Jim Stephenson was our guest speaker at the club's February meeting.
Jim gave an informative presentation and answered a lot of
questions. I posted the audio from the presentation on the Flying
Gator's website.

http://www.flyinggators.com

--
Florida Flying Gators Fly-in
http://www.mitchellwing.com/flying_gators_annual_fly.htm

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

Screw Jim Stephenson!
He sold the sport pilot as a good thing for ul pilots.....it's not. Bye
bye 2 place expemtion. Hello to Jim Stevenson's design, build and
certification business (up and going the second sp was a go. I think
we've been hoodwinked by Jim Stephenson, and I know that I am not alone.
I believed him when he told me (directly) that sp was going to be a
great thing for ul pilots. I was such a sucker to believe him.......
I will not renew my ASC membership or BFI. I am a CFI anyway, and I will
be swithcing to an EAA UFI. I still believe that they are looking out
for pilots (it is my opinion that Jim had his engineering buisness in
the sights the whole time).

I thought Mark Smith was being overly critical of "sprot pile it". Now I
see that he was right!

Again: SCREW JIM STEPHENSON!



gilan wrote:
> Jim Stephenson was our guest speaker at the club's February meeting.
> Jim gave an informative presentation and answered a lot of
> questions. I posted the audio from the presentation on the Flying
> Gator's website.
>
> http://www.flyinggators.com
>
> --
> Florida Flying Gators Fly-in
> http://www.mitchellwing.com/flying_gators_annual_fly.htm
>

Screw Jim Stephenson.
That ass has sold us (ultralight instuctors) down the river. I believed
him when he said it would be a good thing for us, then I see that his
pitch was tailored to his "engineering firm". I feel suckered.
Screw Jim Stephenson.

gilan wrote:

> Jim Stephenson was our guest speaker at the club's February meeting.
> Jim gave an informative presentation and answered a lot of
> questions. I posted the audio from the presentation on the Flying
> Gator's website.
>
> http://www.flyinggators.com
>
> --
> Florida Flying Gators Fly-in
> http://www.mitchellwing.com/flying_gators_annual_fly.htm
>

How do you really feel? Don't hold back.


On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:54:48 GMT, Crusty O'l Fart
> wrote:

>Screw Jim Stephenson!
>He sold the sport pilot as a good thing for ul pilots.....it's not. Bye
>bye 2 place expemtion. Hello to Jim Stevenson's design, build and
>certification business (up and going the second sp was a go. I think
>we've been hoodwinked by Jim Stephenson, and I know that I am not alone.
>I believed him when he told me (directly) that sp was going to be a
>great thing for ul pilots. I was such a sucker to believe him.......
>I will not renew my ASC membership or BFI. I am a CFI anyway, and I will
>be swithcing to an EAA UFI. I still believe that they are looking out
>for pilots (it is my opinion that Jim had his engineering buisness in
>the sights the whole time).
>
>I thought Mark Smith was being overly critical of "sprot pile it". Now I
>see that he was right!
>
>Again: SCREW JIM STEPHENSON!
>
>
>
>gilan wrote:
>> Jim Stephenson was our guest speaker at the club's February meeting.
>> Jim gave an informative presentation and answered a lot of
>> questions. I posted the audio from the presentation on the Flying
>> Gator's website.
>>
>> http://www.flyinggators.com
>>
>> --
>> Florida Flying Gators Fly-in
>> http://www.mitchellwing.com/flying_gators_annual_fly.htm
>>

Crusty O'l Fart wrote:
>
> Screw Jim Stephenson!
> He sold the sport pilot as a good thing for ul pilots.....it's not. Bye
> bye 2 place expemtion. Hello to Jim Stevenson's design, build and
> certification business (up and going the second sp was a go. I think
> we've been hoodwinked by Jim Stephenson, and I know that I am not alone.
> I believed him when he told me (directly) that sp was going to be a
> great thing for ul pilots. I was such a sucker to believe him.......
> I will not renew my ASC membership or BFI. I am a CFI anyway, and I will
> be swithcing to an EAA UFI. I still believe that they are looking out
> for pilots (it is my opinion that Jim had his engineering buisness in
> the sights the whole time).
>
> I thought Mark Smith was being overly critical of "sprot pile it". Now I
> see that he was right!
>
> Again: SCREW JIM STEPHENSON!

I agree with most of what you say, not sure on the screwing part, I'd
sure be a bit choosier !

But I have been flying for many, many years, build planes complete, have
a better safety record than any other BFI I know anything about, my
students rent my planes, and without exception, don't bend them up,

I sell evryt few parts locally, mostly plugs and such, some upgrade kits
and such, but no massive amounts of rebuiuld crash type parts,,,, and i
can tell the difference between crash parts and upgrade stuff,

the FnAA took this all away when they did away with the BFI program,

USUA let them, making some good comments to the NPRM, but waaaay too
late to do any good,

FnAA said " FAA disagrees" to most of the comments, and they got more to
this NPRM than any other, ever,

I'm ****ed,,,,,,,,,not that I will be out of business, but more that I
feel I owe training to the ul group,

as planes change hands, new planes get built, , etc, new ulers need
training available at reasonablbe rates,

I charged 55 an hour, and this is up time, not paperowrk and such,,,,,,

just makes me mad they saw fit to screw with a good program, at least
locally,

some say the abusees were rampant, and to this, Jim Stephenson is the
number one abuser of the BFI system, with ASC reps handing them out like
candy, with little training, etc, just money,

I sent lots of locals to another ASC ( I was USUA) AFI with the
suggestioin to call ahead and ask the specific question,,,,,,,,

