Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:45 AM - Re: Prop not cycling during run up (A. Dennis Savarese)
2. 08:48 AM - European registration/certification (Richard Goode)
3. 09:38 AM - Re: European registration/certification (Hans Oortman)
4. 12:27 PM - Possibly wrong year on FAA paperwork (dabear)
5. 12:29 PM - Re: Prop not cycling during run up (Walter Lannon)
6. 01:40 PM - Re: Possibly wrong year on FAA paperwork (Brian Lloyd)
7. 03:05 PM - Re: European registration/certification (Etienne Verhellen)
8. 03:18 PM - Re: Re: European registration/certification (lionel mougel)
9. 03:37 PM - Undercarriage (Chris Wise)
10. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: European registration/certification (Brian Lloyd)
11. 04:02 PM - email for Joe Shaw (BKENNAMORE@aol.com)
12. 04:56 PM - Re: European registration/certification (Etienne Verhellen)
13. 06:28 PM - Re: Possibly wrong year on FAA paperwork (Bill Geipel)
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: Prop not cycling during run up |
Both excellent points Terry. Many people do not check the prop
governor screen periodically. If it becomes gunked up, no oil can pass
through it to the prop hub piston assembly.
If the screen is clean and the cable sleeve is secure, remove the prop
hub dome and piston and see if you can move the counterweights by hand.
They should move freely with some amount of resistance. But definitely
they should move to full coarse pitch and back to fine pitch freely. If
they don't, you will need to remove the prop blades from the hub, then
remove the hub from the engine. Disassemble the hub completely and
check the flat bearings (2 on each side) for pitting and flat
spotting. You will be able to see flat spots on the bearing rollers and
corresponding races where the bearing has been binding. If the bearings
look good, clean, re-grease and reassemble the hub and bench test for
smooth operation of the counterweights. Check the phenolic pieces
inside the large castellated nuts and replace the seals that go around
the phenolic pieces. LIGHTLY polish the inside surface of the phenolic
pieces with 320 grit wet/dry paper. Replace the outside and inside
seals on the hub piston.
When reassembling the hub, do not over-tighten the large castellated
nuts that "squeeze" the flat bearing. Over tightening the large
castellated nuts squeezes the flat bearings and prevents them from
rotating against their respective races. Any questions, don't hesitate
to telephone me.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (cell)
Skype: Yakguy1
www.yak-52.com
On 7/13/2011 3:48 PM, T A LEWIS wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: T A LEWIS<talew@bellsouth.net>
>
> 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>
> To: "yak-list@matronics.com"<yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wed, July 13, 2011 3:16:44 PM
> Subject: Yak-List: Prop not cycling during run up
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Thomas Geoghegan<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
>
>
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: | European registration/certification |
European registration/certification
I have been involved in this complex issue of registration and certification
of Yaks in Europe for longer than anyone - in fact since 1986, so do have a
good idea of the issues involved.
Also I have spent a lot of time examining the law - because in the end that
is what it comes down to - in different European countries.
As far as the Russian "FLA" registrations are concerned, the simple fact is
that the French DGAC (FAA/CAA) have confirmation from the Russian Ministry
of Transport, themselves responsible for the Russian GSGA (their FAA/CAA)
that FLA certification and Certificates of Airworthiness are acceptable and
legal.
Given that, I find it puzzling that Etienne goes out of his way to try to
show that these registrations are not acceptable, for whatever reasons.
Quite what his motives for being involved in these issues are, I simply do
now know. But I personally would have thought that anyone within the Yak
community would do all possible to ensure that as many Yaks as possible
continue to fly rather than create potential hurdles that MIGHT in the
future prevent them from flying.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
<http://www.russianaeros.com> www.russianaeros.com
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: European registration/certification |
Couldn=B9t agree more! Well said Richard...Amen!
Hans
Op 14-07-11 17:45, Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com> schreef:
> European registration/certification
>
> I have been involved in this complex issue of registration and certificat
ion
> of Yaks in Europe for longer than anyone =AD in fact since 1986, so do have
a
> good idea of the issues involved.
>
> Also I have spent a lot of time examining the law =AD because in the end th
at is
> what it comes down to =AD in different European countries.
