the answer from you that this posting might generate, but keep one thing
in mind... the readers on the Yak List are by and large, pretty darn smart.
Our ego's are sometimes a little bit out of control (I speak for myself), but
the IQ level is really up there.
Bottom Line: You're right, I am very lucky to live no where near you (excuse me,
I mean Belgium) and own a YAK.
--- On Tue, 7/12/11, Etienne Verhellen <janie@yak52.fr> wrote:
> From: Etienne Verhellen <janie@yak52.fr>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe.
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 2:23 PM
> "Etienne Verhellen" <janie@yak52.fr>
>
> Hi all !
>
> Under a topic called "Yak-52 Fuel Tanks" (!!), on Jun 24,
> 2011,
> Didier BLOUZARD from France wrote this :
>
> "Etienne, Last week I was in a meeting with Belgium CAA and
> they told us about your mails to them. you have succeeded in
> grouding all the russian registered YAK in Belgium and
> France and Netherland will probably follow the move. We all
> thank you for your huge effort in telling everywhere that a
> RAK YAK is more dangerous than the other registrations. The
> result is in temporarily grouding. BRAVO. Now you can be
> known as the man who grouded the YAK
> We will remember that. Thanks again
> Didier BLOUZARD"
>
> A few remarks :
>
> 1. Didier, please read the title of the topic before
> posting.
> The title was "Yak-52 Fuel Tanks" but
> unfortunately your post has
> nothing to do with it.
> Please start a new topic if you have problems
> you would like to discuss
> on the Yak-list.
>
> 2. You had a meeting with the Belgian CAA. Good for you !
>
> 3. I was NOT there. I do NOT know what the Belgian CAA told
> you.
> And I do NOT know what YOU told the Belgian
> CAA.
> But I can assure you I have never ashed them
> to ground Yaks in
> Belgium :) [Exclamation]
> As you probably know, I fly a Yak in Belgium
> myself :D
>
> 4. Nevertheless, you write that Russian registered Yaks
> (RAxxxxK) have
> been grounded in Belgium ... You write :
> "Grounded in Belgium AND France AND
> Netherland will probably
> follow". A little bit of a
> confusing statement to say the least :
> * Grounded in Belgium AND France WITH Netherland to follow
> the move
>
>
> OR
> * Grounded in Belgium WITH France AND the Netherland to
> follow the move ?????
>
> 5. YOU then imply that I am responsable for this temporary
> grounding !!?!!
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Come on Didier, let's be serious for a moment !
>
> I want to make it clear to everyone reading the Yak-list
> that :
>
> 1. as far as I am aware, Russian "registered" Yaks
> (RAxxxxK) have not
> been grounded in Belgium. I have not seen any
> document/letter issued
> by the Belgian CAA stating what you write
> Didier. So please, before
> posting in the future, make sure what you
> write is correct instead
> of spreading harmlful rumours.
>
> 2. Finally, unlike yourself I do not meet with the Belgian
> CAA and
> (unfortunately ! [Wink] ) I have
> certainly no influence on their
> decisions [Exclamation]
>
> There are indeed issues with RA registrations in
> Continental Europe,
> especially following a few fatal accidents in France :
> http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=121933
> http://paris-ile-de-france.france3.fr/info/crash-d-un-avion-deux-morts-68527285.html?onglet=videos&id-video=vanv_CRASH_AVION_TOU_1407653_00YJMIIP_250420111808_F3
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> http://www.lecharpeblanche.fr/2011/04/25/deux-morts-dans-le-crash-dun-yak-52/
>
> For info, the UK CAA has established a framework to legally
> operate and maintain Yaks.
>
> I have attached the 2 letters from the UK CAA explaining
> why RA (and LY)registrations were grounded in the UK. In a
> nutshell, Yakovlev aircraft DO NOT meet the requirements
> applicable to civil aircraft certification that would allow
> a Standard Certificate of Airworthiness to be issued
> according to the provisions of Article 33 of the ICAO
> Convention (Annex 6) with respect to the mutual
> acceptability of such certificates within any ICAO
> Contracting State. That's why Yaks are EXPERIMENTAL in the
> States.