" How much money should I bring to get my BFI this weekend ? "

seems like I heard 500 was about right,

one lap around the field, some coaching on the FOI test, etc,

I'd bet there are less than 10 percent of the BFI's from last year this
year



--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

Mark Smith > wrote in :

>
> I agree with most of what you say, not sure on the screwing part, I'd
> sure be a bit choosier !
>
> But I have been flying for many, many years, build planes complete,
> have a better safety record than any other BFI I know anything about,
> my students rent my planes, and without exception, don't bend them up,
>
> I sell evryt few parts locally, mostly plugs and such, some upgrade
> kits and such, but no massive amounts of rebuiuld crash type parts,,,,
> and i can tell the difference between crash parts and upgrade stuff,
>
> the FnAA took this all away when they did away with the BFI program,
>
> USUA let them, making some good comments to the NPRM, but waaaay too
> late to do any good,
>
> FnAA said " FAA disagrees" to most of the comments, and they got more
> to this NPRM than any other, ever,
>
> I'm ****ed,,,,,,,,,not that I will be out of business, but more that I
> feel I owe training to the ul group,
>
> as planes change hands, new planes get built, , etc, new ulers need
> training available at reasonablbe rates,
>
> I charged 55 an hour, and this is up time, not paperowrk and
> such,,,,,,
>
> just makes me mad they saw fit to screw with a good program, at least
> locally,
>
> some say the abusees were rampant, and to this, Jim Stephenson is the
> number one abuser of the BFI system, with ASC reps handing them out
> like candy, with little training, etc, just money,
>
> I sent lots of locals to another ASC ( I was USUA) AFI with the
> suggestioin to call ahead and ask the specific question,,,,,,,,
>
> " How much money should I bring to get my BFI this weekend ? "
>
> seems like I heard 500 was about right,
>
> one lap around the field, some coaching on the FOI test, etc,
>
> I'd bet there are less than 10 percent of the BFI's from last year
> this year
>
>

There is NOTHING stopping you from training a UL'r in your eLSA. Just
because it has an N number on it, does not stop you from training a
single seat wannabe.

You are in the extreem minority in renting your aircraft to your
students. 4 UL places within 200 miles of me say "you have to have your
own aircraft to solo..."

And it's all the "pretend" BFI's in there "pretend" trainers (that were
too heavy even to meet the training exemption), that brought on the bad
news for UL'rs, not Jim S. I'm not saying they pretended to get the
proper training, just that many many BFI owning 2 seat plans never gave
a real lesson in there life. (and you, of course, know it)

ET
>

ET wrote:
>
> Mark Smith > wrote in :
>
> >
> > I agree with most of what you say, not sure on the screwing part, I'd
> > sure be a bit choosier !
> >
> > But I have been flying for many, many years, build planes complete,
> > have a better safety record than any other BFI I know anything about,
> > my students rent my planes, and without exception, don't bend them up,
> >
> > I sell evryt few parts locally, mostly plugs and such, some upgrade
> > kits and such, but no massive amounts of rebuiuld crash type parts,,,,
> > and i can tell the difference between crash parts and upgrade stuff,
> >
> > the FnAA took this all away when they did away with the BFI program,
> >
> > USUA let them, making some good comments to the NPRM, but waaaay too
> > late to do any good,
> >
> > FnAA said " FAA disagrees" to most of the comments, and they got more
> > to this NPRM than any other, ever,
> >
> > I'm ****ed,,,,,,,,,not that I will be out of business, but more that I
> > feel I owe training to the ul group,
> >
> > as planes change hands, new planes get built, , etc, new ulers need
> > training available at reasonablbe rates,
> >
> > I charged 55 an hour, and this is up time, not paperowrk and
> > such,,,,,,
> >
> > just makes me mad they saw fit to screw with a good program, at least
> > locally,
> >
> > some say the abusees were rampant, and to this, Jim Stephenson is the
> > number one abuser of the BFI system, with ASC reps handing them out
> > like candy, with little training, etc, just money,
> >
> > I sent lots of locals to another ASC ( I was USUA) AFI with the
> > suggestioin to call ahead and ask the specific question,,,,,,,,
> >
> > " How much money should I bring to get my BFI this weekend ? "
> >
> > seems like I heard 500 was about right,
> >
> > one lap around the field, some coaching on the FOI test, etc,
> >
> > I'd bet there are less than 10 percent of the BFI's from last year
> > this year
> >
> >
>
> There is NOTHING stopping you from training a UL'r in your eLSA. Just
> because it has an N number on it, does not stop you from training a
> single seat wannabe.
>
> You are in the extreem minority in renting your aircraft to your
> students. 4 UL places within 200 miles of me say "you have to have your
> own aircraft to solo..."
>
> And it's all the "pretend" BFI's in there "pretend" trainers (that were
> too heavy even to meet the training exemption), that brought on the bad
> news for UL'rs, not Jim S. I'm not saying they pretended to get the
> proper training, just that many many BFI owning 2 seat plans never gave
> a real lesson in there life. (and you, of course, know it)
>
> ET
> >


you missed the point.

I build my own planes to train to save money,plus, get a safer,
stronber, more rigid plane that meets the needs of a rigorous training
routine better.

I can NO LONGER DO THAT !!

Should i repeat that or did you see the all caps this time around.

Also, I would be under the gun of the Feds, who know nothing about uls,
the type people who fly them, etc.

They don't want the onerous rules, Part 61, Part 91, etc which are
written for fast, heavy, large, did I mention fast airplanes. Note the
word ultralight was not used.