>
> As far as the Russian =B3FLA=B2 registrations are concerned, the simple fact
is
> that the French DGAC (FAA/CAA) have confirmation from the Russian Ministr
y of
> Transport, themselves responsible for the Russian GSGA (their FAA/CAA) th
at
> FLA certification and Certificates of Airworthiness are acceptable and le
gal.
>
> Given that, I find it puzzling that Etienne goes out of his way to try to
show
> that these registrations are not acceptable, for whatever reasons. Quit
e
> what his motives for being involved in these issues are, I simply do now
know.
> But I personally would have thought that anyone within the Yak community
would
> do all possible to ensure that as many Yaks as possible continue to fly r
ather
> than create potential hurdles that MIGHT in the future prevent them from
> flying.
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Herefordshire
> HR5 3LW
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
> www.russianaeros.com <http://www.russianaeros.com>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Possibly wrong year on FAA paperwork |
Question for the wisdom out there on the yak list.
The paperwork I have for my CJ6A states the aircraft was built in 1977.
The logbooks as well as the registration, airworthiness, and program letter
all say the same date. I've had it for 10 years and never really thought
about it. My serial number is 3732023. However, the other day I looked up
the serial number on the list in "Red Alert" and found that number 23 of
batch 37 is 1982-3.
Should I worry about changing the year on all that paperwork or leave it
alone?
DaBear
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: Prop not cycling during run up |
Hi Dennis;
Some comments on the work you describe for the blade bearing assemblies;
Before attempting to remove and dis-assemble these the propellor overhaul
manual should be read and understood.
Things to check before you start:
1. Are the "0" index marks lined up on the big nuts and the hub?
2. Do you have the special tools?
3. Mark the exact position of any balance weights - relative to the HUB.
NOT to the big nut or to the seal packing nut to which the weights are
attached. There could be weights on both sides of the hub rather than just
one side. That depends on the amount of VERTICAL imbalance that had to be
corrected.
4. Before removing the bearing assy from the hub loosen the grease seal
packing nuts. These are punch staked to the big nut which on removal could
destroy the thread. Carefully drill the stake indents just enough to remove
the upset metal
5. If it required excess force to rotate the blades it is possible there is
corrosion on the blade ferrule where it contacts the micarta (phenolic)
bushing. Check for that.
6. If all parts are serviceable re-assemble with lots of grease,
preferably Aeroshell 5! Install the grease seal and retaining nut but do
not re-stake yet.
7. Re-install the complete assy. and if the index marks were lined up or
SHORT of lining up then line them up.
Blade torque should be measured at this time but the overhaul process
requires that to be done individually with the interconnecting drive sleeve
removed from the hub. With the index marks found as above this should not
be necessary.
If the index marks were BEYOND lining up then re-torquing should be done.
It is entirely possible that the existing lock plates may not fit. If so
discard them and make new ones, do not loosen the nut.
8. Tighten the grease seal retaining nut. Check for a position to
re-install the balance weight relative to your HUB marking. Re-stake the
retaining nut in new locations
Cheers;
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:43 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Prop not cycling during run up
> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> Both excellent points Terry. Many people do not check the prop governor
> screen periodically. If it becomes gunked up, no oil can pass through it
> to the prop hub piston assembly.
>
> If the screen is clean and the cable sleeve is secure, remove the prop hub
> dome and piston and see if you can move the counterweights by hand. They
> should move freely with some amount of resistance. But definitely they
> should move to full coarse pitch and back to fine pitch freely. If they
> don't, you will need to remove the prop blades from the hub, then remove
> the hub from the engine. Disassemble the hub completely and check the
> flat bearings (2 on each side) for pitting and flat spotting. You will be
> able to see flat spots on the bearing rollers and corresponding races
> where the bearing has been binding. If the bearings look good, clean,
> re-grease and reassemble the hub and bench test for smooth operation of
> the counterweights. Check the phenolic pieces inside the large
> castellated nuts and replace the seals that go around the phenolic pieces.
> LIGHTLY polish the inside surface of the phenolic pieces with 320 grit
> wet/dry paper. Replace the outside and inside seals on the hub piston.
