Proposed new flightseeing rule

[C J Campbell]

NAFI sent this alert to its members. Note the EAA concern about charity
flights with vintage aircraft such as Aluminum Overcast:

Instructional News


FAA Proposes Flight-seeing Rule

The FAA published on Oct. 22 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that it
claims will improve national air tour safety. Among other things, the
proposal would raise the minimum number of hours required for pilots
conducting charity fundraising flights from 200 to 500 and remove an
exemption that allows Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nm of an
airport. Commercial sightseeing flights will fall under a new FAR Part 136,
and some current Part 91 operations may require either Part 121 or 135
certification. Only eligible charity/community events will remain under Part
91.

NAFI is reviewing the rule and developing its response as to how the rule
will affect flight instructors' and flight schools' ability to provide
general aviation flight experiences to people in their communities.

"This proposed rule is a real slap in the face to Part 91 pilots who
contribute their time and services to worthy causes, and to small
businesspeople just trying to earn an income," said AOPA Senior Vice
President of Government and Technical Affairs Andy Cebula. "The FAA claims
the change is for safety reasons, but they provide no safety data or
statistics to justify the jump in flight hours required to conduct
charitable fundraising flights."

The proposed rule is modeled on Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
71, which governs the Hawaiian commercial air tour industry. FAA credits
this SFAR with lowering the air tour accident rate in that state from a high
of 3.46 per 100,000 flight miles (1989-1994) to 1.48 (1995-2000). FAA now
seeks to apply the regulations throughout the country.

The data used to justify lifting the sightseeing exemption and require the
operators to be certified as Part 135 are a jumble of Part 135 and Part 91
accident reports, according to AOPA. But of the 11 accidents cited in the
NPRM, eight occurred in Hawaii, and most were apparently already operating
as Part 135 flights, AOPA says.

According to EAA, the NPRM would adversely affect the operations of these
vintage aircraft used in flight-seeing operations. That could force
grounding of the association's Ford Tri-Motor and B-17 Aluminum Overcast,
because income derived from flights provides the resources with which owners
preserve and maintain them.

To comment on the NPRM, visit the Federal Docket Management System at
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm. The NPRM is Docket No. 4521.
The comment period ends on January 20, 2004.



--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


For the Homeland!

[Eric Miller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote
> NAFI sent this alert to its members. Note the EAA concern about charity
> flights with vintage aircraft such as Aluminum Overcast:
>
> Instructional News
>
>
> FAA Proposes Flight-seeing Rule
>
> The FAA published on Oct. 22 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
it
> claims will improve national air tour safety. Among other things, the
> proposal would raise the minimum number of hours required for pilots
> conducting charity fundraising flights from 200 to 500 and remove an
> exemption that allows Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nm of an
> airport.

I'd like to see a map of what *isn't* within 25 nm of an airport, especially
East of the Mississippi!

> For the Homeland!

The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I wanna
call home.

Eric

In article >,
Eric Miller > wrote:
>
>
>"C J Campbell" > wrote
>> NAFI sent this alert to its members. Note the EAA concern about charity
>> flights with vintage aircraft such as Aluminum Overcast:
>>
>> Instructional News
>>
>>
>> FAA Proposes Flight-seeing Rule
>>
>> The FAA published on Oct. 22 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
>it
>> claims will improve national air tour safety. Among other things, the
>> proposal would raise the minimum number of hours required for pilots
>> conducting charity fundraising flights from 200 to 500 and remove an
>> exemption that allows Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nm of an
>> airport.
>
>I'd like to see a map of what *isn't* within 25 nm of an airport, especially
>East of the Mississippi!

There's a _whole_lot_ of Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and Lake
Huron that meets _that_ requirement. *snicker*


Of course, I'm not sure how you'd get a flight off the ground, without coming
within 25nm of an airport. A compliant *landing*, OTOH, _is_ possible -- but
*not* recommended. <snort>

[sean trost]

Just a Thought but do not most of all "flight-seeing" operations
originate and terminate at an airport ?
hmmmnnnn.
Sean

[Ron Natalie]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message . ..

> I'd like to see a map of what *isn't* within 25 nm of an airport, especially
> East of the Mississippi!

Not "an airport" the "airport of departure". The exemption is for non-stop
sightseeing flights that stay with 25 miles of their departure point.

[Ron Natalie]

"sean trost" > wrote in message ...
>
> Just a Thought but do not most of all "flight-seeing" operations
> originate and terminate at an airport ?

They must originate and terminate at the same airport and not go beyond
25 miles of that airport.

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
|
| "sean trost" > wrote in message
...
| >
| > Just a Thought but do not most of all "flight-seeing" operations
| > originate and terminate at an airport ?
|
| They must originate and terminate at the same airport and not go beyond
| 25 miles of that airport.

They must also not land at any other airport.

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
|
| "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| > I'd like to see a map of what *isn't* within 25 nm of an airport,
especially
| > East of the Mississippi!
|
| Not "an airport" the "airport of departure". The exemption is for
non-stop
| sightseeing flights that stay with 25 miles of their departure point.

At first I was astonished that any pilots would not know this, but as a
flight instructor I should have known better. I did not know it myself until
I began to study for my commercial certificate.

[Eric Miller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> |
> | "sean trost" > wrote in message
> ...
> | >
> | > Just a Thought but do not most of all "flight-seeing" operations
> | > originate and terminate at an airport ?
> |
> | They must originate and terminate at the same airport and not go beyond
> | 25 miles of that airport.
>
> They must also not land at any other airport.

Oh, well that's different, that just sounds like regular "you can't fly
someone from point A to point B for recompense on just a Private
certificate"

Eric

[Ron Natalie]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message t...

> Oh, well that's different, that just sounds like regular "you can't fly
> someone from point A to point B for recompense on just a Private
> certificate"

It's got nothing to do with that. You can't even fly someone from point
A to Point A for recompense on a private certificate.

You can't fly sightseeing (other than this local exception) with a comercial
pilot certificate either UNLESS you have a comercial operators certificate
issued under one of the Part 119-related sections.

[Eric Miller]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
t...
>
> > Oh, well that's different, that just sounds like regular "you can't fly
> > someone from point A to point B for recompense on just a Private
> > certificate"
>
> It's got nothing to do with that. You can't even fly someone from point
> A to Point A for recompense on a private certificate.