,,, and if youve been paying atention to sprot pile it, an instructor
must go out and buy a new plane, estimated to cost a 1000 dolars more by
Jim Stephenson, clueless, due to certification costs, but now estimated
to be closer to 40,000 with high estimates of 60,000

also, these planes won't be the open tube and fabric planes that are
better for MX traing, they will be enclosed GA look-a-likes with stall
speeds near the WOT speed of the typical MX.

get some answers to these questions,then respond,

I will never buy an assla or essla or whatever they name these huge
expensive airplanes




--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

Mark Smith > wrote in :

> you missed the point.
>
> I build my own planes to train to save money,plus, get a safer,
> stronber, more rigid plane that meets the needs of a rigorous training
> routine better.
>
> I can NO LONGER DO THAT !!
>
> Should i repeat that or did you see the all caps this time around.
>
> Also, I would be under the gun of the Feds, who know nothing about
> uls, the type people who fly them, etc.
>

Well,

Actually, you CAN....

At least for the next 5+ years (until the end of 2010) you CAN, and
assuming you've actually got a LEGAL trainer now (maybe THAT's the
problem eh?), you can just ignore the whole thing until the end of 2008.
If you can't adapt in 6 years, you probably weren't going to make it 6
years anyway.

If you put 1/4 if the energy into building your business around the new
rules that you've put into complaining about it on this ng and several
Yahoo groups (plus I dunno how many others) you'd probably have twice
the business you have now.

Did you ever think about how many people your whining has either turned
away from the sport of flying altogether, or from just you in
particular???? If I'm a sport pilot believer, I'm sure not going to
get my training from you.... If I believe everything "you" say, then I'm
going to never even start since all is lost and the sky is falling... so
either way, your pockets are empty of my potential instruction and
rental fees....

As for the things you don't like about it, again, to paraphrase Jim S.:
you fat ul'rs did it to yourselves...



-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

In article >,
says...
>
>Mark Smith > wrote in :
>
>> you missed the point.
>>
>> I build my own planes to train to save money,plus, get a safer,
>> stronber, more rigid plane that meets the needs of a rigorous traini
>ng
>> routine better.
>>
>> I can NO LONGER DO THAT !!
>>
>> Should i repeat that or did you see the all caps this time around.
>>
>> Also, I would be under the gun of the Feds, who know nothing about
>> uls, the type people who fly them, etc.
>>
>
>Well,
>
>Actually, you CAN....
>
>At least for the next 5+ years (until the end of 2010) you CAN, and
>assuming you've actually got a LEGAL trainer now (maybe THAT's the
>problem eh?), you can just ignore the whole thing until the end of 200
>8.
> If you can't adapt in 6 years, you probably weren't going to make it
>6
>years anyway.
>
>If you put 1/4 if the energy into building your business around the ne
>w
>rules that you've put into complaining about it on this ng and several
>Yahoo groups (plus I dunno how many others) you'd probably have twice
>the business you have now.
>
>Did you ever think about how many people your whining has either turne
>d
>away from the sport of flying altogether, or from just you in
>particular???? If I'm a sport pilot believer, I'm sure not going to
>get my training from you.... If I believe everything "you" say, then I
>'m
>going to never even start since all is lost and the sky is falling...
>so
>either way, your pockets are empty of my potential instruction and
>rental fees....
>
>As for the things you don't like about it, again, to paraphrase Jim S.
>:
>you fat ul'rs did it to yourselves...
>
>
>
>-- ET >:-)
>
>"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
>completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
>fools."---- Douglas Adams


I notice that the Stephenson supporter doesn't have the guts to post
under his real name. It wouldn't be the first time ole Jim has used a
false identity for his posts:)

It doesn't really matter who made the post. The biggest majority of
the UL community has got wise to Jim now. He can't post on any of the
most popular lists anymore without several of us asking him embarassing
questions that he refuses to answer:) And every time he refuses to
answer a few more of his ASC toadies lose faith in him.

>
>

This is crap. How is a 2 place Quicksilver even close to being too heavy?

e sould talk, have you seen him lately.......Talk about FAT
ultralighters.........

ET wrote:

> As for the things you don't like about it, again, to paraphrase Jim S.:
> you fat ul'rs did it to yourselves...
>
>
>
> -- ET >:-)
>

Mark,
Why can't you buy a Aeronca or Taylorcraft? They are just as cheap as
most of the UL's out there today. Of course there are a few exceptions. When
I see a 2 place Flightstar for 20G I look for something else. I'd take a
Luscombe over a Flightstar or the like any day of the week.
I do think the sport pilot thing will hurt the UL's. But myself I only
see it hurting the UL's that have been flying against the UL rules for
years. Since you like to build your own , maybe you can design a 2 seat
trainer that would make the UL altogether. That would be a feat I am sure,
but with your experience in UL , maybe just maybe you could pull it off.
Though the Sport Pilot rule may be not so good for UL's , it is great
for GA. I get to fly now!!! And there is no way I could have before, unless
I wanted to fly a UL. I'd rather not, and glad I don't have to! Now I can
fly alot of planes that do interest me.
I am sure the FAA will love getting some control over fat UL's, and that
is what the FAA has had a problem with. To many people could not follow the
rules as they were, so now there is a new rule. May not be perfect, but the
option was a rule making all fat UL flyers have a PPL, or totally shutting
them down.
Get a sport plane, advertise! And make some money off the new sport
pilot! It is a new biz opportunity for those that can get over the "old way"
and move on to see the future. And by all means keep your UL's to have fun
with!