>
> When reassembling the hub, do not over-tighten the large castellated nuts
> that "squeeze" the flat bearing. Over tightening the large castellated
> nuts squeezes the flat bearings and prevents them from rotating against
> their respective races. Any questions, don't hesitate to telephone me.
> Dennis
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-285-6263
> 334-546-8182 (cell)
> Skype: Yakguy1
> www.yak-52.com
>
>
> On 7/13/2011 3:48 PM, T A LEWIS wrote:
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: T A LEWIS<talew@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> 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>
>> To: "yak-list@matronics.com"<yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Wed, July 13, 2011 3:16:44 PM
>> Subject: Yak-List: Prop not cycling during run up
>>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: Thomas
>> Geoghegan<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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Possibly wrong year on FAA paperwork |
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:23 PM, dabear <dabear@devere.us> wrote:
> Question for the wisdom out there on the yak list.****
>
> ** **
>
> The paperwork I have for my CJ6A states the aircraft was built in 1977.
> The logbooks as well as the registration, airworthiness, and program lett
er
> all say the same date. I=92ve had it for 10 years and never really thoug
ht
> about it. My serial number is 3732023. However, the other day I looked
up
> the serial number on the list in =93Red Alert=94 and found that number 23
of
> batch 37 is 1982-3.****
>
> ** **
>
> Should I worry about changing the year on all that paperwork or leave it
> alone?
>
So, how would it change anything? Would the airplane fly differently? In
other words, are you likely to gain any benefit from making the change?
OTOH, there is the possibility that something could go wrong during the
process. So, if you do nothing, the airplane flies the same way and there i
s
no possibility of problem.
The decision seems pretty straight-forward to me. ;-)
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: European registration/certification |
AIRWORTHINESS / CERTIFICATION / REGISTRATION ... in Europe !
===========================================
Richard, others,
You are ill-informed.
1. Very briefly, the ONLY reason I became involved in these Airworthiness / Certification
/ Registration issues was for people flying UK registered Yaks in Belgium
to be able to continue to fly their aircraft.
Richard, they were indeed people in the very small Yak community in Belgium trying
to create hurdles to prevent UK registered Yaks to be based and flown in Belgium.
Sad but true. You know them.
The fact that they are now blaming me for what is happening is quite ironic.
According to their complaints to the Authorities, flying UK registered Yaks in
Belgium was illegal because we only had UK CAA Permit to Fly.
While they had of course a "full" C of A !
UK registered Yaks were grounded in Belgium or asked to leave the country.
We did find it puzzling that some Yak pilots would go out of their way to try to
show that these registrations were not acceptable, for whatever reasons.
Quite what their motives were, I simply do not know.
Jealousy ? Money ... the fact that they were setting up a maintenance facility
in Namur to maintain "RAxxxxK" registered Yaks in Continental Europe and wanted
to have as many UK registered Yaks based on the Continent transfer to "russian"
registrations ?
As you are well aware Richard, a lot of UK CAA registered and maintained Yaks do
transfer to the "russian" register.
We have discussed this before together off-list.
You told me then what you thought about this and I have kept a copy of your e-mails
on the subject.
As you can all understand we were NOT amused to have our (UK registered and maintained)
Yaks grounded while the Belgian CAA was investigating. Some owners decided
to base their aircraft out of Belgium
or sell.
Believe it or not Richard, ironically, some of us even considered a quick switch
to the "russian" register !
After consulting a few people, we were strongly advised against doing it by persons
who do spent a lot of time examining the aviation laws in different European
countries (UK, France, even Belgium ... EASA).
So we did not because as you write Richard, in the end that is what it comes down
to : the law !
Then we fairly quicky managed to convince the Belgian CAA to leave us alone. Good
advises from people who know the rules does wonder !
As a consequence of all this BS, the Belgian CAA also had a look at other Yaks
based and flying in Belgium :
* with non European / EASA Certificate of Registration.
* with "full" non European EASA C of A for aircraft not ICAO Annex 8.
* with "russian" pilot licences issued and renewed by a "flying club".
(the words of a CAA official).
