Log in

View Full Version : Jim Pennino or...Jim Pinheado?


Mark
September 15th 10, 12:38 PM
There is a poster here called Jim Pennino, but in
actuality he's Jim Pinheado. His tiny little level of
character development leads him to follow new posters
around and make obnoxious incorrect statements.
He will take everything you say and dispute it.

EVERYTHING. When you prove him wrong, he will
do his pinhead dance. He will misquote himself to try
and wiggle out of previous positions. Or he will try and
redefine what he previously said. Upon losing, he will
then SEPERATE OUT a single sentence which wasn't
the original topic, and then try and make this the new
top in order to change the subject.

1) I've made the assertion that airplanes are today
unavailable to the numbers of people interested in
flying as compared to the same in 1970. Not only
have people come forth to share their stories of
confirmation on this, I've even provided income data
and price comparison to prove this. But Pinhead
Pennino argued the ratio hasn't changed. Then
he claimed he didn't say it, and...you guessed it,
changed the arguement to what the definition of
buying power is. Arguement for the sake of arguement.

2) I said that used Piper Sport Airplanes are on the
market. By this...I meant that the Czech sportcruiser
which we are all familiar with ( except pinhead ) are
available. You see, often these planes get new names,
and for a time we call them by their old names, or
we use the new name, but everyone knows them as
the same plane under their old name.
Example: For a couple of years anytime I mentioned
the Cessna 350 or Cessna 400, no old timers knew
what I was talking about. This is because they were
previously, and still commonly thought of as the
Columbia 350 or Columbia 400. For all intents and
purposes it was the same plane with a new name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Aircraft.

In the case of my arguement with Pinheado, it's amply
clear that he didn't even know where the hell the
Piper Sport came from. After I corrected him, he googled
the info and tried to build a dishonest defense to his
mistake. Even today he won't take the word of the
President of Piper!! He argues for the sake of arguement,
oh...and insults you every step of the way, and tells folks
that the person disagreeing with him must be a "troll",
or a "retard".


3) Pinheado made the claim that pretty much ALL LSA's
go 138mph. (then he lied and changed his "fact" to
a range of 130mph - 138mph) Still wrong. You see,
he didn't have a clue as to which planes were in this
category. So, he googled...and saw the thousands of
ultralights are also LSA's which couldn't possibly even
go 90mph. How did Pinheado react to yet another one
of his wrong statements? You guessed it. He changed
the subject to his new argument for the sake of arguement,
which was..."Which website advertises more planes?"
Then he singled out one model of plane for comparison
to try and prove his point. How anal. Really, who knows
or gives a flying **** which website is the winner? The
fact is, we're talking thousands and thousands by
barnstormers, and that isn't the original debate anyway.
My original point is that all LSA's don't go 138mph.

This is just a sampling of the behaviour you may expect from
Pinheado. Is this an attempt at cyberbullying? Of course it
is. Why would he do this? Answer: Because he's...
Jim Pinheado, the anal pinhead who argues for the sake of
arguement, so he won't let anyone take his little corner
away from him.

---
Reporting from the front:

Mark

Ari Silverstein
September 15th 10, 03:47 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> There is a poster here called Jim Pennino, but in
> actuality he's Jim Pinheado.

Attaboi, Mark(ie) show 'em for the real trolling piece of garbage you
are.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Mark
September 15th 10, 04:33 PM
On Sep 15, 10:47*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > There is a poster here called Jim Pennino, but in
> > actuality he's Jim Pinheado.
>
> Attaboi, Mark(ie) show 'em for the real trolling piece of garbage you
> are.
> --

Facts are facts. Such as the fact that you cross-post lies
and assume other peoples identites because you're too big
of a nit-wit to put an intelligent thought together, and you're
such a narcissistic sociopath that you can easily be manipulated
into spending 8 months of your useless life into obsessing
over anyone who wants you to. Basically the name Ari Silverstein
is synonymous with troll. Just an underachieving liar trying
to capture self esteem on usenet.

So where is that Piper Seneca you claimed to have?
So where is that Velocity RG you claimed to have?

Fool.

---
Mark

September 15th 10, 05:21 PM
Mark > wrote:
> There is a poster here called Jim Pennino,

Only thing you've got totally correct so far.

So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark
September 15th 10, 05:45 PM
On Sep 15, 12:21*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > There is a poster here called Jim Pennino,
>
> Only thing you've got totally correct so far.
>
> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

It depends on what country I'm living in.

---
Mark

Ari Silverstein
September 15th 10, 06:00 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:45:57 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On Sep 15, 12:21*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>>> There is a poster here called Jim Pennino,
>>
>> Only thing you've got totally correct so far.
>>
>> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
>> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
>> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> It depends on what country I'm living in.
>
> ---
> Mark

Translation: It depends on what dementia you are experiencing. lol
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Ari Silverstein
September 15th 10, 06:02 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:33:37 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On Sep 15, 10:47*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>>> There is a poster here called Jim Pennino, but in
>>> actuality he's Jim Pinheado.
>>
>> Attaboi, Mark(ie) show 'em for the real trolling piece of garbage you
>> are.
>> --
>
> Facts are facts.

Agreed. Garbage in, garbage out. Mark(ie) The Bipolar GIGO.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

September 15th 10, 06:13 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 12:21Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > There is a poster here called Jim Pennino,
>>
>> Only thing you've got totally correct so far.
>>
>> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
>> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
>> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> It depends on what country I'm living in.

LSA is a FAA definition ergo they only exist in the US.

The airplanes may exist outside of the US, but they aren't LSA.

So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ari Silverstein
September 15th 10, 06:35 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:13:21 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 12:21*pm, wrote:
>>> Mark > wrote:
>>> > There is a poster here called Jim Pennino,
>>>
>>> Only thing you've got totally correct so far.
>>>
>>> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
>>> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
>>> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> It depends on what country I'm living in.
>
> LSA is a FAA definition ergo they only exist in the US.
>
> The airplanes may exist outside of the US, but they aren't LSA.
>
> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?

*larf*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Mark
September 15th 10, 06:44 PM
On Sep 15, 1:13*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 12:21*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > There is a poster here called Jim Pennino,
>
> >> Only thing you've got totally correct so far.
>
> >> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
> >> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
> >> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > It depends on what country I'm living in.
>
> LSA is a FAA definition ergo they only exist in the US.
>
> The airplanes may exist outside of the US, but they aren't LSA.
>
> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino


There is a poster here called Jim Pennino, but in
actuality he's Jim Pinheado. His tiny little level of
character development leads him to follow new posters
around and make obnoxious incorrect statements.
He will take everything you say and dispute it.

EVERYTHING. When you prove him wrong, he will
do his pinhead dance. He will misquote himself to try
and wiggle out of previous positions. Or he will try and
redefine what he previously said. Upon losing, he will
then SEPERATE OUT a single sentence which wasn't
the original topic, and then try and make this the new
top in order to change the subject.


1) I've made the assertion that airplanes are today
unavailable to the numbers of people interested in
flying as compared to the same in 1970. Not only
have people come forth to share their stories of
confirmation on this, I've even provided income data
and price comparison to prove this. But Pinhead
Pennino argued the ratio hasn't changed. Then
he claimed he didn't say it, and...you guessed it,
changed the arguement to what the definition of
buying power is. Arguement for the sake of arguement.


2) I said that used Piper Sport Airplanes are on the
market. By this...I meant that the Czech sportcruiser
which we are all familiar with ( except pinhead ) are
available. You see, often these planes get new names,
and for a time we call them by their old names, or
we use the new name, but everyone knows them as
the same plane under their old name.
Example: For a couple of years anytime I mentioned
the Cessna 350 or Cessna 400, no old timers knew
what I was talking about. This is because they were
previously, and still commonly thought of as the
Columbia 350 or Columbia 400. For all intents and
purposes it was the same plane with a new name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Aircraft.


In the case of my arguement with Pinheado, it's amply
clear that he didn't even know where the hell the
Piper Sport came from. After I corrected him, he googled
the info and tried to build a dishonest defense to his
mistake. Even today he won't take the word of the
President of Piper!! He argues for the sake of arguement,
oh...and insults you every step of the way, and tells folks
that the person disagreeing with him must be a "troll",
or a "retard".


3) Pinheado made the claim that pretty much ALL LSA's
go 138mph. (then he lied and changed his "fact" to
a range of 130mph - 138mph) Still wrong. You see,
he didn't have a clue as to which planes were in this
category. So, he googled...and saw the thousands of
ultralights are also LSA's which couldn't possibly even
go 90mph. How did Pinheado react to yet another one
of his wrong statements? You guessed it. He changed
the subject to his new argument for the sake of arguement,
which was..."Which website advertises more planes?"
Then he singled out one model of plane for comparison
to try and prove his point. How anal. Really, who knows
or gives a flying **** which website is the winner? The
fact is, we're talking thousands and thousands by
barnstormers, and that isn't the original debate anyway.
My original point is that all LSA's don't go 138mph.