Good Luck!
Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

(sleepy6) wrote in
:

> I notice that the Stephenson supporter doesn't have the guts to post
> under his real name. It wouldn't be the first time ole Jim has used a
> false identity for his posts:)
>
> It doesn't really matter who made the post. The biggest majority of
> the UL community has got wise to Jim now. He can't post on any of the
> most popular lists anymore without several of us asking him
> embarassing questions that he refuses to answer:) And every time he
> refuses to answer a few more of his ASC toadies lose faith in him.
>

Not Jim, not even really a Jim S. supporter. I like the things he said
in his ultraflight radio address. If I was a BFI I'd likely not take
advantage of his "blitz", I think it's too expensive for me. But that
doesn't mean it's a bad thing for everyone.

You can do a google groups search, I've been posting for years, not
regularly, but enough so you know I'm not "Jim" hiding under another
name.

I've just seen Mark, and a few others like him post untruthes and half
truths about sport pilot. He finally gave up on the Yahoo sportpilot
group since his every whine was proven wrong.

Quite frankly, I just think anyone who posts under his real name etc, is
foolish for doing so. Too many crazys out there, WAY too many.



--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Richard Riley > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:49:29 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:
>:
>:
>:I notice that the Stephenson supporter doesn't have the guts to post
>:under his real name. It wouldn't be the first time ole Jim has used a
>:false identity for his posts:)
>:
>:It doesn't really matter who made the post. The biggest majority of
>:the UL community has got wise to Jim now. He can't post on any of the
>:most popular lists anymore without several of us asking him
>:embarassing questions that he refuses to answer:) And every time he
>:refuses to answer a few more of his ASC toadies lose faith in him.
>
> I didn't post the previous note, but I'll add my support.
>
>>As for the things you don't like about it, again, to paraphrase Jim
>>S.: you fat ul'rs did it to yourselves...
>
> The fat (and fast) UL's did it to themselves.
>
> When Titan Tornado is advertizing as a "legal 103" airplane, and their
> 2 place is supposed to be a UL trainer, what's the FAA supposed to do?
> It's the same with hired guns building ex/am - eventually, if we
> really get in their face, they'll come up with a way to enforce the
> regs.
>
>> I build my own planes to train to save money,plus, get a safer,
>> stronber, more rigid plane that meets the needs of a rigorous
>> training routine better.
>>
>> I can NO LONGER DO THAT !!
>
> Of course you can. Just register it as experimental amateur built.
> http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/exemptions/7162.pdf
>
> Richard Riley
>


Actually, he cannot train in the Ex-am built, except to train existing
pilots in type. However, it's very easy to registar an existing
"ultralight-like" aircraft as a granfathered eLSA that can be used for
training until the end of 2010.


--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

In article >,
says...
>
>Mark Smith > wrote in :
>
>>
snip
>>
>> some say the abusees were rampant, and to this, Jim Stephenson is th
>e
>> number one abuser of the BFI system, with ASC reps handing them out
>> like candy, with little training, etc, just money,
>>
>> I sent lots of locals to another ASC ( I was USUA) AFI with the
>> suggestioin to call ahead and ask the specific question,,,,,,,,
>>
>> " How much money should I bring to get my BFI this weekend ? "
>>
>> seems like I heard 500 was about right,
>>
>> one lap around the field, some coaching on the FOI test, etc,
>>
>> I'd bet there are less than 10 percent of the BFI's from last year
>> this year
>>
>>
>
snip
>
>And it's all the "pretend" BFI's in there "pretend" trainers (that wer
>e
>too heavy even to meet the training exemption), that brought on the ba
>d
>news for UL'rs, not Jim S. I'm not saying they pretended to get the
>proper training, just that many many BFI owning 2 seat plans never gav
>e
>a real lesson in there life. (and you, of course, know it)
>
>ET

And where do you think most of those "pretend" BFIs came from? Jim
Stephenson sold most of those exemptions through ASC. It's no big
secret and many others have posted their simular experiences. I
personally know of a case where a guy bought a BFI exemption with the
PPC he bought from a dealer. It was signed by Jim Stephenson of
course. And thats just part of the BS that ole JS pulls.

In article >,
says...
>
(sleepy6) wrote in
:
>
>> I notice that the Stephenson supporter doesn't have the guts to post
>
>> under his real name. It wouldn't be the first time ole Jim has used
> a
>> false identity for his posts:)
>>
>> It doesn't really matter who made the post. The biggest majority of
>
>> the UL community has got wise to Jim now. He can't post on any of t
>he
>> most popular lists anymore without several of us asking him
>> embarassing questions that he refuses to answer:) And every time he
>> refuses to answer a few more of his ASC toadies lose faith in him.
>>
>
>Not Jim, not even really a Jim S. supporter. I like the things he sai
>d
>in his ultraflight radio address. If I was a BFI I'd likely not take
>advantage of his "blitz", I think it's too expensive for me. But that
>doesn't mean it's a bad thing for everyone.
>
>You can do a google groups search, I've been posting for years, not
>regularly, but enough so you know I'm not "Jim" hiding under another
>name.
>
>I've just seen Mark, and a few others like him post untruthes and half
>truths about sport pilot. He finally gave up on the Yahoo sportpilot
>group since his every whine was proven wrong.
>
>Quite frankly, I just think anyone who posts under his real name etc,
>is
>foolish for doing so. Too many crazys out there, WAY too many.
>
>
>
>--
>-- ET >:-)
>
>"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
>completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
>fools."---- Douglas Adams


And for every rant Mark has made agianst SP I can show you a post full
of lies designed to promote SP from Jim Stephenson. It's not a matter
of pro sport or anti sport for me. It's a matter of a lying crook that
sold out the UL community in hopes of getting rich off SP.

