FAA suspends Bruno Vassel's Pilot Certificate

[son_of_flubber]

I searched and did not find that this topic was already posted on RAS.

Here's the video that documents the infraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=QwK9wu8Cxeo&feature=emb_logo

Here's Bruno's recent comment:

2 weeks ago
Update 10 months later: I uploaded this video and 4 days later had over 200k views. The video got reported and the FAA had serious concerns with this performance/flight. Lesson learned: Don't fly any kind of performance for any group or crowd (even if asked by the airshow management and cleared through the airboss) if you are NOT an approved airshow performer (have something called a SAC card)!!! The FAA will surely come after you with violations. The end result for me: $$ thousands spent on legal fees and I will soon be taking a 7 month break from flying. :( I was told I was very luck to not lose my license over this. Yikes! Why am I sharing all this? I only had good intentions of showing what a glider is capable of doing, but I am not a trained airshow performer and I didn't know the rules for airshow performances. If in doubt - don't do it! I hope this will help other pilots to not have to go through what I have over the last 10 months. Cheers and stay safe! Bruno - B4

[Paul Agnew]

Kudos to Bruno for his honesty in posting the update on his YouTube video. Tough lesson learned by one of the best promoters of soaring.

PA

[Shaun Wheeler]

I have had direct and positive/negative experiences with the FAA (or their assigns, agents, etc etc, ad nauseum, kiss my ass I'm not a lawyer).

Somebody made the point (read the comments) that nobody at Boeing has gone to jail for the (real) deaths caused by the 737 Max.

For those who missed it (or just don't give a ****), Boeing pushed for certification that did NOT require additional training for that aircraft. They did that DESPITE the fact it has fundamentally different ways of measuring AOA AND the fact of the matter is their official, published procedure, when followed, does not work. They did that at the same time they marketed it to third world carriers.

So....just to summarize -

Boeing ACTUALLY kills people - gets off scot free with the FAA

Bruno breaks a rule or two, gets a 7 month suspension.


Anybody else see anything wrong with this?

[Scott Williams[_2_]]

Too True!

The stated mission of the F.A.A.
To promote (huge corporations) and regulate (the little guy) Aviation.

Don't be the little guy!

[Charles Longley]

Wow bummer! Bruno is a super nice guy. I message him occasionally on FB for advice.

[2G]

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:46:49 PM UTC-7, Charles Longley wrote:
> Wow bummer! Bruno is a super nice guy. I message him occasionally on FB for advice.

Air shows are highly regulated events. I know - I have been involved in several as a volunteer. The FAA oversees each of these events, as is their duty as codified by law. All performers are expected to know the regulations, as in "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Here is an excerpt of these regulations (https://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapter%2006/03_006_001.htm):

1) Aerobatic Maneuvering. Requires a Statement of Aerobatic Competency (SAC) with an aerobatic maneuvering endorsement for civilian pilots (see subparagraph 3-146B).
a) In a solo flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the pitch attitude of the aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the horizon and/or the angle of bank is greater than 75 degrees in reference to the horizon.
b) In a formation flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the pitch attitude of an aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the horizon and/or the bank angle is greater than 75 degrees to the horizon.
2) Dynamic Maneuvering. Requires a SAC with a dynamic maneuvering endorsement for civilian pilots (see subparagraph 3-146B).
a) In a solo flight, dynamic maneuvering includes abrupt maneuvering, crossing maneuvers, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank limitations are when the pitch attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60 degrees above or below the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than or equal to 90 degrees in reference to the horizon.
b) In a formation flight, dynamic maneuvering includes formation separation, formation configuration/position changes, rejoins, crossing maneuvers, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank limitations are when the pitch attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60 degrees above or below the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than or equal to 75 degrees in reference to the horizon.

All of this has NOTHING to do with Boeing and aircraft certification.

Tom

[John DeRosa OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net]

Sorry Bruno. This really stinks.

So is the issue simply doing any flying at all in an "airshow" or specifically some aerobatics being performed? I assume the later.

I would think that at least some responsibility falls upon the airshow staff for them to check for required credentials. What would happen if someone without the proper ratings/endorsements, or even having a pilot's license, were to fly in a show and cause some mayhem?

[[email protected]]

To Shaun's statement,
Yes there is plenty wrong with your comments.
For one, many areas of litigation concerning the Max events are no where near over so to say they got away free is grossly inaccurate.