This is just a sampling of the behaviour you may expect from
Pinheado. Is this an attempt at cyberbullying? Of course it
is. Why would he do this? Answer: Because he's...
Jim Pinheado, the anal pinhead who argues for the sake of
arguement, so he won't let anyone take his little corner
away from him.


---
Reporting from the front:


Mark

Mark
September 15th 10, 06:46 PM
On Sep 15, 1:02*pm, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:33:37 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 10:47*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> >>> There is a poster here called Jim Pennino, but in
> >>> actuality he's Jim Pinheado.
>
> >> Attaboi, Mark(ie) show 'em for the real trolling piece of garbage you
> >> are.
> >> --
>
> > Facts are facts.
>
> Agreed.
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Facts are facts. Such as the fact that you cross-post lies
and assume other peoples identites because you're too big
of a nit-wit to put an intelligent thought together, and you're
such a narcissistic sociopath that you can easily be manipulated
into spending 8 months of your useless life into obsessing
over anyone who wants you to. Basically the name Ari Silverstein
is synonymous with troll. Just an underachieving liar trying
to capture self esteem on usenet.

So where is that Piper Seneca you claimed to have?
So where is that Velocity RG you claimed to have?


Fool.


---
Mark

Ted Sherman[_2_]
September 15th 10, 07:09 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:46:10 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On Sep 15, 1:02*pm, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:33:37 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 10:47*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>>>>> There is a poster here called Jim Pennino, but in
>>>>> actuality he's Jim Pinheado.
>>
>>>> Attaboi, Mark(ie) show 'em for the real trolling piece of garbage you
>>>> are.
>>>> --
>>
>>> Facts are facts.
>>
>> Agreed.
>> --
>> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
>> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>
> Facts are facts. I will suck WHO I want WHEN Iwant and HOW I want.

ooooooooooooK

Ted Sherman[_2_]
September 15th 10, 07:10 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:44:41 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Reporting from the front:
> Coming in from the rear
> Mark - Reach arounds given

oooooooooK

September 15th 10, 07:14 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 15, 12:21Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > There is a poster here called Jim Pennino,
>>
>> >> Only thing you've got totally correct so far.
>>
>> >> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
>> >> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
>> >> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> > It depends on what country I'm living in.
>>
>> LSA is a FAA definition ergo they only exist in the US.
>>
>> The airplanes may exist outside of the US, but they aren't LSA.
>>
>> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
>> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
>> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
>
> There is a poster here called Jim Pennino,

To whom you stated you were planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise
speed, which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as
violate the rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft.

Are you still planning to do that?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ari Silverstein
September 15th 10, 07:17 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:14:39 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 1:13*pm, wrote:
>>> Mark > wrote:
>>> > On Sep 15, 12:21*pm, wrote:
>>> >> Mark > wrote:
>>> >> > There is a poster here called Jim Pennino,
>>>
>>> >> Only thing you've got totally correct so far.
>>>
>>> >> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
>>> >> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
>>> >> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>>
>>> > It depends on what country I'm living in.
>>>
>>> LSA is a FAA definition ergo they only exist in the US.
>>>
>>> The airplanes may exist outside of the US, but they aren't LSA.
>>>
>>> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
>>> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as violate the
>>> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> There is a poster here called Jim Pennino,
>
> To whom you stated you were planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise
> speed, which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate as well as
> violate the rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft.
>
> Are you still planning to do that?

*larf*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Ari Silverstein
September 15th 10, 07:17 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:09:16 +0000 (UTC), Ted Sherman wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:46:10 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>
>> On Sep 15, 1:02*pm, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:33:37 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>>>> On Sep 15, 10:47*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>>>>>> There is a poster here called Jim Pennino, but in
>>>>>> actuality he's Jim Pinheado.
>>>
>>>>> Attaboi, Mark(ie) show 'em for the real trolling piece of garbage you
>>>>> are.
>>>>> --
>>>
>>>> Facts are facts.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>> --
>>> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
>>> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>>
>> Facts are facts. I will suck WHO I want WHEN Iwant and HOW I want.
>
> ooooooooooooK

Persistent little homo, isn't he? *lol*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Mark
September 15th 10, 11:35 PM
On Sep 15, 2:14*pm, wrote:
> ... as well as
> violate the rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft.
>
> Are you still planning to do that?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino


"•Most mechanics learn their skills from aviation maintenance
technician schools approved by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). Training programs generally last 12 to 24 months, although some
schools also offer 2- and 4-year degrees. A small number of mechanics
receive their training on-the-job from experienced mechanics. However,
due to FAA rules, their work must be supervised and documented by
certified mechanics until they become FAA-certified. Consequently,
most employers only hire FAA-certified mechanics.

Certification
•The FAA requires that all mechanics who perform maintenance work on
aircrafts be certified or perform the work under the supervision of a
certified mechanic. The FAA offers certifications in airframe
mechanics (A license) for airplane body work, and powerplant mechanics
(P license) for engine work. Some mechanics obtain either the A or P
license.


To qualify for certification, in general a candidate must be at least
18 years of age, able to read and write English, and pass written,
practical and oral tests. To maintain their certification, mechanics
must have accumulated at least 1,000 hours of work experience in the
previous two-year period or take a refresher course."

---
Mark

Ari Silverstein
September 15th 10, 11:47 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> To qualify for certification, in general a candidate must be at least
> 18 years of age, able to read and write English, and pass written,
> practical and oral tests. To maintain their certification, mechanics
> must have accumulated at least 1,000 hours of work experience in the
> previous two-year period or take a refresher course."

Exactly. So you aren't modding ****.

*lol*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

September 16th 10, 12:21 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2:14Â*pm, wrote:
>> ... as well as
>> violate the rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft.
>>
>> Are you still planning to do that?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
>
> "•Most mechanics learn their skills from aviation maintenance
> technician schools approved by the Federal Aviation Administration
> (FAA). Training programs generally last 12 to 24 months, although some
> schools also offer 2- and 4-year degrees. A small number of mechanics
> receive their training on-the-job from experienced mechanics. However,
> due to FAA rules, their work must be supervised and documented by
> certified mechanics until they become FAA-certified. Consequently,
> most employers only hire FAA-certified mechanics.
>
> Certification
> •The FAA requires that all mechanics who perform maintenance work on
> aircrafts be certified or perform the work under the supervision of a
> certified mechanic. The FAA offers certifications in airframe
> mechanics (A license) for airplane body work, and powerplant mechanics
> (P license) for engine work. Some mechanics obtain either the A or P
> license.
>
>
> To qualify for certification, in general a candidate must be at least
> 18 years of age, able to read and write English, and pass written,
> practical and oral tests. To maintain their certification, mechanics
> must have accumulated at least 1,000 hours of work experience in the
> previous two-year period or take a refresher course."
>
> ---
> Mark

So are you planning to do all that before you modify a LSA to increase the
cruise speed, which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate no matter
who does it?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ari Silverstein
September 16th 10, 12:32 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:21:17 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 2:14Â*pm, wrote:
>>> ... as well as
>>> violate the rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft.
>>>
>>> Are you still planning to do that?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> "•Most mechanics learn their skills from aviation maintenance
>> technician schools approved by the Federal Aviation Administration
>> (FAA). Training programs generally last 12 to 24 months, although some
>> schools also offer 2- and 4-year degrees. A small number of mechanics
>> receive their training on-the-job from experienced mechanics. However,
>> due to FAA rules, their work must be supervised and documented by
>> certified mechanics until they become FAA-certified. Consequently,
>> most employers only hire FAA-certified mechanics.
>>
>> Certification
>> •The FAA requires that all mechanics who perform maintenance work on
>> aircrafts be certified or perform the work under the supervision of a
>> certified mechanic. The FAA offers certifications in airframe
>> mechanics (A license) for airplane body work, and powerplant mechanics
>> (P license) for engine work. Some mechanics obtain either the A or P
>> license.
>>
>> To qualify for certification, in general a candidate must be at least
>> 18 years of age, able to read and write English, and pass written,
>> practical and oral tests. To maintain their certification, mechanics
>> must have accumulated at least 1,000 hours of work experience in the
>> previous two-year period or take a refresher course."
>>
>> ---
>> Mark
>
> So are you planning to do all that before you modify a LSA to increase the
> cruise speed, which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate no matter
> who does it?