Fair enough, money and private certifcate are mutually exclusive except for
fair cost sharing.
And of course, money is always allowed to hemorrage OUT of your pocket!

>
> You can't fly sightseeing (other than this local exception) with a
comercial
> pilot certificate either UNLESS you have a comercial operators certificate
> issued under one of the Part 119-related sections.

Still, cancelling exemptions for charities and not-for-profit organizations
doesn't sound productive (if I read this correctly)

Eric

[C J Campbell]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
t...
| "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
| m...
| >
| > "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
| t...
| >
| > > Oh, well that's different, that just sounds like regular "you can't
fly
| > > someone from point A to point B for recompense on just a Private
| > > certificate"
| >
| > It's got nothing to do with that. You can't even fly someone from
point
| > A to Point A for recompense on a private certificate.
|
| Fair enough, money and private certifcate are mutually exclusive except
for
| fair cost sharing.
| And of course, money is always allowed to hemorrage OUT of your pocket!
|
| >
| > You can't fly sightseeing (other than this local exception) with a
| comercial
| > pilot certificate either UNLESS you have a comercial operators
certificate
| > issued under one of the Part 119-related sections.
|
| Still, cancelling exemptions for charities and not-for-profit
organizations
| doesn't sound productive (if I read this correctly)
|

You do read it correctly, but until now any commercial pilot could (and did)
fly sightseeing flights. Now you will have to register as a type of airline
(an air tour operator), which will increase costs enormously and make
flightseeing almost impossibly expensive. Those biplane rides you used to be
able to get at airports you visit would be gone. Forever. Hiring a CFI to
show you around the local area would be gone. No more flights on the
Tri-Motor or Aluminum Overcast.

The only flightseeing would be expensive rides on organized trips in
airplanes like the Caravan. Nothing else would be cost effective.

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> NAFI sent this alert to its members. Note the EAA concern about charity
> flights with vintage aircraft such as Aluminum Overcast:
>
> Instructional News
>
>
> FAA Proposes Flight-seeing Rule
>
> The FAA published on Oct. 22 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
it
> claims will improve national air tour safety. Among other things, the
> proposal would raise the minimum number of hours required for pilots
> conducting charity fundraising flights from 200 to 500 and remove an
> exemption that allows Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nm of an
> airport. Commercial sightseeing flights will fall under a new FAR Part
136,
> and some current Part 91 operations may require either Part 121 or 135
> certification. Only eligible charity/community events will remain under
Part
> 91.
>
> NAFI is reviewing the rule and developing its response as to how the rule
> will affect flight instructors' and flight schools' ability to provide
> general aviation flight experiences to people in their communities.
>
> "This proposed rule is a real slap in the face to Part 91 pilots who
> contribute their time and services to worthy causes, and to small
> businesspeople just trying to earn an income," said AOPA Senior Vice
> President of Government and Technical Affairs Andy Cebula. "The FAA claims
> the change is for safety reasons, but they provide no safety data or
> statistics to justify the jump in flight hours required to conduct
> charitable fundraising flights."
>
> The proposed rule is modeled on Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
> 71, which governs the Hawaiian commercial air tour industry. FAA credits
> this SFAR with lowering the air tour accident rate in that state from a
high
> of 3.46 per 100,000 flight miles (1989-1994) to 1.48 (1995-2000). FAA now
> seeks to apply the regulations throughout the country.
>
> The data used to justify lifting the sightseeing exemption and require the
> operators to be certified as Part 135 are a jumble of Part 135 and Part 91
> accident reports, according to AOPA. But of the 11 accidents cited in the
> NPRM, eight occurred in Hawaii, and most were apparently already operating
> as Part 135 flights, AOPA says.
>
> According to EAA, the NPRM would adversely affect the operations of these
> vintage aircraft used in flight-seeing operations. That could force
> grounding of the association's Ford Tri-Motor and B-17 Aluminum Overcast,
> because income derived from flights provides the resources with which
owners
> preserve and maintain them.
>
> To comment on the NPRM, visit the Federal Docket Management System at
> http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm. The NPRM is Docket No.
4521.
> The comment period ends on January 20, 2004.
>
>
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> For the Homeland!
>
I am glad that this has finally turned up on the newsgroup. There seems to
be some confusion so let me guide you to the actual document and you all can
read it for yourself:

http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=257434&docketid=4521

Those of us in the flight-seeing business that would like to fight this rule
change have started a discussion group for it here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/airtourNPRM/

Anyone that is interested in fighting this rule change with us is welcome to
participate.

The reader's digest version of it is this:

Commercial sightseeing operations (even small ones that have one plane and
one pilot and operate a vintage aircraft) will be required to operate under
Part 135, the same as companies that charter airliners. By the FAA's own
estimates, more than 700 businesses in the United States will be put out of
business if the rule passes.

In order for someone to fly a plane ride for a charity fund raiser, you will
have to have at least 500 hours total time and with few exceptions, have a
commercial license. You as a pilot will be limited to doing 4 charity fund
raiser events per year.

Please take a few minutes to read the NPRM. Formulate a comment on it and
post it.

Thanks,

Rick Pellicciotti, Belle Aire Tours, Inc.
http://www.belleairetours.com

[Eric Miller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> You do read it correctly, but until now any commercial pilot could (and
did)
> fly sightseeing flights. Now you will have to register as a type of
airline
> (an air tour operator), which will increase costs enormously and make
> flightseeing almost impossibly expensive. Those biplane rides you used to
be
> able to get at airports you visit would be gone. Forever. Hiring a CFI to
> show you around the local area would be gone. No more flights on the
> Tri-Motor or Aluminum Overcast.
>
> The only flightseeing would be expensive rides on organized trips in
> airplanes like the Caravan. Nothing else would be cost effective.

Ack! What might this do to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome?
http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/

Eric

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
t...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You do read it correctly, but until now any commercial pilot could (and
> did)
> > fly sightseeing flights. Now you will have to register as a type of
> airline
> > (an air tour operator), which will increase costs enormously and make
> > flightseeing almost impossibly expensive. Those biplane rides you used
to
> be
> > able to get at airports you visit would be gone. Forever. Hiring a CFI
to
> > show you around the local area would be gone. No more flights on the
> > Tri-Motor or Aluminum Overcast.
> >
> > The only flightseeing would be expensive rides on organized trips in
> > airplanes like the Caravan. Nothing else would be cost effective.
>
> Ack! What might this do to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome?
> http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/
>
> Eric
>
The way it reads, the "Barnstorming Rides" part would be over. The airshow
part would continue.