[[email protected]]

Definitely unfortunate, but a teaching moment compliments of Bruno.

In getting a private, there is FAR 91.303. Section e appears to cover the low pass. Sections a and b seem hard to avoid for the loops. Is there another FAR specifically related to the video?

Not sure about the SAC. It appears to be a carefully controlled path to exempt 91.103 to allow an airshow?


§ 91.303 Aerobatic flight.
No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight -

(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;

(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;

(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;

(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;

(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or

(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
[Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65661, Dec. 17, 1991]

[son_of_flubber]

The FAA found that he performed aerobatics without holding an SAC (Statement of Aerobatic Competency). https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.427.pdf

[Shaun Wheeler]

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 7:29:12 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> To Shaun's statement,
> Yes there is plenty wrong with your comments.
> For one, many areas of litigation concerning the Max events are no where near over so to say they got away free is grossly inaccurate.

My bad, JJD.

I was specifically speaking to regulatory oversight, not tort litigation.

Hope this helps.

[Scott Williams[_2_]]

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 12:25:20 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:46:49 PM UTC-7, Charles Longley wrote:
> > Wow bummer! Bruno is a super nice guy. I message him occasionally on FB for advice.
>
> Air shows are highly regulated events. I know - I have been involved in several as a volunteer. The FAA oversees each of these events, as is their duty as codified by law. All performers are expected to know the regulations, as in "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Here is an excerpt of these regulations (https://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapter%2006/03_006_001.htm):
>
> 1) Aerobatic Maneuvering. Requires a Statement of Aerobatic Competency (SAC) with an aerobatic maneuvering endorsement for civilian pilots (see subparagraph 3-146B).
> a) In a solo flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the pitch attitude of the aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the horizon and/or the angle of bank is greater than 75 degrees in reference to the horizon.
> b) In a formation flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the pitch attitude of an aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the horizon and/or the bank angle is greater than 75 degrees to the horizon.
> 2) Dynamic Maneuvering. Requires a SAC with a dynamic maneuvering endorsement for civilian pilots (see subparagraph 3-146B).
> a) In a solo flight, dynamic maneuvering includes abrupt maneuvering, crossing maneuvers, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank limitations are when the pitch attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60 degrees above or below the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than or equal to 90 degrees in reference to the horizon.
> b) In a formation flight, dynamic maneuvering includes formation separation, formation configuration/position changes, rejoins, crossing maneuvers, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank limitations are when the pitch attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60 degrees above or below the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than or equal to 75 degrees in reference to the horizon.
>
> All of this has NOTHING to do with Boeing and aircraft certification.
>
> Tom
turd in the punch bowl

n. A person who spoils a pleasant social situation.

This metaphor is powered by a particularly vivid contrast: the inviting sensory appeal of a festive beverage juxtaposed with the revolting suggestion of feculent contagion. Therefore, labeling someone a turd in the punch bowl is most appropriate when the individual's deleterious influence goes beyond mere faux pas or nuisance behaviors, and rises to the level of deliberate offense for its own sake. Consider that the literal act of depositing or excreting fecal matter into a communal food-service container would be sabotage.

The punch bowl and the feces connote certain additional nuances. The former is a symbol of public community, as such dispensers are frequently encountered at parties where they become a focal point for interaction. Freud famously identified feces with aggression and the possessive instinct. Thus a turd in the punch bowl suggests rage toward, and / or the urge to conquer, a community or society as a whole. Defecating into a punch bowl is a very public act, in contrast with poisoning the well or laying an upper decker, which are generally surreptitious. In particular then, to be a turd in the punch bowl is to be a willful and attention-seeking obstructor to the success of a social community.

[Jonathon May]

My sympathy is with is with Bruno but!!!
In England 3 or so years back an occasional display pilot got it wrong
at an air show and put his vintage jet onto the highwayman ,many
dead but not him.The aftermath is still going on.

It's not just the licence the whole flight has to be thought out ,written
out and agreed with every one.
If that was done the organises would have had to ask for all the
paperwork to show their "duty of care",it's not just Bruno's fault.