> They are lucky in the US of A.
>
> We have to put up with non uniformed "rules" and
> incompetent CAAs in Europe !
>
> As you know Didier, Yaks have been grounded in France
> before, as you can read on page 11 of this report :
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> Yakovlev aircraft were grounded in France in February 2002
> because they were not "civilian certified" ... etc.
> "En France, les avions de construction russes (Yak 12, 50,
> 52, 54, 55 et Sukho 26, 29 et 31) ont t
> interdits de vol en fvrier 2002 par la Direction
> Gnrale delAviation Civile (DGAC) car ils
> n'taient pas immatriculs sur un registre civil et
> parce que leur rgime de certification ne pouvait tre
> dtermin clairement".
>
> YOU did not write BRAVO to the Yak-list to congratulate me
> then ! [Rolling Eyes]
>
> Also read the conclusion ( in French !) on page 19 of this
> report :
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> The French CAA and EASA should take appropriate measures !
> "La DGAC et lEASA devraient clarifier la situation
> et prendre, en consquence, les dispositions
> ncessaires".
> That's exactly what I wrote in this article :
> http://www.emagazine.flightinternational.com/1Z4dd63f96463e4012.cde/page/47
> Isn't it time national aviation authorities (EASA ?) agreed
> on common standards to maintain and operate Yaks in Europe
> ?
>
> SO, if you have genuine concerns about RA registrations in
> France or in Continental Europe, Didier, I would be more
> than happy to help.
>
> But acting as you do, contacting the Belgian CAA and
> spreading false informations on the Yak-list is CERTAINLY
> not going to help !
>
> A constructive approach would be a better tactic.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Etienne.
>
> Yak 52 "janie".
> UK registered G-CBSS.
> Maintained and operated under the supervision of the UK
> CAA.
> http://fanairplane.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=9763
> http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6867609
> http://fanairplane.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=7325
> http://www.airliners.net/photo/955944/L/
> http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=861131
> http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1011615
> http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/129003L.html
> http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=01058969
> http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=6195
> http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=2901
> Etc ... etc ... ! 8)
> * Get instruction from an experienced Yak flight instructor
> to avoid this :
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2010/g-ak100612/pdf/g-ak100612.pdf
> * Make sure your aircraft is properly maintained.
> Obvious I know but some people think they will save a few
> bucks by doing it on the cheap (flight instruction and
> maintenance) ...
> not a very good idea long term ...
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> --------
> http://www.flyforfun.be/?q=yaks
> http://www.planecheck.com/eu/index.asp?ent=dv&id=6711
> http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/san07/page1.html
> http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/1029467/L/Yakovlev-Yak-52/G-CBSS/Etienne-Verhellen/
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346095#346095
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/groundingrussiandirective_814.doc
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/groundinglithuaniandirective_146.doc
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rapport_bea_yak_ra_3332k_920.pdf
>
>
>
>
> Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: | Prop not cycling during run up |
Recently the time it took for me to see RPMs drop when cycling the prop back during
run up increased. It use to be almost instantaneous, but then I noticed 6
-10 seconds. Today cycling the prop had no affect other then seeing a quick,
slight drop in oil pressure when pushing the prop forward.
The prop acts normal otherwise, getting up to red line on take off and cycling
while in flight.
This is my first CS prop, so this is all new to me. I don't see anything leaking,
but after flying I have a very light oily residue on the prop which is barely
noticeable.
Any ideas/thoughts?
CJ/Housai 285
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: Prop not cycling during run up |
I had a similar problem on my cj years ago . The sleeve on the prop cable near
the governor
was slipping . I tightened it up and cured the problem .
There is a screen on the governor that you may want to check also .