Rick Pellicciotti, Belle Aire Tours, Inc.
http://www.belleairetours.com

[Ron Natalie]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message t...

> Ack! What might this do to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome?
> http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/

It would put an end to the plane rides.

[Del Rawlins]

On 05 Nov 2003 07:36 AM, C J Campbell posted the following:

> You do read it correctly, but until now any commercial pilot could (
> and did) fly sightseeing flights. Now you will have to register as a
> type of airline (an air tour operator), which will increase costs
> enormously and make flightseeing almost impossibly expensive. Those
> biplane rides you used to be able to get at airports you visit would
> be gone. Forever. Hiring a CFI to show you around the local area would
> be gone. No more flights on the Tri-Motor or Aluminum Overcast.

So, is there much left that a commercial pilot can actually do under
part 91? A few years ago they made all the lodge operators here in
Alaska move under part 135, for reasons I do not totally understand.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Eric Miller]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Eric Miller" > wrote /+>
> > > For the Homeland!
> >
> > The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I
> wanna
> > call home.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good lord split you.
>
> Guess than means we won't be hearing from you for a while.
> --
> Jim in NC

I knew someone would take offense :p

Consider that remark equivalent to: A democracy is the worst form of
government on the face of the Earth... except for every other one!

And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?

Eric

[Eric Miller]

"Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote in message
news:3fa95919$1@ham...
>
> > Ack! What might this do to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome?
> > http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/
> >
> > Eric
> >
> The way it reads, the "Barnstorming Rides" part would be over. The
airshow
> part would continue.
>
> Rick Pellicciotti, Belle Aire Tours, Inc.
> http://www.belleairetours.com

Rick and Ron,

No argument about what the direct effect would be... but I suspect revenue
from the rides helps support the Aerodrome itself.

If you never heard a rotary engine blipping on and off, seen the cylinders
spinning and smelled castor oil in the air, you really owe it to yourself to
visit Old Rhinebeck!

They got an original Bleriot XI (oldest flying aircraft in the United
States, and the second oldest flying aircraft in the world) and a
wing-warping Demoiselle replica that they fly when the weather is right
(calm!). That's the best part about the Aerodrome... it's a *flying* museum!

Eric

[Ron Natalie]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message t...

>
> They got an original Bleriot XI (oldest flying aircraft in the United
> States, and the second oldest flying aircraft in the world) and a
> wing-warping Demoiselle replica that they fly when the weather is right
> (calm!). That's the best part about the Aerodrome... it's a *flying* museum!
>
And it would put a serious damper on many of the historical aircraft operations.

The FAA's impact justification is laughable "most Hawian and Grand Canyon
tour operators have 135 certificates already." That's not the major point
of impact (although it's where most of it's justification comes from).

Furhter, they present no statistical evidence that the part 91 vs part 135
operators are any less safe than the other. As a matter of fact, you could
use their data to argue part 91 is safer.

[Blueskies]

Is the exemption still 50 nms like it used to be?

--
Dan D.



..
"C J Campbell" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> |
> | "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
> . ..
> |
> | > I'd like to see a map of what *isn't* within 25 nm of an airport,
> especially
> | > East of the Mississippi!
> |
> | Not "an airport" the "airport of departure". The exemption is for
> non-stop
> | sightseeing flights that stay with 25 miles of their departure point.
>
> At first I was astonished that any pilots would not know this, but as a
> flight instructor I should have known better. I did not know it myself until
> I began to study for my commercial certificate.
>
>

[Blueskies]

Every time I hear it I think of all the old movies where the 'reds' would talk about their home. Definitely too bad they
didn't think of a different term...

--
Dan D.



..
"Eric Miller" > wrote in message . ..
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
> > NAFI sent this alert to its members. Note the EAA concern about charity
> > flights with vintage aircraft such as Aluminum Overcast:
> >
> > Instructional News
> >
> >
> > FAA Proposes Flight-seeing Rule
> >
> > The FAA published on Oct. 22 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
> it
> > claims will improve national air tour safety. Among other things, the
> > proposal would raise the minimum number of hours required for pilots
> > conducting charity fundraising flights from 200 to 500 and remove an
> > exemption that allows Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nm of an
> > airport.
>
> I'd like to see a map of what *isn't* within 25 nm of an airport, especially
> East of the Mississippi!
>
> > For the Homeland!
>
> The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I wanna
> call home.
>
> Eric
>
>

[Blueskies]

Thanks for the connection. I have voiced my disagreement with this NPRM to the AOPA and EAA. Everyone else should
also...

--
Dan D.