At a UK comp you need your comp licence ,glider inspection certs
,insurance and medical cert to compete.Because the organisers can't
afford any jack the lad thats done a bit turning up and putting
everyone else's life at risk.
And they do "forget their medical has lapsed or they forgot to pay
the insurance" .Thats why we check





At 17:11 27 June 2020, Scott Williams wrote:





>On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 12:25:20 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
>> On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:46:49 PM UTC-7, Charles Longley
wrote:
>> > Wow bummer! Bruno is a super nice guy. I message him
occasionally on
>FB=
> for advice.
>>=20
>> Air shows are highly regulated events. I know - I have been
involved in
>s=
>everal as a volunteer. The FAA oversees each of these events, as is
their
>d=
>uty as codified by law. All performers are expected to know the
>regulations=
>, as in "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Here is an excerpt of
these
>re=
>gulations
>
(https://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapt
er%20=
>06/03_006_001.htm):
>>=20
>> 1) Aerobatic Maneuvering. Requires a Statement of Aerobatic
>Competency=
> (SAC) with an aerobatic maneuvering endorsement for civilian
pilots (see
>s=
>ubparagraph 3-146B).
>> a) In a solo flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the pitch
attitude
>=
>of the aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the
horizon
>and/o=
>r the angle of bank is greater than 75 degrees in reference to the
horizon.
>> b) In a formation flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the
pitch
>atti=
>tude of an aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the
horizon
>a=
>nd/or the bank angle is greater than 75 degrees to the horizon.
>> 2) Dynamic Maneuvering. Requires a SAC with a dynamic
maneuvering
>endo=
>rsement for civilian pilots (see subparagraph 3-146B).
>> a) In a solo flight, dynamic maneuvering includes abrupt
maneuvering,
>=
>crossing maneuvers, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank
limitations
>=
>are when the pitch attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60
>deg=
>rees above or below the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than
or
>equal=
> to 90 degrees in reference to the horizon.
>> b) In a formation flight, dynamic maneuvering includes
formation
>separ=
>ation, formation configuration/position changes, rejoins, crossing
>maneuver=
>s, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank limitations are
when the
>pitc=
>h attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60 degrees above
or
>bel=
>ow the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than or equal to 75
degrees
>in=
> reference to the horizon.
>>=20
>> All of this has NOTHING to do with Boeing and aircraft
certification.
>>=20
>> Tom
>turd in the punch bowl
>
>n. A person who spoils a pleasant social situation.
>
>This metaphor is powered by a particularly vivid contrast: the
inviting
>sen=
>sory appeal of a festive beverage juxtaposed with the revolting
suggestion
>=
>of feculent contagion. Therefore, labeling someone a turd in the
punch
>bowl=
> is most appropriate when the individual's deleterious influence
goes
>beyon=
>d mere faux pas or nuisance behaviors, and rises to the level of
>deliberate=
> offense for its own sake. Consider that the literal act of depositing
or
>e=
>xcreting fecal matter into a communal food-service container would
be
>sabot=
>age.
>
>The punch bowl and the feces connote certain additional nuances.
The
>former=
> is a symbol of public community, as such dispensers are frequently
>encount=
>ered at parties where they become a focal point for interaction.
Freud
>famo=
>usly identified feces with aggression and the possessive instinct.
Thus a
>t=
>urd in the punch bowl suggests rage toward, and / or the urge to
conquer,
>a=
> community or society as a whole. Defecating into a punch bowl is a
very
>pu=
>blic act, in contrast with poisoning the well or laying an upper
decker,
>wh=
>ich are generally surreptitious. In particular then, to be a turd in the
>pu=
>nch bowl is to be a willful and attention-seeking obstructor to the
>success=
> of a social community.
>

[[email protected]]

If it was a true "airshow" with other performers that had done the low-level demo for FAA (that's how you get SAC) then the organizers surely knew better. Beware amateurs!

[Stephen Coan]

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 9:16:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Definitely unfortunate, but a teaching moment compliments of Bruno.
>
> In getting a private, there is FAR 91.303. Section e appears to cover the low pass. Sections a and b seem hard to avoid for the loops. Is there another FAR specifically related to the video?
>
> Not sure about the SAC. It appears to be a carefully controlled path to exempt 91.103 to allow an airshow?
>
>
> § 91.303 Aerobatic flight.
> No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight -
>
> (a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
>
> (b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
>
> (c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
>
> (d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
>
> (e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
>
> (f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
>
> For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
> [Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65661, Dec. 17, 1991]