Terry
----- Original Message ----
From: Thomas Geoghegan <thomasg@infosysnetworks.com>
Sent: Wed, July 13, 2011 3:16:44 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Prop not cycling during run up
Recently the time it took for me to see RPMs drop when cycling the prop back
during run up increased. It use to be almost instantaneous, but then I noticed
6
-10 seconds. Today cycling the prop had no affect other then seeing a quick,
slight drop in oil pressure when pushing the prop forward.
The prop acts normal otherwise, getting up to red line on take off and cycling
while in flight.
This is my first CS prop, so this is all new to me. I don't see anything
leaking, but after flying I have a very light oily residue on the prop which is
barely noticeable.
Any ideas/thoughts?
CJ/Housai 285
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: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe. |
Dear Mr "yakplt@yahoo.com",
I do not know who you are.
I do not know who you have been talking to.
I do not know what you have been told about me.
You certainly do not know kow me.
So your "humble opinion" is based on what other people are telling you !!!!
Then you write that you are "very familiar with the tactics used to mislead and
misrepresent the truth" !
Well ... in my "humble opinion", you are probably not as smart as you think you
are ! Sorry.
Best Regards, Etienne VERHELLEN.
PS : Monsieur Didier BLOUZARD raises an issue on the Yak-list and mentions my name.
Then he seems suprised and offended when I post
a reply !
Sorry mate, but if you do not want to read my answers, do not make false statements
about me.
If you cannot accept different views on an issue you are raising on the Yak-list,
just STOP posting !
Having said that, I feel this discussion is going nowhere and I suggest we just
leave it there. Cheers.
_____________________________________________________________
yakplt(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> Mr. Verhellen,
>
> Having talked to quite a number of pilots that have been subject to the recent
groundings in that area, all of which have stated that you have been involved
in bringing "your version" of certain information to the attention of the CAA
to where they (the CAA) felt that they had to take action.
>
> I agree that in the strict definition of the word, "responsible" is probably
not the best word to use. On the other hand, "catalyst" most definitely is.
>
> The rest of your posting is couched in phrases and terms that are in fact EXACTLY
accurate (as far as they go anyway), but are incomplete in spelling out the
full story.
>
> The bottom line is that in most cases when dealing with official agencies that
control aircraft in ANY country, the best advice is to "LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE".
You decided to ignore that old and sage advice, and beat very hard on the
table until the agency in question took action that you fully expected and had
in mind as a goal. Can I prove that here and now? No, not easily, and you fully
well know that too. So I will have to register that comment by saying: "This
is true in my humble opinion".
>
> I've been involved with email and the ARPA/DARPA/MILNET since the early 1980's,
and am very familiar with the tactics used to mislead and misrepresent the
truth. Public postings (such as this forum) allow a person to totally twist reality
in an attempt to gain public respect and recognition and it becomes next
to impossible for the majority of readers to ever know "what really happened",
or what the exact truth of the matter being discussed.
>
> As lucky as folks are in the United States, (and a lot of other places as well),
everyone is also aware that all it takes is one person with some kind of personal
agenda to make things totally miserable for everyone else. That kind
of thing is universal in nature. Of course people that do that kind of thing
ALWAYS deny it.
>
> I know the answer from you that this posting might generate, but keep one thing
in mind... the readers on the Yak List are by and large, pretty darn smart.
Our ego's are sometimes a little bit out of control (I speak for myself), but
the IQ level is really up there.
>
> Bottom Line: You're right, I am very lucky to live no where near you (excuse
me, I mean Belgium) and own a YAK.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/12/11, Etienne Verhellen wrote:
>
>
> > From: Etienne Verhellen
> > Subject: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe.
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 2:23 PM
> >
> > "Etienne Verhellen"
> >
> > Hi all !