..
"Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote in message news:3fa924b9$1@ham...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > NAFI sent this alert to its members. Note the EAA concern about charity
> > flights with vintage aircraft such as Aluminum Overcast:
> >
> > Instructional News
> >
> >
> > FAA Proposes Flight-seeing Rule
> >
> > The FAA published on Oct. 22 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
> it
> > claims will improve national air tour safety. Among other things, the
> > proposal would raise the minimum number of hours required for pilots
> > conducting charity fundraising flights from 200 to 500 and remove an
> > exemption that allows Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nm of an
> > airport. Commercial sightseeing flights will fall under a new FAR Part
> 136,
> > and some current Part 91 operations may require either Part 121 or 135
> > certification. Only eligible charity/community events will remain under
> Part
> > 91.
> >
> > NAFI is reviewing the rule and developing its response as to how the rule
> > will affect flight instructors' and flight schools' ability to provide
> > general aviation flight experiences to people in their communities.
> >
> > "This proposed rule is a real slap in the face to Part 91 pilots who
> > contribute their time and services to worthy causes, and to small
> > businesspeople just trying to earn an income," said AOPA Senior Vice
> > President of Government and Technical Affairs Andy Cebula. "The FAA claims
> > the change is for safety reasons, but they provide no safety data or
> > statistics to justify the jump in flight hours required to conduct
> > charitable fundraising flights."
> >
> > The proposed rule is modeled on Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
> > 71, which governs the Hawaiian commercial air tour industry. FAA credits
> > this SFAR with lowering the air tour accident rate in that state from a
> high
> > of 3.46 per 100,000 flight miles (1989-1994) to 1.48 (1995-2000). FAA now
> > seeks to apply the regulations throughout the country.
> >
> > The data used to justify lifting the sightseeing exemption and require the
> > operators to be certified as Part 135 are a jumble of Part 135 and Part 91
> > accident reports, according to AOPA. But of the 11 accidents cited in the
> > NPRM, eight occurred in Hawaii, and most were apparently already operating
> > as Part 135 flights, AOPA says.
> >
> > According to EAA, the NPRM would adversely affect the operations of these
> > vintage aircraft used in flight-seeing operations. That could force
> > grounding of the association's Ford Tri-Motor and B-17 Aluminum Overcast,
> > because income derived from flights provides the resources with which
> owners
> > preserve and maintain them.
> >
> > To comment on the NPRM, visit the Federal Docket Management System at
> > http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm. The NPRM is Docket No.
> 4521.
> > The comment period ends on January 20, 2004.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christopher J. Campbell
> > World Famous Flight Instructor
> > Port Orchard, WA
> >
> >
> > For the Homeland!
> >
> I am glad that this has finally turned up on the newsgroup. There seems to
> be some confusion so let me guide you to the actual document and you all can
> read it for yourself:
>
> http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=257434&docketid=4521
>
> Those of us in the flight-seeing business that would like to fight this rule
> change have started a discussion group for it here:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/airtourNPRM/
>
> Anyone that is interested in fighting this rule change with us is welcome to
> participate.
>
> The reader's digest version of it is this:
>
> Commercial sightseeing operations (even small ones that have one plane and
> one pilot and operate a vintage aircraft) will be required to operate under
> Part 135, the same as companies that charter airliners. By the FAA's own
> estimates, more than 700 businesses in the United States will be put out of
> business if the rule passes.
>
> In order for someone to fly a plane ride for a charity fund raiser, you will
> have to have at least 500 hours total time and with few exceptions, have a
> commercial license. You as a pilot will be limited to doing 4 charity fund
> raiser events per year.
>
> Please take a few minutes to read the NPRM. Formulate a comment on it and
> post it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick Pellicciotti, Belle Aire Tours, Inc.
> http://www.belleairetours.com
>
>

[Morgans]

"Eric Miller" > wrote /+>
> > For the Homeland!
>
> The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I
wanna
> call home.
>
> Eric
>
>
Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good lord split you.

Guess than means we won't be hearing from you for a while.
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Riley]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:05:57 GMT, "Eric Miller" >
wrote:

:"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
:>
:> "Eric Miller" > wrote /+>
:> > > For the Homeland!
:> >
:> > The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I
:> wanna
:> > call home.
:> >
:> > Eric
:> >
:> >
:> Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good lord split you.
:>
:> Guess than means we won't be hearing from you for a while.
:> --
:> Jim in NC
:
:I knew someone would take offense :p
:
:Consider that remark equivalent to: A democracy is the worst form of
:government on the face of the Earth... except for every other one!
:
:And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
:Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
:effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?

How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
years?
.........................

You're welcome.

[sean trost]

Richard
If you gauge the effectivness of "Homeland Security" on a measly two
years I fear you will be rudely brought to your senses eventually. It is
my humble opinion that the TSA is all show and no go.
I pray I am incorrect.
all the best
Sean

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:05:57 GMT, "Eric Miller" >
> wrote:
>
> :"Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> :>
> :> "Eric Miller" > wrote /+>
> :> > > For the Homeland!
> :> >
> :> > The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I
> :> wanna
> :> > call home.
> :> >
> :> > Eric
> :> >
> :> >
> :> Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good lord split you.
> :>
> :> Guess than means we won't be hearing from you for a while.
> :> --
> :> Jim in NC
> :
> :I knew someone would take offense :p
> :
> :Consider that remark equivalent to: A democracy is the worst form of
> :government on the face of the Earth... except for every other one!
> :
> :And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
> :Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
> :effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?
>
> How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
> years?
> ........................
>
> You're welcome.

[Richard Riley]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:39:29 GMT, sean trost >
wrote:

:Richard
:If you gauge the effectivness of "Homeland Security" on a measly two
:years I fear you will be rudely brought to your senses eventually. It is
:my humble opinion that the TSA is all show and no go.
:I pray I am incorrect.
:all the best
:Sean

You are incorrect. You will never know about most of the successes.

Yes, in time there will be a successful attack on US soil, and you
will know about a failure. In the meantime, TSA will have been 99%
successful, and there will be people calling for it to be dismantled.

Do you really think the bad guys haven't tried in the last two years?

Sorry for the thread drift.

[Dillon Pyron]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:34:06 GMT, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:05:57 GMT, "Eric Miller" >
>wrote:
>
>:"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>:>
>:> "Eric Miller" > wrote /+>
>:> > > For the Homeland!
>:> >
>:> > The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I
>:> wanna
>:> > call home.
>:> >
>:> > Eric
>:> >
>:> >
>:> Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good lord split you.
>:>
>:> Guess than means we won't be hearing from you for a while.
>:> --
>:> Jim in NC
>:
>:I knew someone would take offense :p
>:
>:Consider that remark equivalent to: A democracy is the worst form of
>:government on the face of the Earth... except for every other one!
>:
>:And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
>:Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
>:effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?
>
>How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
>years?

Homeland Security has also protected us from crocidile attacks and are
entirely responsible for the lack of bald eagle attacks.

What a specious argument.

>........................
>
>You're welcome.

--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

[Eric Miller]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:05:57 GMT, "Eric Miller" >
> wrote:
>
> :And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
> :Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
> :effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?
>
> How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
> years?

And how many terror attacks took place before 2 years ago?

> ........................
>
> You're welcome.

No thanks!

Eric

[Del Rawlins]

On 05 Nov 2003 05:13 PM, Richard Riley posted the following:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:39:29 GMT, sean trost >
> wrote:
>
>:Richard
>:If you gauge the effectivness of "Homeland Security" on a measly two
>:years I fear you will be rudely brought to your senses eventually. It
>:is my humble opinion that the TSA is all show and no go. I pray I am
>:incorrect. all the best Sean
>
> You are incorrect. You will never know about most of the successes.

How convenient.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Morgans]

"Richard Riley" > wrote
> :
> :I knew someone would take offense :p

I do take offense at the constant slams to W, and the whole of the gov.