I DID NOT START ALL THIS BS.
We were free to fly our beloved G-xxxx Yaks again.
But a very big can of worms had been opened.
_____________________________________________________________
2. RICHARD, as far as the Russian "FLA" registrations are concerned, the simple
fact is that the French DGAC and EASA are waiting to receive clarifications (from
the official Russian Aviation Authorities if possible !) about the status
of FLA outside Russia.
In particular regarding the issues of Certificate of Airworthiness / Registration
Certificate / Pilot Licences.
Please read page 19 of this report from BEA for the French DGAC :
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
On page 18 : C of A delivered by FLA not recognised by Russian CAA :
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
_____________________________________________________________
3. As far as Airworthiness is concerned, it is in fact quite simple Richard.
If an aircraft has been certificated according to Annex 8 to the Convention of
International Civil Aviation, it receives a Certificate of Airworthiness. If not
... well it doesn't.
It is that simple :
http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%208%20-%20Airworthiness%20of%20Aircraft/an08_9ed_cnt.pdf
This C of A is then recognised in all contracting States.
Russian general aviation aircraft have not been certificated according to Annex
8.
It is not their fault ! It's just the way it is.
We all agree they are fantastic flying machines.
Consequently, they cannot receive Normal Unrestricted C of A.
That's the way it is according to International Aviation LAW.
The fact that FLA (whether or not it is recognised by the Russian CAA in and outside
CIS) nevertheless issues C of A to these aircraft is a concern to some CAAs.
Just take my word for it on that one Richard.
Su-26, Yak 54 and 55 for instance are not certificated but can qualify for EASA
Permits to Fly under 21A.701(15).
The Flight Conditions for these aircraft are similar to the Airworthiness Approval
Notes issued by the UK Civil Aviation Authority.
Other types have been certificated by CIS (but not according to ICAO Annex 8) and
qualify for SAS (Specific Airworthiness Specification) and Restricted Certificates
of Airworthiness.
* A RESTRICTED C of A is for instance issued by the Lithuanian CAA for the Yak-52.
It's "value" is similar to the UK CAA Permit to Fly delivered
by the UK CAA :
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=CBSS
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=summary&aircrafttype=yak
* For my friend Didier Blouzard who flies a Yak-18T in France, here is a copy of
EASA Specific Airworthiness Specification for the Yak-18T :
http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%208%20-%20Airworthiness%20of%20Aircraft/an08_9ed_cnt.pdf
And of course EASA Annex II (NON EASA) aircraft !
Their airworthiness should be controlled on a national basis and in an ideal world
logically accepted by other EASA members of course !
Wouldn'it be nice if ALL national aviation authorities (EASA) agreed on common
standards to maintain and operate Yaks (and other flying machines) in Europe !!
Is it too much to ask ?
RICHARD, "because you have been involved in this issue in Europe for longer than
anyone", can I suggest you use your knowledge to federate and work towards a
constructive solution at National/European level that would allow ALL Yak pilots
to enjoy their pride and joy without too many restrictions !
Some people have been foolish enough to play one group of Yak pilots against another
one and that was really not a great move.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON THIS (BORING) TOPIC.
Enjoy the summer.
Cheers, Etienne.
http://forum.pegase.tv/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2843&start=75
http://www.emagazine.flightinternational.com/1Z4dd63f96463e4012.cde/page/47
==============================================
[quote="richard.goode(at)russiana"]European registration/certification
I have been involved in this complex issue of registration and certification of
Yaks in Europe for longer than anyone in fact since 1986, so do have a good
idea of the issues involved.
Also I have spent a lot of time examining the law because in the end that is what
it comes down to in different European countries.
As far as the Russian FLA registrations are concerned, the simple fact is that
the French DGAC (FAA/CAA) have confirmation from the Russian Ministry of Transport,
themselves responsible for the Russian GSGA (their FAA/CAA) that FLA certification
and Certificates of Airworthiness are acceptable and legal.