You appear to be familar with the Sport Pilot group so you must have
seen enough of my posts there to know I'm telling it like it is here.

What name do you use on that list?

Richard Riley wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:49:29 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:
> :
> :
> :I notice that the Stephenson supporter doesn't have the guts to post
> :under his real name. It wouldn't be the first time ole Jim has used a
> :false identity for his posts:)
> :
> :It doesn't really matter who made the post. The biggest majority of
> :the UL community has got wise to Jim now. He can't post on any of the
> :most popular lists anymore without several of us asking him embarassing
> :questions that he refuses to answer:) And every time he refuses to
> :answer a few more of his ASC toadies lose faith in him.
>
> I didn't post the previous note, but I'll add my support.
>
> >As for the things you don't like about it, again, to paraphrase Jim S.:
> >you fat ul'rs did it to yourselves...
>
> The fat (and fast) UL's did it to themselves.
>
> When Titan Tornado is advertizing as a "legal 103" airplane, and their
> 2 place is supposed to be a UL trainer, what's the FAA supposed to do?
> It's the same with hired guns building ex/am - eventually, if we
> really get in their face, they'll come up with a way to enforce the
> regs.
>
> > I build my own planes to train to save money,plus, get a safer,
> > stronber, more rigid plane that meets the needs of a rigorous training
> > routine better.
> >
> > I can NO LONGER DO THAT !!
>
> Of course you can. Just register it as experimental amateur built.
> http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/exemptions/7162.pdf
>
> Richard Riley


You can't train in experimental homebuilt, you knew this I'm sure
--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

ET wrote:
>
>
> I've just seen Mark, and a few others like him post untruthes and half
> truths about sport pilot. He finally gave up on the Yahoo sportpilot
> group since his every whine was proven wrong.
>
> Quite frankly, I just think anyone who posts under his real name etc, is
> foolish for doing so. Too many crazys out there, WAY too many.

nobody ever refuted anything I said about sprot pile it,

I stated the planes would be expensive and they are, way more than
projected,

I stated that few would fly sprot planes unless they bought their own,
nobody ever refuted that statement, just said that they might buy one
with a partner, duh!

show me what I said that was refuted,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

you can't,

there are more anti sprot than not,

again, sprot pile it, written by those who don't fly much about planes
they don't fly at all

and i could personally care less about sprot,

my reason for thinking it SUCKS is that it halted the exemption, which I
train under,,,,,,,,

well, used to !

--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

Mark Smith > wrote in :

> ET wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've just seen Mark, and a few others like him post untruthes and
>> half truths about sport pilot. He finally gave up on the Yahoo
>> sportpilot group since his every whine was proven wrong.
>>
>> Quite frankly, I just think anyone who posts under his real name etc,
>> is foolish for doing so. Too many crazys out there, WAY too many.
>
> nobody ever refuted anything I said about sprot pile it,
>
> I stated the planes would be expensive and they are, way more than
> projected,
>
> I stated that few would fly sprot planes unless they bought their own,
> nobody ever refuted that statement, just said that they might buy one
> with a partner, duh!
>
> show me what I said that was refuted,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>
> you can't,
>
> there are more anti sprot than not,
>
> again, sprot pile it, written by those who don't fly much about planes
> they don't fly at all
>
> and i could personally care less about sprot,
>
> my reason for thinking it SUCKS is that it halted the exemption, which
> I train under,,,,,,,,
>
> well, used to !
>

Why did you "used to" the exemption doesn't end until the end of 2008!

As for the rest: Well, let's see.

You said, in a nutshell, that you could no longer train UL'rs.

I said yes you can, get it converted to eLSA, of course, you've got till
the end of 2008 to do so, so it's really business as usual until then,
then you can use your newly registered eLSA till the end of 2010 for
training. From the time you get it registered as an eLSA until the end
of 2010, you can not only train potential UL'rs you can also train
people who want to learn to pilot real aircraft! (Oh, sorry I mean
those big heavy things that you don't want anything to do with).

You said: I missed the point, something about building etc.: I didn't
see a point to arguing about that, actually I agree with you that you
should be able to assemble something as simple as a Quick, but that's
not the rule, and I really can't see it as being a big deal.

But hey, if Quicksilver decides not to put together Consensus standards
SLSA's well, there is your opportunity eh? You can do a little
paperwork, assemble them, sell them as SLSA's with Quicksilver as your
materials supplier and life goes on. But I will bet you all the money
in my pocket Quicksilver will be producing SLSAs before the end of 2008,
regardless of what anyone at quicksilver may have told you. (OK there
is not very much money in my pocket, but it's the principle that counts
;-) )

As far as you last statement. There are already at least 2 companies
that I know of that are planing on having national centers to rent SLSA
Zodiac 601XLs; there is already a firm on the east coast offering SP
training and rental in several Ercoupes. (
<http://shoreline.americansportflying.com/index.html>

, and the consensus standards just got accepted by the FAA last week.
So your last statment is all wet.

Start being a part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Get
yourself 5 or 6 quicksilvers and get them regestered as grandfathered
eLSA. You can rent them out to Private pilots, or Sport Pilot students
as soon as they are inspected and converted. As a BFI transferring to
SPI you can convert as many as you want and train in them, and rent them
all out until the end of 2010. Tell me you can't make money on them in
almost 6 years! If you sell them, the grandfathering goes WITH THEM!
How great is that??