> :Consider that remark equivalent to: A democracy is the worst form of
> :government on the face of the Earth... except for every other one!

Yep gotta agree. Good to be able to spout off, freely. Ya gotta ask, is
this the place to do it? Will it do any good here?

I was brought up with the idea of, if you don't have anything nice to say,
don't say anything. I wish more people thought that way.
> :
> :And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
> :Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
> :effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?
>
> How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
> years?

How many might have been prevented, due to the nuisance factor, and the
capture of many suspects.

Yes, it is a nuisance. Are all of the restrictions appropriate or necessary?
No, but will any changes happen from spouting off here.? How aboout putting
the energy into working for change. I'll bet most who complain the loudest,
have not even written their congress critters, or any other public
officials.

> You're welcome.

Oh, that's irritating. I don't need you, or anyone else to point these
things out.

By the way, it is good to see you back. In lurk mode, or are you sticking
around?

I am done with my rant, because as I have said, this is not the place for
politics, and I will not continue to indulge any further.

I block anyone who has stupid political sig lines, cause they make me mad,
and that is not why I come here. Switching machines lost my filters, but it
won't take long for everyone who offends me to get back on the list. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Liberal Conservative]

Dillon Pyron > wrote:

>>How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
>>years?
>
>Homeland Security has also protected us from crocidile attacks and are
>entirely responsible for the lack of bald eagle attacks.
>
>What a specious argument.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How 'bout...

The govmint has protected us from croc-0-dile attacks...
and.is largely responsible for the lack of bald eagles.


Barnyard BOb -- liberal conservative?

[Blueskies]

Hmmm, what about the snipers around DC?




..
"Richard Riley" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:05:57 GMT, "Eric Miller" >
> wrote:
>
> :"Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> :>
> :> "Eric Miller" > wrote /+>
> :> > > For the Homeland!
> :> >
> :> > The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I
> :> wanna
> :> > call home.
> :> >
> :> > Eric
> :> >
> :> >
> :> Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good lord split you.
> :>
> :> Guess than means we won't be hearing from you for a while.
> :> --
> :> Jim in NC
> :
> :I knew someone would take offense :p
> :
> :Consider that remark equivalent to: A democracy is the worst form of
> :government on the face of the Earth... except for every other one!
> :
> :And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
> :Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
> :effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?
>
> How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
> years?
> ........................
>
> You're welcome.

[Ron Natalie]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message .com...
> Hmmm, what about the snipers around DC?
>
Or the tobacco farmer on the tractor in the middle of the lake on the mall.

[Ben Sego]

Del Rawlins wrote:
>>
>>You are incorrect. You will never know about most of the successes.
>
>
> How convenient.

Well, to correct Richard only slightly, how about this:

_Most_ will never know about most of the successes.

But some will.

B.S.

[Ben Sego]

Blueskies wrote:
> Hmmm, what about the snipers around DC?
>

According to some in a position to know, many attacks were prevented.

B.S.

[Ben Sego]

>
> Or the tobacco farmer on the tractor in the middle of the lake on the mall.
>
>
Who was successfully contained, and who wasn't carrying energetic
materials,
and who was taken into custody with no loss of life? That guy?

B.S.

[Rick Pellicciotti]

Blueskies wrote:

> Thanks for the connection. I have voiced my disagreement with this NPRM to the AOPA and EAA. Everyone else should
> also...
>
>

It is also critical that you post a comment to the NPRM itself. Numbers
matter!

Rick Pellicciotti, Belle Aire Tours, Inc.
http://www.belleairetours.com

[Dave Hyde]

Dillon Pyron wrote:

> Homeland Security has also protected us from crocidile attacks and are
> entirely responsible for the lack of bald eagle attacks.

But not tigers.

Dave 'Let the Carnivore Begin' Hyde

[Richard Riley]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 01:40:00 GMT, Ben Sego >
wrote:

:Del Rawlins wrote:
:>>
:>>You are incorrect. You will never know about most of the successes.
:>
:>
:> How convenient.
:
:Well, to correct Richard only slightly, how about this:
:
:_Most_ will never know about most of the successes.
:
:But some will.

Agreed.

In the lobby of CIA at McLean, there's a wall covered with stars. One
for each agent that's been killed on the job. Most don't have names
next to them, and never will.

[Eric Miller]

"Blueskies" > wrote
> Every time I hear it I think of all the old movies where the 'reds' would
talk about their home. Definitely too bad they
> didn't think of a different term...
>
> --
> Dan D.

Interesting you should make that comparison Dan...

The following article suggests that the creation of the TSA was exactly that
kind of reactionary nonsense:
http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*58449799!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/editorials/editorial-jun03.html

and concludes in part "The damage done to the future of the air-travel
industry by Congress's acts (creating the Transportation Security
Administration )may exceed the damage done to the industry by the terrorists
themselves. By overreacting to the terrorism threat, the federal government
actually has added to the damage, handing those who hate America an even
greater victory."

Eric

[Jerry Springer]

Richard what happened that the Velocity did not recover from a stall?
I belive this is one you built?

Jerry


IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 57V Make/Model: VEL Description: EXP VELOCITY
Date: 11/06/2003 Time: 2345

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: FARGO State: OK Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT CRASHED WHILE PRACTICING STALLS AND WAS UNABLE TO RECOVER, OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, FARGO, OK

[Blueskies]

Great article....

--
Dan D.



..
"Eric Miller" > wrote in message .. .
> "Blueskies" > wrote
> > Every time I hear it I think of all the old movies where the 'reds' would
> talk about their home. Definitely too bad they
> > didn't think of a different term...
> >
> > --
> > Dan D.
>
> Interesting you should make that comparison Dan...
>
> The following article suggests that the creation of the TSA was exactly that
> kind of reactionary nonsense:
> http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*58449799!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/editorials/editorial-jun03.html
>
> and concludes in part "The damage done to the future of the air-travel
> industry by Congress's acts (creating the Transportation Security
> Administration )may exceed the damage done to the industry by the terrorists
> themselves. By overreacting to the terrorism threat, the federal government
> actually has added to the damage, handing those who hate America an even
> greater victory."
>
> Eric
>
>

[Richard Riley]

From the FAA site, it looks like *A* Richard Riley built it - but it
wasn't me.