*roflmao*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Mark
September 16th 10, 12:45 AM
On Sep 15, 7:21*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 2:14*pm, wrote:
> >> ... as well as
> >> violate the rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft.
>
> >> Are you still planning to do that?
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > "•Most mechanics learn their skills from aviation maintenance
> > technician schools approved by the Federal Aviation Administration
> > (FAA). Training programs generally last 12 to 24 months, although some
> > schools also offer 2- and 4-year degrees. A small number of mechanics
> > receive their training on-the-job from experienced mechanics. However,
> > due to FAA rules, their work must be supervised and documented by
> > certified mechanics until they become FAA-certified. Consequently,
> > most employers only hire FAA-certified mechanics.
>
> > Certification
> > •The FAA requires that all mechanics who perform maintenance work on
> > aircrafts be certified or perform the work under the supervision of a
> > certified mechanic. The FAA offers certifications in airframe
> > mechanics (A license) for airplane body work, and powerplant mechanics
> > (P license) for engine work. Some mechanics obtain either the A or P
> > license.
>
> > To qualify for certification, in general a candidate must be at least
> > 18 years of age, able to read and write English, and pass written,
> > practical and oral tests. To maintain their certification, mechanics
> > must have accumulated at least 1,000 hours of work experience in the
> > previous two-year period or take a refresher course."
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> So are you planning to do all that before you modify a LSA to increase the
> cruise speed, which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate no matter
> who does it?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino


1) Modifying an experimental airplane that originally met LSA criteria
to
go faster than LSA speed is not illegal. It simply means that from
that
time forward, it can't be flown solo by a pilot operating under LSA
flight
rules. It requires a private pilot or higher. (Even if the airplane
mods
are later removed, it still can't be flown under LSA rules anymore.)


2) Also, for the record, the FAA speed requirement for LSA has some
important qualifiers that allow LSA airplanes to legally travel faster
than
120 kts. Here is the FAA text:


"A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH)
of
not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at
sea
level."[1]


The true airspeed of most LSAs will increase with increasing altitude
(to a
point - most aren't turbocharged. Turbocharging isn't per se
prohibited by
the LSA rules. And are generally limited to 10,000 ft anyway.) Owners
of
some LSAs have in fact observed true airspeeds at altitude of 150 mph
or
more. They aren't in violation of the rule because the limit is
defined at
sea level under standard conditions.


[1] http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/sp_rule.pdf

September 16th 10, 01:04 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 7:21Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 15, 2:14Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> ... as well as
>> >> violate the rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft.
>>
>> >> Are you still planning to do that?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > "•Most mechanics learn their skills from aviation maintenance
>> > technician schools approved by the Federal Aviation Administration
>> > (FAA). Training programs generally last 12 to 24 months, although some
>> > schools also offer 2- and 4-year degrees. A small number of mechanics
>> > receive their training on-the-job from experienced mechanics. However,
>> > due to FAA rules, their work must be supervised and documented by
>> > certified mechanics until they become FAA-certified. Consequently,
>> > most employers only hire FAA-certified mechanics.
>>
>> > Certification
>> > •The FAA requires that all mechanics who perform maintenance work on
>> > aircrafts be certified or perform the work under the supervision of a
>> > certified mechanic. The FAA offers certifications in airframe
>> > mechanics (A license) for airplane body work, and powerplant mechanics
>> > (P license) for engine work. Some mechanics obtain either the A or P
>> > license.
>>
>> > To qualify for certification, in general a candidate must be at least
>> > 18 years of age, able to read and write English, and pass written,
>> > practical and oral tests. To maintain their certification, mechanics
>> > must have accumulated at least 1,000 hours of work experience in the
>> > previous two-year period or take a refresher course."
>>
>> > ---
>> > Mark
>>
>> So are you planning to do all that before you modify a LSA to increase the
>> cruise speed, which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate no matter
>> who does it?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
>
> 1) Modifying an experimental airplane that originally met LSA criteria
> to
> go faster than LSA speed is not illegal. It simply means that from
> that
> time forward, it can't be flown solo by a pilot operating under LSA
> flight
> rules. It requires a private pilot or higher. (Even if the airplane
> mods
> are later removed, it still can't be flown under LSA rules anymore.)

You said you were going to buy a LSA, not build one, which means the
airworthiness certificate would be invalid.

If you build one and invalidate it as a LSA, now you have to go to the
FAA and somehow get the thing cerificated as an exprimental after the
fact. Good luck on that.

> 2) Also, for the record, the FAA speed requirement for LSA has some
> important qualifiers that allow LSA airplanes to legally travel faster
> than
> 120 kts.

No one but you ever said anything about them not being able to.

The 120 kt limit is the certified by the maker speed at max power and
sea level, nothing else.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Logajan
September 16th 10, 01:29 AM
I do NOT appreciate having material _I_ researched and wrote copied and
pasted so as to make it appear as if _you_ wrote it.

Mark > claimed to write:
[...]
> 1) Modifying an experimental airplane that originally met LSA criteria
> to
> go faster than LSA speed is not illegal. It simply means that from
> that
> time forward, it can't be flown solo by a pilot operating under LSA
> flight
> rules. It requires a private pilot or higher. (Even if the airplane
> mods
> are later removed, it still can't be flown under LSA rules anymore.)
>
>
> 2) Also, for the record, the FAA speed requirement for LSA has some
> important qualifiers that allow LSA airplanes to legally travel faster
> than
> 120 kts. Here is the FAA text:
>
>
> "A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH)
> of
> not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at
> sea
> level."[1]
>
>
> The true airspeed of most LSAs will increase with increasing altitude
> (to a
> point - most aren't turbocharged. Turbocharging isn't per se
> prohibited by
> the LSA rules. And are generally limited to 10,000 ft anyway.) Owners
> of
> some LSAs have in fact observed true airspeeds at altitude of 150 mph
> or
> more. They aren't in violation of the rule because the limit is
> defined at
> sea level under standard conditions.
>
>
> [1] http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/sp_rule.pdf
>
>

Mark
September 16th 10, 02:09 AM
On Sep 15, 8:29*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> I do NOT appreciate having material _I_ researched and wrote copied and
> pasted so as to make it appear as if _you_ wrote it.

Apology for the credit oversight. I assumed folks
remembered you wrote it day before yesterday and
didn't think to site reference on something that fresh.

---
Mark

September 16th 10, 02:57 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 8:29Â*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> I do NOT appreciate having material _I_ researched and wrote copied and
>> pasted so as to make it appear as if _you_ wrote it.
>
> Apology for the credit oversight. I assumed folks
> remembered you wrote it day before yesterday and
> didn't think to site reference on something that fresh.
>
> ---
> Mark

Actually, you were attempting to pretend you had the slightest clue what you
were talking about.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ari Silverstein
September 16th 10, 06:52 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:04:15 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 7:21Â*pm, wrote:
>>> Mark > wrote:
>>> > On Sep 15, 2:14Â*pm, wrote:
>>> >> ... as well as
>>> >> violate the rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft.
>>>
>>> >> Are you still planning to do that?
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> > "•Most mechanics learn their skills from aviation maintenance
>>> > technician schools approved by the Federal Aviation Administration
>>> > (FAA). Training programs generally last 12 to 24 months, although some
>>> > schools also offer 2- and 4-year degrees. A small number of mechanics
>>> > receive their training on-the-job from experienced mechanics. However,
>>> > due to FAA rules, their work must be supervised and documented by
>>> > certified mechanics until they become FAA-certified. Consequently,
>>> > most employers only hire FAA-certified mechanics.
>>>
>>> > Certification
>>> > •The FAA requires that all mechanics who perform maintenance work on
>>> > aircrafts be certified or perform the work under the supervision of a
>>> > certified mechanic. The FAA offers certifications in airframe
>>> > mechanics (A license) for airplane body work, and powerplant mechanics
>>> > (P license) for engine work. Some mechanics obtain either the A or P
>>> > license.
>>>
>>> > To qualify for certification, in general a candidate must be at least
>>> > 18 years of age, able to read and write English, and pass written,
>>> > practical and oral tests. To maintain their certification, mechanics
>>> > must have accumulated at least 1,000 hours of work experience in the
>>> > previous two-year period or take a refresher course."
>>>
>>> > ---
>>> > Mark
>>>
>>> So are you planning to do all that before you modify a LSA to increase the
>>> cruise speed, which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate no matter
>>> who does it?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> 1) Modifying an experimental airplane that originally met LSA criteria
>> to
>> go faster than LSA speed is not illegal. It simply means that from
>> that
>> time forward, it can't be flown solo by a pilot operating under LSA
>> flight
>> rules. It requires a private pilot or higher. (Even if the airplane
>> mods
>> are later removed, it still can't be flown under LSA rules anymore.)
>
> You said you were going to buy a LSA, not build one, which means the
> airworthiness certificate would be invalid.
>
> If you build one and invalidate it as a LSA, now you have to go to the
> FAA and somehow get the thing cerificated as an exprimental after the
> fact. Good luck on that.

*ROFL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Karla
September 16th 10, 06:54 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:29:05 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> I do NOT appreciate having material _I_ researched and wrote copied and
> pasted so as to make it appear as if _you_ wrote it.

> So either suck my dick or retract. Forget retract.

..

Ari Silverstein
September 16th 10, 06:55 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 01:57:54 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 8:29*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> I do NOT appreciate having material _I_ researched and wrote copied and
>>> pasted so as to make it appear as if _you_ wrote it.
>>
>> Apology for the credit oversight. I assumed folks
>> remembered you wrote it day before yesterday and
>> didn't think to site reference on something that fresh.
>>
>> ---
>> Mark
>
> Actually, you were attempting to pretend you had the slightest clue what you
> were talking about.