Given that, I find it puzzling that Etienne goes out of his way to try to show
that these registrations are not acceptable, for whatever reasons. Quite what
his motives for being involved in these issues are, I simply do now know. But
I personally would have thought that anyone within the Yak community would
do all possible to ensure that as many Yaks as possible continue to fly rather
than create potential hurdles that MIGHT in the future prevent them from flying.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com (http://www.russianaeros.com)
> [b]
--------
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=346381#346381
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/yak_18t_easasasa095_478.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/annex_8__aiworthiness__icao_156.pdf
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: European registration/certification |
Hi Etienne ;-) and all
My Yak is and will stay on RA regs after switching from G to RA due to crazy maintenance
and mess from UK , but this is another discussion ....
The point where i fully support and agree with Etienne is about the "groups" of
Yak owners across Europe , instead of federate each-other in one Federation like
the Red Star PA in US , a lot of them prefers to fight on their side which
is in my point of view a poor and bad strategy leaded mainly by English or other
seller or maintenance facilities to protect their own small little market
.
Sometimes , before thinking of making money , think that you are also pilots ,
and try to not become like Mister "Gangster" Dziuzas in Lituania ...
Cheers .
Etienne see you in London soon ;-)
Lionel
RA-3630K
Yak-Arcachon
Le 15 juil. 2011 00:02, Etienne Verhellen a crit :
>
> AIRWORTHINESS / CERTIFICATION / REGISTRATION ... in Europe !
> ===========================================
>
> Richard, others,
>
> You are ill-informed.
>
> 1. Very briefly, the ONLY reason I became involved in these Airworthiness / Certification
/ Registration issues was for people flying UK registered Yaks in
Belgium to be able to continue to fly their aircraft.
>
> Richard, they were indeed people in the very small Yak community in Belgium trying
to create hurdles to prevent UK registered Yaks to be based and flown in
Belgium. Sad but true. You know them.
> The fact that they are now blaming me for what is happening is quite ironic.
>
> According to their complaints to the Authorities, flying UK registered Yaks in
Belgium was illegal because we only had UK CAA Permit to Fly.
> While they had of course a "full" C of A !
>
> UK registered Yaks were grounded in Belgium or asked to leave the country.
>
> We did find it puzzling that some Yak pilots would go out of their way to try
to show that these registrations were not acceptable, for whatever reasons.
>
> Quite what their motives were, I simply do not know.
> Jealousy ? Money ... the fact that they were setting up a maintenance facility
in Namur to maintain "RAxxxxK" registered Yaks in Continental Europe and wanted
to have as many UK registered Yaks based on the Continent transfer to "russian"
registrations ?
>
> As you are well aware Richard, a lot of UK CAA registered and maintained Yaks
do transfer to the "russian" register.
> We have discussed this before together off-list.
> You told me then what you thought about this and I have kept a copy of your e-mails
on the subject.
>
> As you can all understand we were NOT amused to have our (UK registered and maintained)
Yaks grounded while the Belgian CAA was investigating. Some owners
decided to base their aircraft out of Belgium
> or sell.
>
> Believe it or not Richard, ironically, some of us even considered a quick switch
to the "russian" register !
>
> After consulting a few people, we were strongly advised against doing it by persons
who do spent a lot of time examining the aviation laws in different European
countries (UK, France, even Belgium ... EASA).
>
> So we did not because as you write Richard, in the end that is what it comes
down to : the law !
>
> Then we fairly quicky managed to convince the Belgian CAA to leave us alone.
Good advises from people who know the rules does wonder !
>
> As a consequence of all this BS, the Belgian CAA also had a look at other Yaks
based and flying in Belgium :
>
> * with non European / EASA Certificate of Registration.
>
> * with "full" non European EASA C of A for aircraft not ICAO Annex 8.
>
> * with "russian" pilot licences issued and renewed by a "flying club".
> (the words of a CAA official).
>
>
> I DID NOT START ALL THIS BS.
>
> We were free to fly our beloved G-xxxx Yaks again.
>
> But a very big can of worms had been opened.
> _____________________________________________________________
>
> 2. RICHARD, as far as the Russian "FLA" registrations are concerned, the simple
fact is that the French DGAC and EASA are waiting to receive clarifications
(from the official Russian Aviation Authorities if possible !) about the status
of FLA outside Russia.