That's all really,

The rest of this thread has degenerated into people telling me that
unless I use my own name, I'll be ignored. Of course they haven't been
ignoring me have they ;-)

The only other reason I can think of that you are so bitter is that you
may have had a previous medical denied, but I can't find any post of
yours that actually says that.





--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Crusty O'l Fart > wrote in
. com:

> This is crap. How is a 2 place Quicksilver even close to being too
> heavy?
>
> e sould talk, have you seen him lately.......Talk about FAT
> ultralighters.........

Heh, >:-)

Yup,

Him and CJ Campbell too. But i LIKE CJ Campbell.

Now,
tell me how many of the legal weight exempted Quicksilvers have EVER
trained anyone! Yes, there are some, but I would bet at least 75-90% of
them are pretending to be trainers so they can be flown for recreation
either with, or without a passenger.

On my last vacation, I visited an ultralight field in Arizona; there
were 25 UL's on the field in gang type hangers. 20 of them were 2
seaters. ONE offered training. ONE! One of them had an old cement bag
strapped to the passenger seat as ballast. The bag had obviously not
been moved for a LOOOONNNG time.

Now I'm not saying that maybe 103 "shouldn't" be changed to allow this
to be legal, I'm just saying it's not, and that's part of why Sport
Pilot came down the way it did.



--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

ET wrote:
>
> Crusty O'l Fart > wrote in
> . com:
>
> > This is crap. How is a 2 place Quicksilver even close to being too
> > heavy?
> >
> > e sould talk, have you seen him lately.......Talk about FAT
> > ultralighters.........
>
> Heh, >:-)
>
> Yup,
>
> Him and CJ Campbell too. But i LIKE CJ Campbell.
>
> Now,
> tell me how many of the legal weight exempted Quicksilvers have EVER
> trained anyone! Yes, there are some, but I would bet at least 75-90% of
> them are pretending to be trainers so they can be flown for recreation
> either with, or without a passenger.
>
> On my last vacation, I visited an ultralight field in Arizona; there
> were 25 UL's on the field in gang type hangers. 20 of them were 2
> seaters. ONE offered training. ONE! One of them had an old cement bag
> strapped to the passenger seat as ballast. The bag had obviously not
> been moved for a LOOOONNNG time.
>
> Now I'm not saying that maybe 103 "shouldn't" be changed to allow this
> to be legal, I'm just saying it's not, and that's part of why Sport
> Pilot came down the way it did.
>
> --
> -- ET >:-)

Then we are both disappointed how sprot turned out, related to the BFI
thing.

My beef is with the Orgs who let it happen. they knew the costs would
literally soar when the feds got involved. Jim immediately turned that
problem into a business helping folks get through the mess. the Blitz
for the flyers and some other deal for the manufacturers,,,,,,

I didn't care much for someone getting their BFI just to haul their
friends or even just to fly a two seat legally.

But i never aided someone withing the USUS system to do so. always sent
them to an ASC AFI for the checkride.

I never saw this as s safety problem either. few accidents were due to
BFI's flying their friends outside the training system intended by the
exemption.

most tried to stay below the radar





--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

ET wrote:


>
> Actually, he cannot train in the Ex-am built, except to train existing
> pilots in type. However, it's very easy to registar an existing
> "ultralight-like" aircraft as a granfathered eLSA that can be used for
> training until the end of 2010.
>
>
Where does it say you can't train in a experimental amateur built?

Mark Smith wrote:

> Richard Riley wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:49:29 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:
>>:
>>:
>>:I notice that the Stephenson supporter doesn't have the guts to post
>>:under his real name. It wouldn't be the first time ole Jim has used a
>>:false identity for his posts:)
>>:
>>:It doesn't really matter who made the post. The biggest majority of
>>:the UL community has got wise to Jim now. He can't post on any of the
>>:most popular lists anymore without several of us asking him embarassing
>>:questions that he refuses to answer:) And every time he refuses to
>>:answer a few more of his ASC toadies lose faith in him.
>>
>>I didn't post the previous note, but I'll add my support.
>>
>>
>>>As for the things you don't like about it, again, to paraphrase Jim S.:
>>>you fat ul'rs did it to yourselves...
>>
>>The fat (and fast) UL's did it to themselves.
>>
>>When Titan Tornado is advertizing as a "legal 103" airplane, and their
>>2 place is supposed to be a UL trainer, what's the FAA supposed to do?
>>It's the same with hired guns building ex/am - eventually, if we
>>really get in their face, they'll come up with a way to enforce the
>>regs.
>>
>>
>>>I build my own planes to train to save money,plus, get a safer,
>>>stronber, more rigid plane that meets the needs of a rigorous training
>>>routine better.
>>>
>>>I can NO LONGER DO THAT !!
>>
>>Of course you can. Just register it as experimental amateur built.
>>http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/exemptions/7162.pdf
>>
>>Richard Riley
>
>
>
> You can't train in experimental homebuilt, you knew this I'm sure

Who says you can't? Show me the reg.

Jerry Springer > wrote in
:

> ET wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Actually, he cannot train in the Ex-am built, except to train
>> existing pilots in type. However, it's very easy to registar an
>> existing "ultralight-like" aircraft as a granfathered eLSA that can
>> be used for training until the end of 2010.
>>
>>
> Where does it say you can't train in a experimental amateur built?


Ok, a CFI or SPI cannot train in HIS experimental. You cannot rent one
either.

If you own one, or borrow one, etc then no problem you can get all your
training in it. I'll try to look it up, but I think it's in the
operating limitations of the aircraft itself. No rental allowed.