Welcome to Mark(ie)!
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Mark
September 16th 10, 11:48 AM
On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 8:29*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> I do NOT appreciate having material _I_ researched and wrote copied and
> >> pasted so as to make it appear as if _you_ wrote it.
>
> > Apology for the credit oversight. I assumed folks
> > remembered you wrote it day before yesterday and
> > didn't think to site reference on something that fresh.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> Actually, you were attempting to pretend you had the slightest clue what you
> were talking about.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

No. Just a mia culpa.

Seen any 138mph kites lately?

They're getting closer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XbTzfAFNgE

---
Mark

Mark
September 16th 10, 12:01 PM
On Sep 15, 8:04*pm, wrote:

> You said you were going to buy a LSA, not build one, which means the
> airworthiness certificate would be invalid.

There are numerous LSA's which you can buy near completion,
then finish them, becoming the builder on record, and still meet
the 50-50 rule.

> If you build one and invalidate it as a LSA, now you have to go to the
> FAA and somehow get the thing cerificated as an exprimental after the
> fact. *Good luck on that.

What's an exprimental? New category?

Jim logajan posts:
> > 2) Also, for the record, the FAA speed requirement for LSA has some
> > important qualifiers that allow LSA airplanes to legally travel faster
> > than
> > 120 kts.
>
> No one but you ever said anything about them not being able to.

No. You said it wasn't allowed.

> The 120 kt limit is the certified by the maker speed at max power and
> sea level, nothing else.

Yes, we already knew that.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

September 16th 10, 04:24 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 8:04Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> You said you were going to buy a LSA, not build one, which means the
>> airworthiness certificate would be invalid.
>
> There are numerous LSA's which you can buy near completion,
> then finish them, becoming the builder on record, and still meet
> the 50-50 rule.

It is called the 51% rule, not the 50-50 rule.

Last I looked there are no kit LSA's which meet the 51% rule for the
simple reason that the 51% rule does not apply to kit built LSA's.

The RV-12 may, but it isn't available yet so that is unknown.

And to be the builder and meet the 51% rule, you have to do 51% of the
work, not buy something 98% complete and just do the last 2%.

>> If you build one and invalidate it as a LSA, now you have to go to the
>> FAA and somehow get the thing cerificated as an exprimental after the
>> fact. Â*Good luck on that.
>
> What's an exprimental? New category?

Experimental is what most people call the airplanes that the FAA calls
amateur built which get as label saying "experimental" on them.

If you actually knew anything about aviation you would know that.

> Jim logajan posts:
>> > 2) Also, for the record, the FAA speed requirement for LSA has some
>> > important qualifiers that allow LSA airplanes to legally travel faster
>> > than
>> > 120 kts.
>>
>> No one but you ever said anything about them not being able to.
>
> No. You said it wasn't allowed.

No, I said you are not allowed to modify the airplane in such a way that
the max cruise speed at sea level is greater than 120 kts.

Actually, you are not allowed to modify anything on a LSA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark
September 16th 10, 05:11 PM
On Sep 16, 11:24*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 8:04*pm, wrote:
>
> >> You said you were going to buy a LSA, not build one, which means the
> >> airworthiness certificate would be invalid.
>
> > There are numerous LSA's which you can buy near completion,
> > then finish them, becoming the builder on record, and still meet
> > the 50-50 rule.
>
> It is called the 51% rule, not the 50-50 rule.

Technicality.

> Last I looked there are no kit LSA's which meet the 51% rule for the
> simple reason that the 51% rule does not apply to kit built LSA's.

Yes, I have personal knowledge of this.

Actually what came to mind is the scenerio where companies like
Arion and some other's have Builder Assist. I have encountered
unfinished projects for sale.

> The RV-12 may, but it isn't available yet so that is unknown.
>
> And to be the builder and meet the 51% rule, you have to do 51% of the
> work, not buy something 98% complete and just do the last 2%.

That isn't what Nick Otterback, Arion's product development manager
told me when I asked him in person. The final authority would be the
FAA, but thus far I have been told different.

> >> If you build one and invalidate it as a LSA, now you have to go to the
> >> FAA and somehow get the thing cerificated as an exprimental after the
> >> fact. *Good luck on that.
>
> > What's an exprimental? *New category?
>
> Experimental is what most people call the airplanes that the FAA calls
> amateur built which get as label saying "experimental" on them.

<Grin>, I was just messing with you. Your spelling and grammar
are consistently off, i.e., you'd properly say "an" LSA, not "a" LSA.
I probably know every experimental plane there is. You wrote...
"exprimental", and "cerificated". That's baby gibberish.

> If you actually knew anything about aviation you would know that.

I could easily say, "if you weren't a pin-head my spelling correction
wouldn't have escaped you", but you've been respectful lately and
deserve the same. A little humor is like a little salt. Adds flavor.

> > Jim logajan posts:
> >> > 2) Also, for the record, the FAA speed requirement for LSA has some
> >> > important qualifiers that allow LSA airplanes to legally travel faster
> >> > than
> >> > 120 kts.
>
> >> No one but you ever said anything about them not being able to.
>
> > No. You said it wasn't allowed.
>
> No, I said you are not allowed to modify the airplane in such a way that
> the max cruise speed at sea level is greater than 120 kts.

While that is correct, you're official position now has been modified
to be so. No matter. Let's move on.

> Actually, you are not allowed to modify anything on a LSA.

The manufacturer will dictate that. (remember..."an" LSA).
A further examination of allowances is worthwhile. Many flight
schools that only offer PP certification are approaching
illiteracy on this subject.

---

Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

September 16th 10, 06:21 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 11:24Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 15, 8:04Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> You said you were going to buy a LSA, not build one, which means the
>> >> airworthiness certificate would be invalid.
>>
>> > There are numerous LSA's which you can buy near completion,
>> > then finish them, becoming the builder on record, and still meet
>> > the 50-50 rule.
>>
>> It is called the 51% rule, not the 50-50 rule.
>
> Technicality.
>
>> Last I looked there are no kit LSA's which meet the 51% rule for the
>> simple reason that the 51% rule does not apply to kit built LSA's.
>
> Yes, I have personal knowledge of this.
>
> Actually what came to mind is the scenerio where companies like
> Arion and some other's have Builder Assist. I have encountered
> unfinished projects for sale.

There are lots of finished and unfinished kits available.

You can buy one someone else built.

The point is to get the benefits, such as qualify for the repairman
certificate, you have to have done the majority of the work yourself.


>> The RV-12 may, but it isn't available yet so that is unknown.
>>
>> And to be the builder and meet the 51% rule, you have to do 51% of the
>> work, not buy something 98% complete and just do the last 2%.
>
> That isn't what Nick Otterback, Arion's product development manager
> told me when I asked him in person. The final authority would be the
> FAA, but thus far I have been told different.

The FAA says you need to sign and notarize FAA Form 8130-12 attesting to
the fact that you have completed at least 51% of the operations required.

>> >> If you build one and invalidate it as a LSA, now you have to go to the
>> >> FAA and somehow get the thing cerificated as an exprimental after the
>> >> fact. Â*Good luck on that.
>>
>> > What's an exprimental? Â*New category?
>>
>> Experimental is what most people call the airplanes that the FAA calls
>> amateur built which get as label saying "experimental" on them.
>
> <Grin>, I was just messing with you. Your spelling and grammar
> are consistently off, i.e., you'd properly say "an" LSA, not "a" LSA.
> I probably know every experimental plane there is. You wrote...
> "exprimental", and "cerificated". That's baby gibberish.

You are flattering yourself if you think I would bother to waste the time
on spell checking in my response to your posts.

>> Actually, you are not allowed to modify anything on a LSA.
>
> The manufacturer will dictate that. (remember..."an" LSA).
> A further examination of allowances is worthwhile. Many flight
> schools that only offer PP certification are approaching
> illiteracy on this subject.

YOU can not modify a LSA.

The manufacturer of a LSA may make a change in the design and make that
change either optional or mandatory for existing aircraft.

How do you know when to use the indefinite articles?

"A" goes before all words that begin with consonants.

* a cat
* a dog
* a purple onion
* a buffalo
* a big apple

With one exception: Use "an" before unsounded h.

* an honorable peace
* an honest error

"An" goes before all words that begin with vowels:

* an apricot
* an egg
* an Indian
* an orbit
* an uprising

With two exceptions: When u makes the same sound as the y in you, or o makes the same sound as w in won, then a is used.

* a union
* a united front
* a unicorn
* a used napkin
* a U.S. ship
* a one-legged man

The phonetic quality of the letter "L" makes the use of a versus an debatable.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ari Silverstein
September 16th 10, 06:31 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:24:39 -0000, wrote:

> Experimental is what most people call the airplanes that the FAA calls
> amateur built which get as label saying "experimental" on them.
>
> If you actually knew anything about aviation you would know that, Mark.