I've found several Richard Riley's on the net, and I'm friends with a
couple of them but I've never run across another one in homebuilt
airplanes - especially canards.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:57:09 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

:
:Richard what happened that the Velocity did not recover from a stall?
:I belive this is one you built?
:
:Jerry
:
:
:IDENTIFICATION
: Regis#: 57V Make/Model: VEL Description: EXP VELOCITY
: Date: 11/06/2003 Time: 2345
:
: Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N Missing: N
: Damage: Substantial
:
:LOCATION
: City: FARGO State: OK Country: US
:
:DESCRIPTION
: AIRCRAFT CRASHED WHILE PRACTICING STALLS AND WAS UNABLE TO RECOVER, OTHER
: CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, FARGO, OK

[Del Rawlins]

Practicing stalls in a canard? I thought the whole point of the canard
was an unstallable/unspinnable aircraft.

On 07 Nov 2003 09:57 AM, Jerry Springer posted the following:
>
> Richard what happened that the Velocity did not recover from a stall?
> I belive this is one you built?
>
> Jerry
>
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 57V Make/Model: VEL Description: EXP VELOCITY
> Date: 11/06/2003 Time: 2345
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N
> Missing: N Damage: Substantial
>
> LOCATION
> City: FARGO State: OK Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> AIRCRAFT CRASHED WHILE PRACTICING STALLS AND WAS UNABLE TO RECOVER,
> OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, FARGO, OK
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Richard Riley says...



Might be thinking of Richard Riley who used to be involved with Berkut.

See ya

Chuck S
>
>I've found several Richard Riley's on the net, and I'm friends with a
>couple of them but I've never run across another one in homebuilt
>airplanes - especially canards.

[Richard Riley]

On 7 Nov 2003 17:25:10 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

:In article >, Richard Riley says...
:
:
:
:Might be thinking of Richard Riley who used to be involved with Berkut.
:
:See ya
:
:Chuck S

And that would be,,,, me, the last time I checked.

Chuckster, how many muzzloaders have you had tonight?

[Ben Sego]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2003 17:25:10 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > wrote:
> :Might be thinking of Richard Riley who used to be involved with Berkut.
> :
> :See ya
> :
> :Chuck S
>
> And that would be,,,, me, the last time I checked.

Well, good. 'Cause I was about to be really, really confused. I mean,
it's been awhile since I checked in here and everything, but having a
_different_ Richard Riley hanging around...that would just be too weird.

Maybe it's a different Chuck, instead?

B.S.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Richard Riley says...

Oh,Oh now I am confused,if your you and you asked "who's Richard Riley" because
there are other Richard Rileys that you heard of and some of them you know
personally then who is the other Richard Riley?

I think the problem is, a lack of Muzzle loader has clouded my reasoning
processes. I was thinking you might have been suffering from the same malaise as
zoom...multiple we's :-)Me thinks I'll have a bit of the old Muzzle tonight and
start from the first post and try and sort this out.We should be able to do it.

See ya

Chuck( I think we were at your wedding) S


>:Might be thinking of Richard Riley who used to be involved with Berkut.
>:
>:See ya
>:
>:Chuck S
>
>And that would be,,,, me, the last time I checked.
>
>Chuckster, how many muzzloaders have you had tonight?

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ben Sego says...

You think your confused?? You said there's another Chuck, Oh Boy first we have
multiple Riley's now multiple Chuck's and before you know it we'll probably have
multiple Ben Segos :-)

Chuck(the first)S...I think

>Well, good. 'Cause I was about to be really, really confused. I mean,
>it's been awhile since I checked in here and everything, but having a
>_different_ Richard Riley hanging around...that would just be too weird.
>
>Maybe it's a different Chuck, instead?
>
>B.S.

[JJS]

This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being flown
by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the
airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an acquaintance)
who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My
friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and severe
facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of blood
and was extremely lucky to have survived. It is a miracle that there
was no fire, as he and the immediate vicinity were soaked in fuel. He
smelled the fuel, crawled out of the airplane and lost consciousness.
Then he regained consciousness and stripped his coat and shirt and was
stumbling around a wheat field in frigid weather trying to use his
cell phone to summon help when the farmer drove up. He faces another
surgery Monday and possibly many more reconstructive surgeries
afterwards.
The pilot was practicing slow flight to familiarize himself and get a
better feel for the airplane. It pitched up instead of down and
entered an unrecoverable stall. He tried varying throttle position
and tried rolling out with aileron but the airplane came down flat
with little forward momentum from about 4500 feet agl. It did not
spin. According to my friend the main wing stalled. The canard must
have kept flying? I believe one of the original prototypes may have
been lost in the same way, with the test pilot surviving? I believe
that this may have been an early kit without aerodynamic improvements.

I would appreciate any information those of you in this group could
provide on the early Velocities and their development history. This
airplane did not have vortex generators installed on the canard.
Would that have helped or made the situation worse?

After the initial investigation and with approval, we loaded the
wreckage onto a trailer behind my pickup and hauled it to WWR today.
It was a very sobering experience that hasn't ended yet.

Please, please, be careful out there.


"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> Richard what happened that the Velocity did not recover from a
stall?
> I belive this is one you built?
>
> Jerry
>
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 57V Make/Model: VEL Description: EXP
VELOCITY
> Date: 11/06/2003 Time: 2345
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N
Missing: N
> Damage: Substantial
>
> LOCATION
> City: FARGO State: OK Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> AIRCRAFT CRASHED WHILE PRACTICING STALLS AND WAS UNABLE TO
RECOVER, OTHER
> CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, FARGO, OK
>

[Jerry Springer]

JJS wrote:

> This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being flown
> by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the
> airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an acquaintance)
> who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My
> friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and severe
> facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of blood
> and was extremely lucky to have survived.

Best wishes to your friend. Sounds like he has a long hard road to recovery
ahead of him.