Her is the link to the eaa eplaination of there exemption to allow for
transition or currency training in experimentals:

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/010706_faaexemption.html

I can't find in a quick search where the rule says you cannot. It's
really not the training itself, it's the rental. And a CFI cannot just
say, OK, I'll charge you $80/hr for my training time, but the airplane
is free....



--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

ET wrote:
> Jerry Springer > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>ET wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, he cannot train in the Ex-am built, except to train
>>>existing pilots in type. However, it's very easy to registar an
>>>existing "ultralight-like" aircraft as a granfathered eLSA that can
>>>be used for training until the end of 2010.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Where does it say you can't train in a experimental amateur built?
>
>
>
> Ok, a CFI or SPI cannot train in HIS experimental. You cannot rent one
> either.
>
> If you own one, or borrow one, etc then no problem you can get all your
> training in it. I'll try to look it up, but I think it's in the
> operating limitations of the aircraft itself. No rental allowed.
>
> Her is the link to the eaa eplaination of there exemption to allow for
> transition or currency training in experimentals:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/010706_faaexemption.html
>
> I can't find in a quick search where the rule says you cannot. It's
> really not the training itself, it's the rental. And a CFI cannot just
> say, OK, I'll charge you $80/hr for my training time, but the airplane
> is free....
>
>
>
That is different than the statement "he cannot train in the Ex-am
built, Yes you cannot rent them but you can train in one all you want.
If you are a CFI then you know that giving instruction is not a
commercial operation..

Jerry Springer wrote:
> ET wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Actually, he cannot train in the Ex-am built, except to train existing
>> pilots in type. However, it's very easy to registar an existing
>> "ultralight-like" aircraft as a granfathered eLSA that can be used for
>> training until the end of 2010.
>>
> Where does it say you can't train in a experimental amateur built?

Here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=3cbbb24c82acaec 858bcbf0888e1096e;idno=14;region=DIV1;q1=experimen tal;rgn=div8;view=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.3.10.4.7.10

The relevant paragraph is that an experimental cannot be used to carry
persons for compensation or hire. That includes flight instruction.
There are two exceptions, that I know of, to this rule. 1. You can hire
a CFI to train you in your own experimental since the CFI will not be
operating the aircraft for compensation. You, as the owner will be
operating it. 2. The FAA routinely provides a training exemption to
experimental Gyroplanes since there are virtually no certified
gyroplanes available for training.

Jerry Springer > wrote in
:

> ET wrote:
>> Jerry Springer > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>ET wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually, he cannot train in the Ex-am built, except to train
>>>>existing pilots in type. However, it's very easy to registar an
>>>>existing "ultralight-like" aircraft as a granfathered eLSA that can
>>>>be used for training until the end of 2010.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Where does it say you can't train in a experimental amateur built?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, a CFI or SPI cannot train in HIS experimental. You cannot rent
>> one either.
>>
>> If you own one, or borrow one, etc then no problem you can get all
>> your training in it. I'll try to look it up, but I think it's in the
>> operating limitations of the aircraft itself. No rental allowed.
>>
>> Her is the link to the eaa eplaination of there exemption to allow
>> for transition or currency training in experimentals:
>>
>> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/010706_faaexemption.html
>>
>> I can't find in a quick search where the rule says you cannot. It's
>> really not the training itself, it's the rental. And a CFI cannot
>> just say, OK, I'll charge you $80/hr for my training time, but the
>> airplane is free....
>>
>>
>>
> That is different than the statement "he cannot train in the Ex-am
> built, Yes you cannot rent them but you can train in one all you want.
> If you are a CFI then you know that giving instruction is not a
> commercial operation..
>

Well, if your gonna call someone to task, at least read back in the
thread a little :-)

He was advising Mark, a BFI, that he could us an exp. am built as a SPI
(if hell froze over and Mark S decided to embrace Sport Pilot >:-) ) to
train in the course of his business.

And yes, giving instruction is not a comercial operation, but charging
for the time to use the plane is. You notice I sail "HE" cannot train
in his exp am built.... meaning Mark Smith. Sorry for the confusion.

here is the relevent FAR:

Sec. 91.319

Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart D--Special Flight Operations

Sec. 91.319

Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.


(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate-- (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate
was issued; or (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or
hire. ......

That brings up another question in the back of my mind. Arent there a
few airplane clubs out there that train and "rent" amature built exp.?
I expect that would work eh? It seems it would be cleanest if the CFI
was not really member of the club??


--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

ET > wrote:

>Too many crazys out there, WAY too many.

"Out there"??? I think most of 'em (us?) are in HERE!

Mark "can't afford a pseudonym" Hickey

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:05:44 GMT, ET > wrote:

>But hey, if Quicksilver decides not to put together Consensus standards
>SLSA's well, there is your opportunity eh? You can do a little
>paperwork, assemble them, sell them as SLSA's with Quicksilver as your
>materials supplier and life goes on.

Well...I wouldn't use the term "a little paperwork."

While you no longer have to submit the data to the FAA for approval, you are
still required to perform a good amount of structural analysis and testing.
This data is supposed to be on-file at your factory; if the FAA does a spot
check and you don't have it, they'll pull the airworthiness certificates for
every plane you've ever sold. You'd have to reverse-engineer the Quicksilver.

Also, as part of the certification process, you have to generate a manufacturing
plan with quality control, publish full maintenance manuals, and establish a
system to monitor the fleet's airworthiness.

The program is designed for small companies, but not one- or two-man operations.