*lolololol*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Ted Sherman
September 16th 10, 06:32 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:11:01 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

>> Last I looked there are no kit LSA's which meet the 51% rule for the
>> simple reason that the 51% rule does not apply to kit built LSA's.
>
> Yes, I have personal knowledge of this.
>
> Actually what came to mind is the scenerio where companies like
> Arion and some other's have Builder Assist. I have encountered
> unfinished projects for sale.

> I haven't got a ****ing cent to my name but boy o boy it hasn't kept
> me from window shopping for the last two years.

oooooooooK

Ari Silverstein
September 16th 10, 06:36 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:24:39 -0000, wrote:

> No, I said you are not allowed to modify the airplane in such a way that
> the max cruise speed at sea level is greater than 120 kts.
>
> Actually, you are not allowed to modify anything on a LSA, Mark.

Hell, let him, maybe he'll kill himself.

Karma.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Ari Silverstein
September 16th 10, 06:44 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:21:41 -0000, wrote:

>>> Experimental is what most people call the airplanes that the FAA calls
>>> amateur built which get as label saying "experimental" on them.
>>
>> <Grin>, I was just messing with you. Your spelling and grammar
>> are consistently off, i.e., you'd properly say "an" LSA, not "a" LSA.
>> I probably know every experimental plane there is. You wrote...
>> "exprimental", and "cerificated". That's baby gibberish.
>
> You are flattering yourself if you think I would bother to waste the time
> on spell checking in my response to your posts.

*rofl*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Mark
September 16th 10, 08:25 PM
On Sep 16, 1:21*pm, wrote:

> > Actually what came to mind is the scenerio where companies like
> > Arion and some other's have Builder Assist. I have encountered
> > unfinished projects for sale.
>
> There are lots of finished and unfinished kits available.
>
> You can buy one someone else built.
>
> The point is to get the benefits, such as qualify for the repairman
> certificate, you have to have done the majority of the work yourself.

WRONG (again). There can be multiple people involved, as I stated,
such as the person whom you bought it from.

"What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
finished it?
It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had -
as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their own
education or recreation - if you can document or show documentation of
the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the work!"

http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm

---
Mark

Mark
September 16th 10, 08:37 PM
On Sep 16, 1:21*pm, wrote:

> > <Grin>, I was just messing with you. Your spelling and grammar
> > are consistently off, i.e., you'd properly say "an" LSA, not "a" LSA.
> > I probably know every experimental plane there is. You wrote...
> > "exprimental", and "cerificated". *That's baby gibberish.
>
> You are flattering yourself if you think I would bother to waste the time
> on spell checking in my response to your posts.

I don't operate on a double standard. If you're going to
submit semi-literate garbage for me to read don't nit-pick
at everything I say. And in the case of "LSA", it sounds
like Elle-s-a beginning with the vowel, E, so preceeding it
with "an" is proper. There are other words beginning with
consonants that sound like vowels that weren't on your
little elementary list.

---
Mark

Mark
September 16th 10, 09:09 PM
On Sep 16, 1:21*pm, wrote:

> >> > There are numerous LSA's which you can buy near completion,
> >> > then finish them, becoming the builder on record, and still meet
> >> > the 50-50 rule.
>
> >> And to be the builder and meet the 51% rule, you have to do 51% of the
> >> work, not buy something 98% complete and just do the last 2%.
>
> > That isn't what Nick Otterback, Arion's product development manager
> > told me when I asked him in person. The final authority would be the
> > FAA, but thus far I have been told different.

But then, you won't take the word of Kevin Gould, president
and CEO of Piper when he makes it crystal clear in this
interview when he says QUOTE, "Import THEIR (czech sportaircraft)
aircraft, brand them, and sell them through our distribution
network".

So are you still maintaining that the Piper Sport isn't
a Czech Sportcruiser with a Piper decal, but now
it's a different airplane?

And in the light of the link I've provided you to clarify
the 51% rule, do you still maintain that I cannot buy a
builder-assist LSA at ANY stage of completion, finish
ANY amount of work myself to bring it to the 51% and
get the ELSA credit and certification?

Are you maintaining that in my meeting with Nick
Otterback, director of product management for Arion
Aircraft company, that this ace pilot and executive
for a multimillion dollar aircraft company, that he
is less informed than you, just like Kevin Gould,
president and CEO of Piper Aircraft?

> The FAA says you need to sign and notarize FAA Form 8130-12 attesting to
> the fact that you have completed at least 51% of the operations required.

Non sequitur. I know the form number.

---
Mark

Mark
September 16th 10, 09:14 PM
Kevin Gould, CEO of Piper, explains they sell
Czech sportcruisers with Piper decals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4nrIm8XqkU

---
Mark

September 17th 10, 03:06 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 1:21Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> > Actually what came to mind is the scenerio where companies like
>> > Arion and some other's have Builder Assist. I have encountered
>> > unfinished projects for sale.
>>
>> There are lots of finished and unfinished kits available.
>>
>> You can buy one someone else built.
>>
>> The point is to get the benefits, such as qualify for the repairman
>> certificate, you have to have done the majority of the work yourself.
>
> WRONG (again). There can be multiple people involved, as I stated,
> such as the person whom you bought it from.
>
> "What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
> finished it?
> It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had -
> as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their own
> education or recreation - if you can document or show documentation of
> the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the work!"
>
> http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm

Correct as far as registration goes, but to get the repairman certificate,
you have to show you were the primary builder and you know enough to keep
the thing airworthy.

That gets you the repairman certificate, which authorizes you to do the
annual condition inspections yourself.

None of this has anything to do with LSA's.

None of this changes the fact that if you, as you said you planned to do,
swap props for more performance on an aircraft flown under LSA rules:

If the aircraft is a LSA, you invalidate the airworthiness certificate, and
the airplane is now little more than scrap.

If the aircraft is certified, it can never again be flown as a LSA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark
September 17th 10, 03:26 AM
On Sep 15, 1:13*pm, wrote:

> > It depends on what country I'm living in.
>
> LSA is a FAA definition ergo they only exist in the US.

I think you mean "AN" FAA definition, and...Wrong again. A
plane manufactured under the definition of LSA in the United
States is given that identity. They are also flown all over the
world and recognized as such, irrespective of any municipal
jurisdiction. The identity crosses borders. This is common
knowledge in the international community.


> The airplanes may exist outside of the US, but they aren't LSA.

Wrong.

> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate

Wrong. I can perform specific modifications to my LSA and it will
not invalidate the airworthiness certificate.

Question:
"What about repairing and modifying my LSA? That’s legal just as with
experimental aircraft, isn’t it?"

Answer:
"Yes and no, it depends on the type of LSA. If you build your own
experimental LSA (E-LSA), then you are the de facto A&P and can do
repairs and mods."

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-questions-so-many-questions.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=


>...as well as violate the
> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?

WRONG. I can also also perform minimal maintenance on a manufactured
aircraft.

"However, if you buy a prebuilt “special” LSA (S-LSA), then you can
only do minimal preventative maintenance. (For a list, see FAR Part
43, Appendix A.) To make your own annual inspection, you must take a
16-hour maintenance course. But the 16-hour course only lets you
inspect your airplane for defects. You still can’t do significant
maintenance on it."
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-questions-so-many-questions.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

But then, I never said I was committed to buying AN (S-LSA). The
best route is thru builder assist take-over. It's cheaper and the
owner
upon completion may become the A & P. ( then you get yourself
in a community of like owners for full time expertise and advice )
You may now perform mods, repairs, and full maintainence of a
plane as sophisticated as the Arion Lightning.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

Mark
September 17th 10, 03:45 AM
On Sep 16, 10:06*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 1:21*pm, wrote:
>
> >> > Actually what came to mind is the scenerio where companies like
> >> > Arion and some other's have Builder Assist. I have encountered
> >> > unfinished projects for sale.
>
> >> There are lots of finished and unfinished kits available.
>
> >> You can buy one someone else built.
>
> >> The point is to get the benefits, such as qualify for the repairman
> >> certificate, you have to have done the majority of the work yourself.
>
> > WRONG (again). There can be multiple people involved, as I stated,
> > such as the person whom you bought it from.
>
> > "What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
> > finished it?
> > It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had -
> > as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their own
> > education or recreation - if you can document or show documentation of
> > the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the work!"
>
> >http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>
> Correct as far as registration goes, but to get the repairman certificate,
> you have to show you were the primary builder and you know enough to keep
> the thing airworthy.
>
> That gets you the repairman certificate, which authorizes you to do the
> annual condition inspections yourself.
>
> None of this has anything to do with LSA's.

Irrelevant. Many of the models I'm looking at are
all of the following...LSA and ELSA and yes even SLSA all
in the same final product. The distinction is the process
by which it came to completion.

> None of this changes the fact that if you, as you said you planned to do,
> swap props for more performance on an aircraft flown under LSA rules:

Wrong. LSA rules don't apply in Costa Rica.