>
> In particular regarding the issues of Certificate of Airworthiness / Registration
Certificate / Pilot Licences.
>
> Please read page 19 of this report from BEA for the French DGAC :
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
>
> On page 18 : C of A delivered by FLA not recognised by Russian CAA :
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> _____________________________________________________________
>
> 3. As far as Airworthiness is concerned, it is in fact quite simple Richard.
> If an aircraft has been certificated according to Annex 8 to the Convention of
International Civil Aviation, it receives a Certificate of Airworthiness. If
not ... well it doesn't.
>
> It is that simple :
> http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%208%20-%20Airworthiness%20of%20Aircraft/an08_9ed_cnt.pdf
>
> This C of A is then recognised in all contracting States.
>
> Russian general aviation aircraft have not been certificated according to Annex
8.
>
> It is not their fault ! It's just the way it is.
> We all agree they are fantastic flying machines.
>
> Consequently, they cannot receive Normal Unrestricted C of A.
> That's the way it is according to International Aviation LAW.
>
> The fact that FLA (whether or not it is recognised by the Russian CAA in and
outside CIS) nevertheless issues C of A to these aircraft is a concern to some
CAAs.
>
> Just take my word for it on that one Richard.
>
> Su-26, Yak 54 and 55 for instance are not certificated but can qualify for EASA
Permits to Fly under 21A.701(15).
> The Flight Conditions for these aircraft are similar to the Airworthiness Approval
Notes issued by the UK Civil Aviation Authority.
>
> Other types have been certificated by CIS (but not according to ICAO Annex 8)
and qualify for SAS (Specific Airworthiness Specification) and Restricted Certificates
of Airworthiness.
>
> * A RESTRICTED C of A is for instance issued by the Lithuanian CAA for the Yak-52.
It's "value" is similar to the UK CAA Permit to Fly delivered
> by the UK CAA :
> http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=CBSS
> http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=summary&aircrafttype=yak
>
> * For my friend Didier Blouzard who flies a Yak-18T in France, here is a copy
of EASA Specific Airworthiness Specification for the Yak-18T :
> http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%208%20-%20Airworthiness%20of%20Aircraft/an08_9ed_cnt.pdf
>
> And of course EASA Annex II (NON EASA) aircraft !
> Their airworthiness should be controlled on a national basis and in an ideal
world logically accepted by other EASA members of course !
>
> Wouldn'it be nice if ALL national aviation authorities (EASA) agreed on common
standards to maintain and operate Yaks (and other flying machines) in Europe
!!
>
> Is it too much to ask ?
>
> RICHARD, "because you have been involved in this issue in Europe for longer than
anyone", can I suggest you use your knowledge to federate and work towards
a constructive solution at National/European level that would allow ALL Yak pilots
to enjoy their pride and joy without too many restrictions !
>
> Some people have been foolish enough to play one group of Yak pilots against
another one and that was really not a great move.
>
> THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON THIS (BORING) TOPIC.
>
> Enjoy the summer.
>
> Cheers, Etienne.
>
> http://forum.pegase.tv/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2843&start=75
> http://www.emagazine.flightinternational.com/1Z4dd63f96463e4012.cde/page/47
> ==============================================
> [quote="richard.goode(at)russiana"]European registration/certification
>
> I have been involved in this complex issue of registration and certification
of Yaks in Europe for longer than anyone in fact since 1986, so do have a good
idea of the issues involved.
>
> Also I have spent a lot of time examining the law because in the end that is
what it comes down to in different European countries.
>
> As far as the Russian FLA registrations are concerned, the simple fact is that
the French DGAC (FAA/CAA) have confirmation from the Russian Ministry of Transport,
themselves responsible for the Russian GSGA (their FAA/CAA) that FLA certification
and Certificates of Airworthiness are acceptable and legal.
>
> Given that, I find it puzzling that Etienne goes out of his way to try to show
that these registrations are not acceptable, for whatever reasons. Quite what
his motives for being involved in these issues are, I simply do now know.
But I personally would have thought that anyone within the Yak community would
do all possible to ensure that as many Yaks as possible continue to fly rather
than create potential hurdles that MIGHT in the future prevent them from flying.