My feel is that as the deadline nears, there are probably going to be companies
that produce minimalist LSAs for ultralight training. The simpler the aircraft
is, the less the amount of paperwork.

Ron Wanttaja

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:12:46 -0800, Jerry Springer > wrote:

>That is different than the statement "he cannot train in the Ex-am
>built, Yes you cannot rent them but you can train in one all you want.
>If you are a CFI then you know that giving instruction is not a
>commercial operation..

I am reminded of Kansas during its "dry" days, when business establishments
weren't allowed to sell liquor by the drink. However, private clubs could, and
you could "buy a membership" at most establishments.

It might well be that this is how folks'll get around the rules about renting.
Start a "flying club," charge a membership fee, and make the bylaws require that
a member pay so much for flight hour to fly the aircraft. That's how we did the
Fly Baby club... charged a whole $7.50/hour, too!

Ron Wanttaja

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:17:52 -0600, Mark Smith > wrote:

>My beef is with the Orgs who let it happen. they knew the costs would
>literally soar when the feds got involved. Jim immediately turned that
>problem into a business helping folks get through the mess. the Blitz
>for the flyers and some other deal for the manufacturers,,,,,,

Not being tuned into the Ultralight stuff very much, I'm curious. What is the
nature of Stephenson's business? Is he offering assistance to people trying to
get LSAs certified, does he have a course for converting UL instructors, or....?

(Disclaimer: I've written for the ASC magazine in the past, but that was
through a friend who was then editor. Never dealt with anyone else in ASC.)

Ron Wanttaja

Richard Riley wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:41:35 -0600, Mark Smith >
> wrote:
>

> :You can't train in experimental homebuilt, you knew this I'm sure
>
> Sure you can. Go read the link, that's why I included it. You can't
> give students their primary training in one, you have to be a CFI, you
> have to be a member of EAA. You want to give students a multi engine
> or seaplane rating? Not a problem. You want to transition them into
> something like a Quicksilver, that flies much more on rudder than
> ailerons? Not a problem.
>
> Read this one:
> http://www.avweb.com/news/homeblts/182021-1.html
>
> Of course, if you're NOT a CFI and you want to train ab-initio
> students, then sadly in 5 years you won't be able to.
>
> Me, I think that's a small price to pay for 1) keeping the original
> 103 structure and 2) getting a whole new class of aircraft with
> achievable certification requirements and 3) getting a new class of
> pilot's privileges that you can self certify medicals for.

For the most part, private pilots think they already know how to fly
ultralights.

And for the most part, they have proven themselves wrong for over twenty
years.

A PPL isn't Gods gift to the world of flying, it is more paperwork than
flying. that's why they are called pilots not flyers !

And most of the folks who show up at my field to learn to fly uls don't
have a PPL so basic training is out. And you DID know that ! At least
from your rant it seems like you say that somehwre. With all the hoopla
you confused the issue from me using my plane to teach folks to fly.

I could continue to give thousands to an Org that screwed me, but i
choose to NOT do that. I could continue as a BFI for some few years. I
Choose to not do that.

I've taught my share of students as I felt I owed the sport the safety
afforded by having training available. the FnAA has seen fit to
dismantle this time tested and proven system overnight.

I really don't even refer to flying uls as a sport anymore due to the
use of the word sport. Just as Osh Kosh will always be called Osh Kosh
to me, and never aer venture, ever. Course i quit going there many years
ago after getting sick on the food, prices, lack of showers, etc.

I don't want to be a CFI, even if they drove to my house and gave me the
cert. I've seen how their system works, or doesn't as the case may be,
and don't want to be any part of it.



--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

Mark Smith wrote:

> Richard Riley wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:41:35 -0600, Mark Smith >
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> :You can't train in experimental homebuilt, you knew this I'm sure
>>
>> Sure you can. Go read the link, that's why I included it. You can't
>> give students their primary training in one, you have to be a CFI, you
>> have to be a member of EAA. You want to give students a multi engine
>> or seaplane rating? Not a problem. You want to transition them into
>> something like a Quicksilver, that flies much more on rudder than
>> ailerons? Not a problem.
>>
>> Read this one:
>> http://www.avweb.com/news/homeblts/182021-1.html
>>
>> Of course, if you're NOT a CFI and you want to train ab-initio
>> students, then sadly in 5 years you won't be able to.
>>
>> Me, I think that's a small price to pay for 1) keeping the original
>> 103 structure and 2) getting a whole new class of aircraft with
>> achievable certification requirements and 3) getting a new class of
>> pilot's privileges that you can self certify medicals for.
>
> For the most part, private pilots think they already know how to fly
> ultralights.
>
> And for the most part, they have proven themselves wrong for over twenty
> years.
>
> A PPL isn't Gods gift to the world of flying, it is more paperwork than
> flying. that's why they are called pilots not flyers !
>
Talk about someone being stuck on themselves, and you think your Gods gift
to flying.
I very definely disagree with your assessment of PPL, Do you really think I
spent 60 hours flying in airplanes just riding around doing nothing?
It's about time you got a life! I'm sure you think since your so heavy into
UL's that you can just hop in a plane and fly it also.
Mark your posting this to RAH (along with RAU) the majority of the people on
this board are pilots flying airplanes. How bout giving a little respect
instead of demeaning others because of your loss of business!
John

"UltraJohn" > wrote

> Mark your posting this to RAH (along with RAU) the majority of the people
on
> this board are pilots flying airplanes. How bout giving a little respect
> instead of demeaning others because of your loss of business!
> John

He doesn't matter to me anymore, and he won't bother me anymore. Bye,
Mark. plonk
--
Jim in NC