> If the aircraft is a LSA, you invalidate the airworthiness certificate, and
> the airplane is now little more than scrap.

Wrong. The manufacturers have props which allow the
plane to go 170 or 180 mph. The airworthiness certificate
remains intact. Now you no longer have a light sport plane.
It can be sold anywhere to private pilots, or flown outside
of the United States.

> If the aircraft is certified, it can never again be flown as a LSA.

Well sure. Same is true if you do what a lot of people
do, which is...put in a backseat. Or take off the winglets.
Or add unauthorized wheelpants. Etc, etc. Only a fool
would throw off the CG though.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

September 17th 10, 03:56 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> > It depends on what country I'm living in.
>>
>> LSA is a FAA definition ergo they only exist in the US.
>
> I think you mean "AN" FAA definition, and...Wrong again. A
> plane manufactured under the definition of LSA in the United
> States is given that identity. They are also flown all over the
> world and recognized as such, irrespective of any municipal
> jurisdiction. The identity crosses borders. This is common
> knowledge in the international community.

No, since "FAA" begins with a consonant, a FAA...

No, LSA is a type of aircraft that only exists in the US and LSA's can
not be flown outside of the US.

The plane models registered in the US as LSA may be registered in other
countries under some designation specific to that country, but it is not LSA.

>> The airplanes may exist outside of the US, but they aren't LSA.
>
> Wrong.

Right since no country other than the US has a type called LSA.

>> So, are you still planning to modify a LSA to increase the cruise speed,
>> which will invalidate the airworthiness certificate
>
> Wrong. I can perform specific modifications to my LSA and it will
> not invalidate the airworthiness certificate.

Wrong, no one can perform modifications to a LSA.

To maintain LSA status, the airplane has to conform to the manufactures
specifications.

A modification under the FAA definition is a change outside of the
manufacturers specifications.

> Question:
> "What about repairing and modifying my LSA? That’s legal just as with
> experimental aircraft, isn’t it?"
>
> Answer:
> "Yes and no, it depends on the type of LSA. If you build your own
> experimental LSA (E-LSA), then you are the de facto A&P and can do
> repairs and mods."
>
> http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-questions-so-many-questions.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

Nope, not for a LSA.

It has to always conform to the manufacturers specifications, even if it
is a kit or just a set of plans.

> >...as well as violate the
>> rules on who can perform maintenance on a manufactured aircraft?
>
> WRONG. I can also also perform minimal maintenance on a manufactured
> aircraft.

I never said you couldn't, but you can not change props on a manufactured
aircraft of any kind without the proper certificates.

> "However, if you buy a prebuilt “special” LSA (S-LSA), then you can
> only do minimal preventative maintenance. (For a list, see FAR Part
> 43, Appendix A.) To make your own annual inspection, you must take a
> 16-hour maintenance course. But the 16-hour course only lets you
> inspect your airplane for defects. You still can’t do significant
> maintenance on it."

Yeah, so what?

Any pilot can do the maintenance on any airplane they fly under the limits
of Part 43.

Removing and replacing props isn't allowed under that, much less changing
props.

> http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-questions-so-many-questions.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
>
> But then, I never said I was committed to buying AN (S-LSA). The
> best route is thru builder assist take-over. It's cheaper and the
> owner
> upon completion may become the A & P. ( then you get yourself
> in a community of like owners for full time expertise and advice )
> You may now perform mods, repairs, and full maintainence of a
> plane as sophisticated as the Arion Lightning.

No, you can never do any modifications to any LSA; it always has to conform
to the manufacturers, kit or pre-built, specifications.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark
September 17th 10, 04:00 AM
On Sep 16, 10:06*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 1:21*pm, wrote:
>
> >> > Actually what came to mind is the scenerio where companies like
> >> > Arion and some other's have Builder Assist. I have encountered
> >> > unfinished projects for sale.
>
> >> There are lots of finished and unfinished kits available.
>
> >> You can buy one someone else built.
>
> >> The point is to get the benefits, such as qualify for the repairman
> >> certificate, you have to have done the majority of the work yourself.
>
> > WRONG (again). There can be multiple people involved, as I stated,
> > such as the person whom you bought it from.
>
> > "What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
> > finished it?
> > It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had -
> > as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their own
> > education or recreation - if you can document or show documentation of
> > the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the work!"
>
> >http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>
> Correct as far as registration goes, but to get the repairman certificate,
> you have to show you were the primary builder and you know enough to keep
> the thing airworthy.

Wrong. You do not have to show you were the primary
builder.

> --
> Jim Pennino

Mark
September 17th 10, 04:11 AM
On Sep 16, 10:45*pm, Mark > wrote:

> Irrelevant. *Many of the models I'm looking at are
> all of the following...LSA and ELSA and yes even SLSA all
> in the same final product. The distinction is the process
> by which it came to completion.

Clarification: the above statement is ambiguous.

Let's take the Arion Lightning. They received certification
now to produce an SLSA lightning. That is complete off
the showroom floor. (actually, you preorder)

Or, you can use builder-assist, and produce the same
product. Now you've got an ELSA lightning.

But they're *both* an Arion Lightning LSA.

Or...you can put on wheel pants, omitt the winglets,
add high performance prop, and now you've got an
Arion lightning airplane, but not LSA.

This scenerio is underway at many LSA plants
across the world today.

---
Mark

September 17th 10, 04:21 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 10:06Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 16, 1:21Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> > Actually what came to mind is the scenerio where companies like
>> >> > Arion and some other's have Builder Assist. I have encountered
>> >> > unfinished projects for sale.
>>
>> >> There are lots of finished and unfinished kits available.
>>
>> >> You can buy one someone else built.
>>
>> >> The point is to get the benefits, such as qualify for the repairman
>> >> certificate, you have to have done the majority of the work yourself.
>>
>> > WRONG (again). There can be multiple people involved, as I stated,
>> > such as the person whom you bought it from.
>>
>> > "What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
>> > finished it?
>> > It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had -
>> > as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their own
>> > education or recreation - if you can document or show documentation of
>> > the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the work!"
>>
>> >http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>>
>> Correct as far as registration goes, but to get the repairman certificate,
>> you have to show you were the primary builder and you know enough to keep
>> the thing airworthy.
>>
>> That gets you the repairman certificate, which authorizes you to do the
>> annual condition inspections yourself.
>>
>> None of this has anything to do with LSA's.
>
> Irrelevant. Many of the models I'm looking at are
> all of the following...LSA and ELSA and yes even SLSA all
> in the same final product. The distinction is the process
> by which it came to completion.

Gibberish.

A LSA is a LSA based on a set of specifications for the airplane by the
maker, be it a kit or fully built.

>> None of this changes the fact that if you, as you said you planned to do,
>> swap props for more performance on an aircraft flown under LSA rules:
>
> Wrong. LSA rules don't apply in Costa Rica.

LSA doesn't exist outside the USA, so your response is gibberish.

>> If the aircraft is a LSA, you invalidate the airworthiness certificate, and
>> the airplane is now little more than scrap.
>
> Wrong. The manufacturers have props which allow the
> plane to go 170 or 180 mph. The airworthiness certificate
> remains intact. Now you no longer have a light sport plane.
> It can be sold anywhere to private pilots, or flown outside
> of the United States.

Nope, the airworthiness certificate for a LSA is based on how it was
manufactured.

Swapping props to some configuration recognized somewhere, but not as a
LSA, puts the airplane in legal limbo.

>> If the aircraft is certified, it can never again be flown as a LSA.
>
> Well sure. Same is true if you do what a lot of people
> do, which is...put in a backseat. Or take off the winglets.
> Or add unauthorized wheelpants. Etc, etc. Only a fool
> would throw off the CG though.

Nope, that is apples and oranges.

You can make any modification you want to a cerified aircraft flown under
LSA rules as long as the modification doesn't change the specifications to
be outside the LSA limits.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark
September 17th 10, 04:25 AM
On Sep 16, 10:56*pm, wrote:

> No, you can never do any modifications to any LSA; it always has to conform
> to the manufacturers, kit or pre-built, specifications.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Wrong!

That answer is patently wrong and I've given you
the link here to prove it.

The manufacturer may send out paperwork as to
allowable mods, and given the certification, you can
do it yourself.

---
Mark

September 17th 10, 04:29 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 10:06Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 16, 1:21Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> > Actually what came to mind is the scenerio where companies like
>> >> > Arion and some other's have Builder Assist. I have encountered
>> >> > unfinished projects for sale.
>>
>> >> There are lots of finished and unfinished kits available.
>>
>> >> You can buy one someone else built.
>>
>> >> The point is to get the benefits, such as qualify for the repairman
>> >> certificate, you have to have done the majority of the work yourself.
>>
>> > WRONG (again). There can be multiple people involved, as I stated,
>> > such as the person whom you bought it from.
>>
>> > "What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
>> > finished it?
>> > It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had -
>> > as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their own
>> > education or recreation - if you can document or show documentation of
>> > the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the work!"
>>
>> >http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>>
>> Correct as far as registration goes, but to get the repairman certificate,
>> you have to show you were the primary builder and you know enough to keep
>> the thing airworthy.
>
> Wrong. You do not have to show you were the primary
> builder.