Jerry

[Richard Riley]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:33:14 -0600, "JJS" <jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM
BLOCKpldi.net> wrote:

:This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being flown
:by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the
:airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an acquaintance)
:who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My
:friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and severe
:facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of blood
:and was extremely lucky to have survived. It is a miracle that there
:was no fire, as he and the immediate vicinity were soaked in fuel. He
:smelled the fuel, crawled out of the airplane and lost consciousness.
:Then he regained consciousness and stripped his coat and shirt and was
:stumbling around a wheat field in frigid weather trying to use his
:cell phone to summon help when the farmer drove up. He faces another
:surgery Monday and possibly many more reconstructive surgeries
:afterwards.
:The pilot was practicing slow flight to familiarize himself and get a
:better feel for the airplane. It pitched up instead of down and
:entered an unrecoverable stall. He tried varying throttle position
:and tried rolling out with aileron but the airplane came down flat
:with little forward momentum from about 4500 feet agl. It did not
:spin. According to my friend the main wing stalled. The canard must
:have kept flying? I believe one of the original prototypes may have
:been lost in the same way, with the test pilot surviving? I believe
:that this may have been an early kit without aerodynamic improvements.
:
:I would appreciate any information those of you in this group could
:provide on the early Velocities and their development history. This
:airplane did not have vortex generators installed on the canard.
:Would that have helped or made the situation worse?
:
:After the initial investigation and with approval, we loaded the
:wreckage onto a trailer behind my pickup and hauled it to WWR today.
:It was a very sobering experience that hasn't ended yet.
:
:Please, please, be careful out there.

Vortex generators on the canard would not have helped. They might
have contributed to the problem, by keeping the canard flying to a
higher angle of attack.

It sounds like a CG problem. It's possible that the plane needed
balast in the front when flown solo - 4 seat canards often do. It
could be that was exaserbated by your friend being lighter than the
previous owner/pilot. The main wing of a canard aircraft will not
stall *provided* that the CG is within the envelope, and the angle of
incidence of the main wing and canard are correct. There are also a
few other oddball situations - picking up a lot of contamination or
ice on the main wing, but not on the canard, could cause the main wing
to stall first. But usually it's an aft CG. The pitch up makes it
sound like aft CG is the cause.

Try to find and keep track of the WB chart from the airplane.

IIRC, early Velocities, like early Vari EZ's, tried drooped cuffs on
the outboard ends of the wings. They were later replaced by
vortilons, sticking out from the main wing LE's. There were two deep
stall Velocity accidents that I know of. The one that was ridden into
the ocean was (I'm told) testing a gap seal on the elevator. The
other had removed the ballast from his nose, and got turned upside
down by a DC-10 wake.

See http://www.ez.org/cp76-p2.htm

Richard (the Berkut builder, not the Velocity builder) Riley.

[JJS]

Richard,
I sat in the cockpit of the Velocity a few days before the
accident. During our conversation the pilot mentioned that there was
a 50 pound bag of lead shot up front near the battery. I may go out
to the airport today and look to see if it is still there. The front
end was damaged when he hit trees and it may have been thrown clear,
or he may have removed it. I've seen pictures of the "Vortilons" you
mention. His airplane did not have them. It did have an extension
below the wing at the wing tips. I had not considered the wing or
canard incidence being off. The airplane had approximately 50 hours
TT with only 6 or so hours on an overhaul. Although it was very cold,
there was no ice that day. It was my understanding that the vortex
generators were added to the canard to combat a problem with loss of
canard lift when flying through rain because the laminar airflow
detached when the wing surface disturbed. Is that correct? He
received a vortex generator kit with the airplane but it was not
installed at the time of the crash. I'm not sure if it was for both
wings or just the canard. I'm currently a spam can pilot with a dream
of building an RV someday and trying to learn all I can about
homebuilts. I'll read the information at the link you sent me and do
a little more research. He is a very good pilot but I wish my friend
had done his homework on this particular airplane. He told me that he
had already contacted the current factory owner when I urged him to
talk to other builders and Velocity pilots. I'm not sure if that was
before or after the purchase or for that matter if it was not entirely
true and he was trying to relieve my concern. I believe he was over
confident in his abilities. We had actually discussed the loss of at
least one Velocity that I'd read about a long time ago. He thought he
might be able roll out of a deep stall. I tried to subtly convince
him otherwise. Others at the airport tried to caution him to be
careful as well. I appreciate your help very much. It is my hope
that this thread develops into something useful for other
homebuilders.


"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:33:14 -0600, "JJS" <jschneider@REMOVE THIS
SPAM
> BLOCKpldi.net> wrote:
>
> :This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being
flown
> :by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the
> :airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an
acquaintance)
> :who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My
> :friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and
severe
> :facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of
blood
> :and was extremely lucky to have survived. It is a miracle that
there
> :was no fire, as he and the immediate vicinity were soaked in fuel.
He
> :smelled the fuel, crawled out of the airplane and lost
consciousness.
> :Then he regained consciousness and stripped his coat and shirt and
was
> :stumbling around a wheat field in frigid weather trying to use his
> :cell phone to summon help when the farmer drove up. He faces
another
> :surgery Monday and possibly many more reconstructive surgeries
> :afterwards.
> :The pilot was practicing slow flight to familiarize himself and get
a
> :better feel for the airplane. It pitched up instead of down and
> :entered an unrecoverable stall. He tried varying throttle position
> :and tried rolling out with aileron but the airplane came down flat
> :with little forward momentum from about 4500 feet agl. It did not
> :spin. According to my friend the main wing stalled. The canard
must
> :have kept flying? I believe one of the original prototypes may
have
> :been lost in the same way, with the test pilot surviving? I
believe
> :that this may have been an early kit without aerodynamic
improvements.
> :
> :I would appreciate any information those of you in this group could
> :provide on the early Velocities and their development history.
This
> :airplane did not have vortex generators installed on the canard.
> :Would that have helped or made the situation worse?
> :
> :After the initial investigation and with approval, we loaded the
> :wreckage onto a trailer behind my pickup and hauled it to WWR
today.
> :It was a very sobering experience that hasn't ended yet.
> :
> :Please, please, be careful out there.
>
> Vortex generators on the canard would not have helped. They might
> have contributed to the problem, by keeping the canard flying to a
> higher angle of attack.
>
> It sounds like a CG problem. It's possible that the plane needed
> balast in the front when flown solo - 4 seat canards often do. It
> could be that was exaserbated by your friend being lighter than the
> previous owner/pilot. The main wing of a canard aircraft will not
> stall *provided* that the CG is within the envelope, and the angle
of
> incidence of the main wing and canard are correct. There are also a
> few other oddball situations - picking up a lot of contamination or
> ice on the main wing, but not on the canard, could cause the main
wing
> to stall first. But usually it's an aft CG. The pitch up makes it
> sound like aft CG is the cause.
>
> Try to find and keep track of the WB chart from the airplane.
>
> IIRC, early Velocities, like early Vari EZ's, tried drooped cuffs on
> the outboard ends of the wings. They were later replaced by
> vortilons, sticking out from the main wing LE's. There were two
deep
> stall Velocity accidents that I know of. The one that was ridden
into
> the ocean was (I'm told) testing a gap seal on the elevator. The
> other had removed the ballast from his nose, and got turned upside
> down by a DC-10 wake.
>
> See http://www.ez.org/cp76-p2.htm
>
> Richard (the Berkut builder, not the Velocity builder) Riley.