> >
> > Under a topic called "Yak-52 Fuel Tanks" (!!), on Jun 24,
> > 2011,
> > Didier BLOUZARD from France wrote this :
> >
> > "Etienne, Last week I was in a meeting with Belgium CAA and
> > they told us about your mails to them. you have succeeded in
> > grouding all the russian registered YAK in Belgium and
> > France and Netherland will probably follow the move. We all
> > thank you for your huge effort in telling everywhere that a
> > RAK YAK is more dangerous than the other registrations. The
> > result is in temporarily grouding. BRAVO. Now you can be
> > known as the man who grouded the YAK
> > We will remember that. Thanks again
> > Didier BLOUZARD"
> >
> > A few remarks :
> >
> > 1. Didier, please read the title of the topic before
> > posting.
> > The title was "Yak-52 Fuel Tanks" but
> > unfortunately your post has
> > nothing to do with it.
> > Please start a new topic if you have problems
> > you would like to discuss
> > on the Yak-list.
> >
> > 2. You had a meeting with the Belgian CAA. Good for you !
> >
> > 3. I was NOT there. I do NOT know what the Belgian CAA told
> > you.
> > And I do NOT know what YOU told the Belgian
> > CAA.
> > But I can assure you I have never ashed them
> > to ground Yaks in
> > Belgium :) [Exclamation]
> > As you probably know, I fly a Yak in Belgium
> > myself :D
> >
> > 4. Nevertheless, you write that Russian registered Yaks
> > (RAxxxxK) have
> > been grounded in Belgium ... You write :
> > "Grounded in Belgium AND France AND
> > Netherland will probably
> > follow". A little bit of a
> > confusing statement to say the least :
> > * Grounded in Belgium AND France WITH Netherland to follow
> > the move
> >
> >
> > OR
> > * Grounded in Belgium WITH France AND the Netherland to
> > follow the move ?????
> >
> > 5. YOU then imply that I am responsable for this temporary
> > grounding !!?!!
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> >
> > Come on Didier, let's be serious for a moment !
> >
> > I want to make it clear to everyone reading the Yak-list
> > that :
> >
> > 1. as far as I am aware, Russian "registered" Yaks
> > (RAxxxxK) have not
> > been grounded in Belgium. I have not seen any
> > document/letter issued
> > by the Belgian CAA stating what you write
> > Didier. So please, before
> > posting in the future, make sure what you
> > write is correct instead
> > of spreading harmlful rumours.
> >
> > 2. Finally, unlike yourself I do not meet with the Belgian
> > CAA and
> > (unfortunately ! [Wink] ) I have
> > certainly no influence on their
> > decisions [Exclamation]
> >
> > There are indeed issues with RA registrations in
> > Continental Europe,
> > especially following a few fatal accidents in France :
> > http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=121933
> > http://paris-ile-de-france.france3.fr/info/crash-d-un-avion-deux-morts-68527285.html?onglet=videos&id-video=vanv_CRASH_AVION_TOU_1407653_00YJMIIP_250420111808_F3
> > http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> > http://www.lecharpeblanche.fr/2011/04/25/deux-morts-dans-le-crash-dun-yak-52/
> >
> > For info, the UK CAA has established a framework to legally
> > operate and maintain Yaks.
> >
> > I have attached the 2 letters from the UK CAA explaining
> > why RA (and LY)registrations were grounded in the UK. In a
> > nutshell, Yakovlev aircraft DO NOT meet the requirements
> > applicable to civil aircraft certification that would allow
> > a Standard Certificate of Airworthiness to be issued
> > according to the provisions of Article 33 of the ICAO
> > Convention (Annex 6) with respect to the mutual
> > acceptability of such certificates within any ICAO
> > Contracting State. That's why Yaks are EXPERIMENTAL in the
> > States.
> > They are lucky in the US of A.
> >
> > We have to put up with non uniformed "rules" and
> > incompetent CAAs in Europe !
> >
> > As you know Didier, Yaks have been grounded in France
> > before, as you can read on page 11 of this report :
> > http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> > Yakovlev aircraft were grounded in France in February 2002
> > because they were not "civilian certified" ... etc.