Pulling it out of your ass again, are you?

65.104 (a)

(2) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the
certificate are applicable;

(3) Show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the individual has
the requisite skill to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition
for safe operations; and


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark
September 17th 10, 04:35 AM
On Sep 16, 10:56*pm, wrote:

> > Question:
> > "What about repairing and modifying my LSA? That’s legal just as with
> > experimental aircraft, isn’t it?"
>
> > Answer:
> > "Yes and no, it depends on the type of LSA. If you build your own
> > experimental LSA (E-LSA), then you are the de facto A&P and can do
> > repairs and mods."
>
> >http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-spor...
>
> Nope, not for a LSA.
> --
> Jim Pennino

An LSA? Which type. ELSA? SLSA? True for one,
not for the other, but no is the wrong answer.

I'm sorry Jim. Your command of the English Language,
lack of knowledge in various fields of aviation, comprehension
of the "frame of reference" concept, knowledge of FAR's,
and history of avation economics just isn't up to snuff
enough for me to continue debating you. Nothing personal.

---
Mark

Mark
September 17th 10, 04:47 AM
On Sep 16, 11:29*pm, wrote:

> >> Correct as far as registration goes, but to get the repairman certificate,
> >> you have to show you were the primary builder and you know enough to keep
> >> the thing airworthy.
>
> > Wrong. You do not have to show you were the primary
> > builder.
>
> Pulling it out of your ass again, are you?

No, but I'm talking to one.

> 65.104 (a)
>
> (2) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the
> certificate are applicable;

In this definition, primary will be defined as the last
guy turning in the form with full knowledge of it's manufacture.
Doesn't mean he, in reality, primarilly built the plane by
himself. He simplys holds the aggregate knowledge and
the pink slip. Pay attention, and read the links.

> (3) Show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the individual has
> the requisite skill to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition
> for safe operations; and

Never said he didn't have to.

Now...

Go away. You aren't up to snuff.

Oh, and one last
thing...in FAA the letter F is a phonetic E and is to be
preceeded by the word an, not a.

---
Mark


> --
> Jim Pennino

September 17th 10, 06:14 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 10:45Â*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
>> Irrelevant. Â*Many of the models I'm looking at are
>> all of the following...LSA and ELSA and yes even SLSA all
>> in the same final product. The distinction is the process
>> by which it came to completion.
>
> Clarification: the above statement is ambiguous.
>
> Let's take the Arion Lightning. They received certification
> now to produce an SLSA lightning. That is complete off
> the showroom floor. (actually, you preorder)
>
> Or, you can use builder-assist, and produce the same
> product. Now you've got an ELSA lightning.
>
> But they're *both* an Arion Lightning LSA.
>
> Or...you can put on wheel pants, omitt the winglets,
> add high performance prop, and now you've got an
> Arion lightning airplane, but not LSA.
>
> This scenerio is underway at many LSA plants
> across the world today.

And it is still apples and oranges to the discussion.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

September 17th 10, 06:15 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 11:29Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> >> Correct as far as registration goes, but to get the repairman certificate,
>> >> you have to show you were the primary builder and you know enough to keep
>> >> the thing airworthy.
>>
>> > Wrong. You do not have to show you were the primary
>> > builder.
>>
>> Pulling it out of your ass again, are you?
>
> No, but I'm talking to one.
>
>> 65.104 (a)
>>
>> (2) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the
>> certificate are applicable;
>
> In this definition, primary will be defined as the last
> guy turning in the form with full knowledge of it's manufacture.
> Doesn't mean he, in reality, primarilly built the plane by
> himself. He simplys holds the aggregate knowledge and
> the pink slip. Pay attention, and read the links.

Show the link from the FAA that says the last guy is by definition the
primary builder.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

September 17th 10, 06:18 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 10:56Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> No, you can never do any modifications to any LSA; it always has to conform
>> to the manufacturers, kit or pre-built, specifications.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Wrong!
>
> That answer is patently wrong and I've given you
> the link here to prove it.
>
> The manufacturer may send out paperwork as to
> allowable mods, and given the certification, you can
> do it yourself.

OK, I see the problem here.

You haven't a clue what the word "modification" means in terms of airplanes.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

September 17th 10, 06:21 AM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 10:56Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> > Question:
>> > "What about repairing and modifying my LSA? That’s legal just as with
>> > experimental aircraft, isn’t it?"
>>
>> > Answer:
>> > "Yes and no, it depends on the type of LSA. If you build your own
>> > experimental LSA (E-LSA), then you are the de facto A&P and can do
>> > repairs and mods."
>>
>> >http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-spor...
>>
>> Nope, not for a LSA.
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> An LSA? Which type. ELSA? SLSA? True for one,
> not for the other, but no is the wrong answer.

It doesn't matter what kind of LSA it is, modifications are not allowed
to be done to LSA's.

> I'm sorry Jim. Your command of the English Language,

The problem is the word "modification" has a particular legal meaning when
it comes to airplanes and you don't understand that.

The English dictionary definition of "modification" is not the FAA legal
definition.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ari Silverstein
September 17th 10, 07:00 AM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:06:27 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 1:21*pm, wrote:
>>
>>> > Actually what came to mind is the scenerio where companies like
>>> > Arion and some other's have Builder Assist. I have encountered
>>> > unfinished projects for sale.
>>>
>>> There are lots of finished and unfinished kits available.
>>>
>>> You can buy one someone else built.
>>>
>>> The point is to get the benefits, such as qualify for the repairman
>>> certificate, you have to have done the majority of the work yourself.
>>
>> WRONG (again). There can be multiple people involved, as I stated,
>> such as the person whom you bought it from.
>>
>> "What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
>> finished it?
>> It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had -
>> as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their own
>> education or recreation - if you can document or show documentation of
>> the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the work!"
>>
>> http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>
> Correct as far as registration goes, but to get the repairman certificate,
> you have to show you were the primary builder and you know enough to keep
> the thing airworthy.
>
> That gets you the repairman certificate, which authorizes you to do the
> annual condition inspections yourself.
>
> None of this has anything to do with LSA's.
>
> None of this changes the fact that if you, as you said you planned to do,
> swap props for more performance on an aircraft flown under LSA rules:
>
> If the aircraft is a LSA, you invalidate the airworthiness certificate, and
> the airplane is now little more than scrap.
>
> If the aircraft is certified, it can never again be flown as a LSA.

*LOL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Ari Silverstein
September 17th 10, 07:00 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:45:42 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Wrong. LSA rules don't apply in Costa Rica.

*ROTFLMAO*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Ari Silverstein
September 17th 10, 07:02 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Wrong. You do not have to show you were the primary
> builder.

*LOLOLOL* Assclown, *STAY DOWN*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Ari Silverstein
September 17th 10, 07:03 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:26:44 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> I think you mean "AN" FAA definition, and...Wrong again. A
> plane manufactured under the definition of LSA in the United
> States is given that identity. They are also flown all over the
> world and recognized as such, irrespective of any municipal
> jurisdiction. The identity crosses borders. This is common
> knowledge in the international community.

*NYUKLES EXPONENTIAL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Mark
September 17th 10, 01:10 PM
On Sep 17, 1:14*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 10:45*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> >> Irrelevant. *Many of the models I'm looking at are
> >> all of the following...LSA and ELSA and yes even SLSA all
> >> in the same final product. The distinction is the process
> >> by which it came to completion.
>
> > Clarification: the above statement is ambiguous.
>
> > Let's take the Arion Lightning. They received certification
> > now to produce an SLSA lightning. *That is complete off
> > the showroom floor. (actually, you preorder)
>
> > Or, you can use builder-assist, and produce the same
> > product. Now you've got an ELSA lightning.
>
> > But they're *both* an Arion Lightning LSA.
>
> > Or...you can put on wheel pants, omitt the winglets,
> > add high performance prop, and now you've got an
> > Arion lightning airplane, but not LSA.
>
> > This scenerio is underway at many LSA plants
> > across the world today.
>
> And it is still apples and oranges to the discussion.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-spor&usg=AFQjCNGUjFAky6qk10jrHz6LqeNKTPQtAw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm&usg=AFQjCNHoJBnw0-XlLI-xTiDcdqrH8Eefeg

Mark
September 17th 10, 01:14 PM
On Sep 17, 1:18*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 10:56*pm, wrote:
>
> >> No, you can never do any modifications to any LSA; it always has to conform
> >> to the manufacturers, kit or pre-built, specifications.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Wrong!
>
> > That answer is patently wrong and I've given you
> > the link here to prove it.
>
> > The manufacturer may send out paperwork as to
> > allowable mods, and given the certification, you can
> > do it yourself.
>
> OK, I see the problem here.
>
> You haven't a clue what the word "modification" means in terms of airplanes.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilo....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51perc....