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Herefordshire
> HR5 3LW
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
> www.russianaeros.com (http://www.russianaeros.com)
>
>
>> [b]
>
>
> --------
> 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=346381#346381
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/yak_18t_easasasa095_478.pdf
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/annex_8__aiworthiness__icao_156.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
G'Day All,
We have removed the mains from our 18T to replace a leaking seal in the left
oleo. So decided to pull down both, clean, inspect and replace the seals.
What is the best way to refill. We have the charging tool. Is it really that
beneficial to charge with nitrogen, or can we use clean dry dive bottle air?
What lubrication should we add?
Thanks and cheers,
Chris.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: European registration/certification |
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Etienne Verhellen <janie@yak52.fr> wrote:
>
> AIRWORTHINESS / CERTIFICATION / REGISTRATION ... in Europe !
> ===========================================
I may not like the FAA much but I am *SO* glad I am in the US and not the
EU. At least we have only one set of stupid rules we have to deal with.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: | email for Joe Shaw |
Anyone have an email for Joe Shaw ? thanks BJ
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: European registration/certification |
1. Brian is spot on :
"I may not like the FAA much but I am *SO* glad I am in the US and not the EU.
At least we have only one set of stupid rules we have to deal with".
Unfortunately in Europe we have to put up with different rules from one country
to another regarding Yak flying :?
2. And my friend Lionel is just proving the point !
His nice Yak-52 was registered G-BZJB and maintained under the supervisions of
the UK CAA :
http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1138672/
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=BZJB
then it went to the "russian" register as RA-3630K :
http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=22086
The reason people buy UK CAA registered Yaks is because they are in good condition.
But then they switch to "russian" registrations ... for various reasons ...
Richard, I can send you a impressive list of UK registered Yaks that have now transferred
to a "russian" registration ...
Richard, can you please tell us why the French CAA is not allowing UK registered
Yaks in France but is quite happy with "russian" registrations ?
And one these Yaks are on the "russian" register, they sort of dissapear ...
Page 17 of this document :
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
"Sans obligation dappartenir au registre franais des immatriculations, il na pas
t possible de dterminer le nombre davions immatriculs
RA-xxxxK volant en France". !!!
SO, the French CAA has ABSOLUTELY no idea how many "russian" Yaks are based in
France !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well you are the expert but it does not make any sense to me !
Lionel, did you find out the reason the engine of your Yak-52 suddently stop in
flight over the beach of Arcachon ?? :o
http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=22125
http://arcachon.blogs.sudouest.fr/archive/2011/03/08/arcachon-se-dote-d-une-nouvelle-piste-d-atterrissage.html
http://www.sudouest.fr/2011/03/09/l-avion-sur-le-sable-337016-2733.php
http://www.sudouest.fr/2011/03/10/arcachon-l-avion-est-toujours-sur-la-plage-338424-2733.php
http://www.sudouest.fr/2011/03/11/arcachon-l-avion-evacue-de-la-plage-338555-2733.php
Was it a maintenance problem ... or something else ?? :?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346402#346402
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: Possibly wrong year on FAA paperwork |
Until you want to sell. They may like a newer airplane. Newer is more valuab
le.
Bill
On Jul 14, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:23 PM, dabear <dabear@devere.us> wrote:
> Question for the wisdom out there on the yak list.
>
>
>
> The paperwork I have for my CJ6A states the aircraft was built in 1977. T
he logbooks as well as the registration, airworthiness, and program letter a
ll say the same date. I=99ve had it for 10 years and never really tho
ught about it. My serial number is 3732023. However, the other day I look
ed up the serial number on the list in =9CRed Alert=9D and found
that number 23 of batch 37 is 1982-3.
>
>
>
> Should I worry about changing the year on all that paperwork or leave it a
lone?
>
>
> So, how would it change anything? Would the airplane fly differently? In o
ther words, are you likely to gain any benefit from making the change? OTOH,
there is the possibility that something could go wrong during the process. S
o, if you do nothing, the airplane flies the same way and there is no possib
ility of problem.
>
> The decision seems pretty straight-forward to me. ;-)
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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! --
|