> > "En France, les avions de construction russes (Yak 12, 50,
> > 52, 54, 55 et Sukho 26, 29 et 31) ont t
> > interdits de vol en fvrier 2002 par la Direction
> > Gnrale delAviation Civile (DGAC) car ils
> > n'taient pas immatriculs sur un registre civil et
> > parce que leur rgime de certification ne pouvait tre
> > dtermin clairement".
> >
> > YOU did not write BRAVO to the Yak-list to congratulate me
> > then ! [Rolling Eyes]
> >
> > Also read the conclusion ( in French !) on page 19 of this
> > report :
> > http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> > The French CAA and EASA should take appropriate measures !
> > "La DGAC et lEASA devraient clarifier la situation
> > et prendre, en consquence, les dispositions
> > ncessaires".
> > That's exactly what I wrote in this article :
> > http://www.emagazine.flightinternational.com/1Z4dd63f96463e4012.cde/page/47
> > Isn't it time national aviation authorities (EASA ?) agreed
> > on common standards to maintain and operate Yaks in Europe
> > ?
> >
> > SO, if you have genuine concerns about RA registrations in
> > France or in Continental Europe, Didier, I would be more
> > than happy to help.
> >
> > But acting as you do, contacting the Belgian CAA and
> > spreading false informations on the Yak-list is CERTAINLY
> > not going to help !
> >
> > A constructive approach would be a better tactic.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Etienne.
> >
> > Yak 52 "janie".
> > UK registered G-CBSS.
> > Maintained and operated under the supervision of the UK
> > CAA.
> > http://fanairplane.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=9763
> > http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6867609
> > http://fanairplane.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=7325
> > http://www.airliners.net/photo/955944/L/
> > http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=861131
> > http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1011615
> > http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/129003L.html
> > http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=01058969
> > http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=6195
> > http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=2901
> > Etc ... etc ... ! 8)
> > * Get instruction from an experienced Yak flight instructor
> > to avoid this :
> > http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2010/g-ak100612/pdf/g-ak100612.pdf
> > * Make sure your aircraft is properly maintained.
> > Obvious I know but some people think they will save a few
> > bucks by doing it on the cheap (flight instruction and
> > maintenance) ...
> > not a very good idea long term ...
> > ___________________________________________________________
> >
> > --------
> > http://www.flyforfun.be/?q=yaks
> > http://www.planecheck.com/eu/index.asp?ent=dv&id=6711
> > http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/san07/page1.html
> > http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/1029467/L/Yakovlev-Yak-52/G-CBSS/Etienne-Verhellen/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346095#346095
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/groundingrussiandirective_814.doc
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/groundinglithuaniandirective_146.doc
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/rapport_bea_yak_ra_3332k_920.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Forum -
> > FAQ,
> > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> > List Contribution Web Site -
> > -Matt
> > Dralle, List Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346264#346264
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: Prop not cycling during run up |
Thomas;
Terry's suggestion is very likely the problem. Not uncommon on the CJ.
Have someone move the RPM (prop.) control through full travel while you
check for any movement of the copper cable housing where it is clamped
approx. 8" or so from the governor.
Any movement will mess up the RPM setting.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Geoghegan" <thomasg@infosysnetworks.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:16 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Prop not cycling during run up
> <thomasg@infosysnetworks.com>
>
> Recently the time it took for me to see RPMs drop when cycling the prop
> back during run up increased. It use to be almost instantaneous, but then
> I noticed 6 -10 seconds. Today cycling the prop had no affect other then
> seeing a quick, slight drop in oil pressure when pushing the prop
> forward.
>
> The prop acts normal otherwise, getting up to red line on take off and
> cycling while in flight.
>
> This is my first CS prop, so this is all new to me. I don't see anything
> leaking, but after flying I have a very light oily residue on the prop
> which is barely noticeable.
>
> Any ideas/thoughts?
>
> CJ/Housai 285
>
>
>
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! --
|