[Richard Riely]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 08:09:57 -0600, "JJS" <jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM
BLOCKpldi.net> wrote:

:Richard,
: I sat in the cockpit of the Velocity a few days before the
:accident. During our conversation the pilot mentioned that there was
:a 50 pound bag of lead shot up front near the battery. I may go out
:to the airport today and look to see if it is still there. The front
:end was damaged when he hit trees and it may have been thrown clear,
:or he may have removed it. I've seen pictures of the "Vortilons" you
:mention. His airplane did not have them. It did have an extension
:below the wing at the wing tips.

I can't find any pictures of vortalons on line, but they are an
important item, and if he didn't have them, that's probably a
contributing factor. If the plane had 50 lbs in the nose, it sounds
like he was at least fighting an aft CG. The WB chart is going to be
significant. How much does your friend weigh?

:I had not considered the wing or
:canard incidence being off.

It's just something to throw into the mix. Also remember, every
airplane has wings that are slightly different in profile. Foam wings
- like most canards - are particularly susceptible. Minor builder
errors lead to minor changes in airfoil, which may or may not have an
effect on how the plane flies.

:The airplane had approximately 50 hours
:TT with only 6 or so hours on an overhaul. Although it was very cold,
:there was no ice that day. It was my understanding that the vortex
:generators were added to the canard to combat a problem with loss of
:canard lift when flying through rain because the laminar airflow
:detached when the wing surface disturbed. Is that correct?

It's correct on the GU airfoil canard used on the Vari-Eze, 3 place
Cozy and earlier Long EZ's. The Roncz canard (1145MS airfoil) didn't
have those problems. I don' t know about the Velocity canard airfoil,
I've never seen one with vortex generators attached. None the less,
VG's keep attached flow at a higher angle of attack, and adding them
would have made it more likely that the elevators could drive the main
wing to stall.

:He
:received a vortex generator kit with the airplane but it was not
:installed at the time of the crash. I'm not sure if it was for both
:wings or just the canard.

It could have been for both, VG's on the main wing and the canard at
50% of chord can increase lift considerably. If you're using them
just on the canard, for rain, you want them at about 20-25% of chord.

:I'm currently a spam can pilot with a dream
:of building an RV someday and trying to learn all I can about
:homebuilts. I'll read the information at the link you sent me and do
:a little more research. He is a very good pilot but I wish my friend
:had done his homework on this particular airplane. He told me that he
:had already contacted the current factory owner when I urged him to
:talk to other builders and Velocity pilots. I'm not sure if that was
:before or after the purchase or for that matter if it was not entirely
:true and he was trying to relieve my concern. I believe he was over
:confident in his abilities. We had actually discussed the loss of at
:least one Velocity that I'd read about a long time ago. He thought he
:might be able roll out of a deep stall. I tried to subtly convince
:him otherwise. Others at the airport tried to caution him to be
:careful as well. I appreciate your help very much. It is my hope
:that this thread develops into something useful for other
:homebuilders.

Mike Mellville - Burt Rutan's test pilot - got in a deep stall in a
Long EZ at 10,000 feet. He was barely able to bring it out by using
the rudders to get the nose swinging back and forth like a pendulum,
with greater and greater swings on each cycle. Eventually the nose
dropped and he started flying again, but it took something like 8000
feet. If you're nibbling at the lower end and you're not absolutly
sure what the envelope is, wear a parachute and don't be afraid to use
it.

[Paul Lee]

This is obviously a CG and/or missing vortilons problem.
This is an old story problem and designers/builders should have
learned the lesson a long time ago.

Adding vortex generators to canards may make it even worse, since
it would have the canard stall at lower speed. The current solution
to the rain problem is the Roncz cannard design - which I assume
all recent designs use.

-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000

"JJS" <jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM BLOCKpldi.net> wrote in message >...
> Richard,
> I sat in the cockpit of the Velocity a few days before the
> accident. During our conversation the pilot mentioned that there was
> a 50 pound bag of lead shot up front near the battery. I may go out
> to the airport today and look to see if it is still there. The front
> end was damaged when he hit trees and it may have been thrown clear,
> or he may have removed it. I've seen pictures of the "Vortilons" you
> mention. His airplane did not have them. It did have an extension
> below the wing at the wing tips. I had not considered the wing or
> canard incidence being off. The airplane had approximately 50 hours
> TT with only 6 or so hours on an overhaul. Although it was very cold,
> there was no ice that day. It was my understanding that the vortex
> generators were added to the canard to combat a problem with loss of
> canard lift when flying through rain because the laminar airflow
> detached when the wing surface disturbed. Is that correct? He
> received a vortex generator kit with the airplane but it was not
> installed at the time of the crash. I'm not sure if it was for both
> wings or just the canard. I'm currently a spam can pilot with a dream
> of building an RV someday and trying to learn all I can about
> homebuilts. I'll read the information at the link you sent me and do
> a little more research. He is a very good pilot but I wish my friend
> had done his homework on this particular airplane. He told me that he
> had already contacted the current factory owner when I urged him to
> talk to other builders and Velocity pilots. I'm not sure if that was
> before or after the purchase or for that matter if it was not entirely
> true and he was trying to relieve my concern. I believe he was over
> confident in his abilities. We had actually discussed the loss of at
> least one Velocity that I'd read about a long time ago. He thought he
> might be able roll out of a deep stall. I tried to subtly convince
> him otherwise. Others at the airport tried to caution him to be
> careful as well. I appreciate your help very much. It is my hope
> that this thread develops into something useful for other
> homebuilders.
>

[Jay]

That's only true if the CG is within design limits.

Del Rawlins > wrote in message >...
> Practicing stalls in a canard? I thought the whole point of the canard
> was an unstallable/unspinnable aircraft.