Mark
September 17th 10, 01:16 PM
On Sep 17, 1:21*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 10:56*pm, wrote:
>
> >> > Question:
> >> > "What about repairing and modifying my LSA? That’s legal just as with
> >> > experimental aircraft, isn’t it?"
>
> >> > Answer:
> >> > "Yes and no, it depends on the type of LSA. If you build your own
> >> > experimental LSA (E-LSA), then you are the de facto A&P and can do
> >> > repairs and mods."
>
> >> >http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-spor....
>
> >> Nope, not for a LSA.
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > An LSA? *Which type. ELSA? *SLSA? True for one,
> > not for the other, but no is the wrong answer.
>
> It doesn't matter what kind of LSA it is, modifications are not allowed
> to be done to LSA's.
>
> > I'm sorry Jim. *Your command of the English Language,
>
> The problem is the word "modification" has a particular legal meaning when
> it comes to airplanes and you don't understand that.
>
> The English dictionary definition of "modification" is not the FAA legal
> definition.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilo....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51perc....

Mark
September 17th 10, 01:19 PM
Kevin Gould, CEO of Piper, explains they sell
Czech sportcruisers with Piper decals.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4nrIm8XqkU


---
Mark

Mark
September 17th 10, 01:21 PM
Kevin Gould, CEO of Piper, explains they sell
Czech sportcruisers with Piper decals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4nrIm8XqkU


---
Mark

Mark
September 17th 10, 01:24 PM
http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm

Mark
September 17th 10, 01:27 PM
On Sep 17, 8:24*am, Mark > wrote:
> http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htmhttp://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htmhttp://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-questions-so-many-questions.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-questions-so-many-questions.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-questions-so-many-questions.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

Mark
September 17th 10, 01:30 PM
On Sep 17, 8:24*am, Mark > wrote:
> http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htmhttp://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htmhttp://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm

"What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
finished it?
It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had -
as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their own
education or recreation - if you can document or show documentation of
the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the work!"

Mark
September 17th 10, 01:35 PM
On Sep 17, 8:27*am, Mark > wrote:

> http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-spor...http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-spor...http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-spor...

10) What about repairing and modifying my LSA? That’s legal just as
with experimental aircraft, isn’t it?

Yes and no, it depends on the type of LSA. If you build your own
experimental LSA (E-LSA), then you are the de facto A&P and can do
repairs and mods.

Mark
September 17th 10, 01:41 PM
On Sep 17, 8:35*am, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 8:27*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> >http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-spor.......
>
> 10) What about repairing and modifying my LSA? That’s legal just as
> with experimental aircraft, isn’t it?
>
> Yes and no, it depends on the type of LSA. If you build your own
> experimental LSA (E-LSA), then you are the de facto A&P and can do
> repairs and mods.

The Faa definition of "mods" is defined in this case as those which
the
original manufacturer offers, or any other subsequent modifications
which are allowable by the Faa.

Other modifications are restricted to non faa jurisdictions.

---

September 17th 10, 04:01 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 1:18Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 16, 10:56Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> No, you can never do any modifications to any LSA; it always has to conform
>> >> to the manufacturers, kit or pre-built, specifications.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Wrong!
>>
>> > That answer is patently wrong and I've given you
>> > the link here to prove it.
>>
>> > The manufacturer may send out paperwork as to
>> > allowable mods, and given the certification, you can
>> > do it yourself.
>>
>> OK, I see the problem here.
>>
>> You haven't a clue what the word "modification" means in terms of airplanes.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilo...
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51perc...

And you haven't a clue how to post a link that works.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

September 17th 10, 04:02 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 1:21Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 16, 10:56Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> > Question:
>> >> > "What about repairing and modifying my LSA? That’s legal just as with
>> >> > experimental aircraft, isn’t it?"
>>
>> >> > Answer:
>> >> > "Yes and no, it depends on the type of LSA. If you build your own
>> >> > experimental LSA (E-LSA), then you are the de facto A&P and can do
>> >> > repairs and mods."
>>
>> >> >http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-spor...
>>
>> >> Nope, not for a LSA.
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > An LSA? Â*Which type. ELSA? Â*SLSA? True for one,
>> > not for the other, but no is the wrong answer.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what kind of LSA it is, modifications are not allowed
>> to be done to LSA's.
>>
>> > I'm sorry Jim. Â*Your command of the English Language,
>>
>> The problem is the word "modification" has a particular legal meaning when
>> it comes to airplanes and you don't understand that.
>>
>> The English dictionary definition of "modification" is not the FAA legal
>> definition.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilo...
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51perc...

Yet more broken links.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

September 17th 10, 04:05 PM
Mark > wrote:
> Kevin Gould, CEO of Piper, explains they sell
> Czech sportcruisers with Piper decals.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4nrIm8XqkU
>
>
> ---
> Mark

Yep, after they make the Piper changes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CZAW_SportCruiser

"The changes to the aircraft are stronger nosegear, a Ballistic Recovery
Systems parachute and leather interior both as standard equipment, a
cockpit sunshade and modified pitch controls, plus a custom paint scheme."


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

September 17th 10, 04:08 PM
Mark > wrote:
> http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
> http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
> http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm

Nothing to do with LSA's and ignores 65.104 (a) (2).


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

September 17th 10, 04:11 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 8:24Â*am, Mark > wrote:
>> http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htmhttp://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htmhttp://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>
> http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-questions-so-many-questions.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
> http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-questions-so-many-questions.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
> http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-questions-so-many-questions.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

Not relevant to anything under discussion.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

September 17th 10, 04:25 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 8:35Â*am, Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 8:27Â*am, Mark > wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-spor......
>>
>> 10) What about repairing and modifying my LSA? That’s legal just as
>> with experimental aircraft, isn’t it?
>>
>> Yes and no, it depends on the type of LSA. If you build your own
>> experimental LSA (E-LSA), then you are the de facto A&P and can do
>> repairs and mods.
>
> The Faa definition of "mods" is defined in this case as those which
> the
> original manufacturer offers, or any other subsequent modifications
> which are allowable by the Faa.

Wrong yet again, if it is an experimental you can modify anything as long
as the results still meet the LSA rules, and fly under LSA rules.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

September 17th 10, 04:26 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 8:24Â*am, Mark > wrote:
>> http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htmhttp://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htmhttp://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>
> "What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
> finished it?
> It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had -
> as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their own
> education or recreation - if you can document or show documentation of
> the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the work!"



Which continues to ignore 65.104 (a) (2).


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark
September 17th 10, 04:36 PM
On Sep 17, 11:08*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> >http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
> >http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
> >http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>
> Nothing to do with LSA's and ignores 65.104 (a) (2).
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

http://www.sportaviationspecialties.com/Useful_Information.htm
http://www.sportaviationspecialties.com/Useful_Information.htm
http://www.sportaviationspecialties.com/Useful_Information.htm
http://www.sportaviationspecialties.com/Useful_Information.htm
http://www.sportaviationspecialties.com/Useful_Information.htm
http://www.sportaviationspecialties.com/Useful_Information.htm

---
Mark

September 17th 10, 05:12 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 8:27Â*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> 10) What about repairing and modifying my LSA? That’s legal just as
> with experimental aircraft, isn’t it?
>
> Yes and no, it depends on the type of LSA. If you build your own
> experimental LSA (E-LSA), then you are the de facto A&P and can do
> repairs and mods.

21.190 Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport
category aircraft.

21.191 Experimental certificates.

FAA Order 8000.84A

"Experimental, operating light-sport aircraft (ELSA). These types of
aircraft will be identified as ELSA for the purpose of this order. ELSA
are issued an experimental certificate under Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 21, section 21.191(i)."

Note that light-sport category aircraft are covered by 21.190 and that
21.191 are experimental.

Also note that aircraft with a certificate issued under 21.191(i) has to
be assembled "In accordance with manufacturer's assembly instructions" or
"been previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category under 21.190."

Bottom line:

If it is a kit of a production LSA or a kit provided by the manufacturer as
being a LSA, you can not deviate from the manufacturers assembly instructions
in any way.

If it is built under the provisions of 21.191 (g) or (h) and the final
product meets LSA specifications, it can be flown under LSA rules and you
can make modifications and continue to fly it under LSA rules as long as
the modifications continue to meet LSA specifications.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

September 17th 10, 05:23 PM
Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 11:08Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> >http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>> >http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>> >http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm
>>
>> Nothing to do with LSA's and ignores 65.104 (a) (2).
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> http://www.sportaviationspecialties.com/Useful_Information.htm

<snip idiotic multiple postings of the same link>

http://www.faa.gov



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ari Silverstein
September 17th 10, 05:33 PM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:01:23 -0000, wrote:

>>> OK, I see the problem here.
>>>
>>> Mark hasn't a clue what the word "modification" means in terms of airplanes.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilo...
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51perc...
>
> And you haven't a clue how to post a link that works.

*<knee slapper>*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Google