Here's a few questions I have regarding this issue.
Was Bruno cleared or signed off by the airshow administration to conduct his routine or did he just decide to enter the controlled airspace and "do his thing?"
Airshow flying here in the U.S. is a highly regulated affair. I would say that 100% of airshow performers are members of ICAS - International Council of Airshows. To fly airshows, one must have his personal pilot certificates as well as aircraft documents to show the FAA upon inspection prior to the airshow. They will go over EVERYTHING including checking the currency of repack for the chute. All possible documentation will be scrupulously gone over.
Each airshow pilot must have a certificate of demonstrated ability or a "low level card". One is retested annually. It takes years to work your way down from the first level of 1,500 agl to a surface level card.
There are no restrictions with regard to what a pilot can and cannot do in an airshow aerobatic box - within limitations: no energy toward the crowd is one.
I personally cannot believe Bruno was cleared to fly his routine at a U.S. airshow by the organizers nor the FAA. The strictest guidelines are in place to protect both the performer and the crowds. An innocent mistake by Bruno, perhaps but unless he was sanctioned to fly the airshow by the organizers and the FAA, he should have know better.
Steve Coan
5 Time U.S. National Glider Aerobatic Champion
Airshow pilot for decades (retired)

[[email protected]]

7 months on the bench, bummer, I'd think you could surrender your license and earn a new one in a couple of weeks. Bonus it is cheaper than throwing lawyers at the gov't.

[Dan Marotta]

Sad, but interesting.Â* All military pilots are competent at aerobatics.Â*
Do they still need a SAC to perform at an air show?Â* Is this for any
aerobatics or just for low level aerobatics?Â* Inquiring minds and all
that...

Hey Bruno - I'm so sorry for your trouble and dumbfounded, too.

Dan

On 6/27/2020 7:36 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> The FAA found that he performed aerobatics without holding an SAC (Statement of Aerobatic Competency). https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.427.pdf

--
Dan, 5J

[Stephen Coan]

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 10:45:20 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Sad, but interesting.Â* All military pilots are competent at aerobatics.Â*
> Do they still need a SAC to perform at an air show?Â* Is this for any
> aerobatics or just for low level aerobatics?Â* Inquiring minds and all
> that...
>
> Hey Bruno - I'm so sorry for your trouble and dumbfounded, too.
>
> Dan
>
> On 6/27/2020 7:36 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > The FAA found that he performed aerobatics without holding an SAC (Statement of Aerobatic Competency). https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.427.pdf
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Military pilots are competent at some level of aerobatics and are not bound by the FAA the way civilian pilots are - ie SAC. At an airshow sanctioned by the FAA, a Statement of Aerobatic Competency card must be presented to the FAA Safety inspectors. A civilian pilot is not permitted to fly aerobatics at any altitude at an airshow without the card.
Sorry Bruno. An innocent mistake.
Steve C.

[IADPE]

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 9:37:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> 7 months on the bench, bummer, I'd think you could surrender your license and earn a new one in a couple of weeks. Bonus it is cheaper than throwing lawyers at the gov't.

In previous cases, once the FAA begins an investigation into an incident, they will not allow you to surrender. Once the verdict has been pronounced, it’s too late...

[[email protected]]

Well, it looks like I need to go back and erase a number of videos I did of people doing low passes, some in formation with other gliders? I know the occasional "impromptu" aerobatic performance is done here and there. Maybe those acknowledgments too need to be, shall we say, HIDDEN? The bottom line is that we do not know that which we do not know. And what we don't know might get us grounded if it does not kill us.

Always enjoyed Bruno's videos on Youtube.

Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot

[Scott Williams[_2_]]

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 8:46:20 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I searched and did not find that this topic was already posted on RAS.
>
> Here's the video that documents the infraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=QwK9wu8Cxeo&feature=emb_logo
>
> Here's Bruno's recent comment:
>
> 2 weeks ago
> Update 10 months later: I uploaded this video and 4 days later had over 200k views. The video got reported and the FAA had serious concerns with this performance/flight. Lesson learned: Don't fly any kind of performance for any group or crowd (even if asked by the airshow management and cleared through the airboss) if you are NOT an approved airshow performer (have something called a SAC card)!!! The FAA will surely come after you with violations. The end result for me: $$ thousands spent on legal fees and I will soon be taking a 7 month break from flying. :( I was told I was very luck to not lose my license over this. Yikes! Why am I sharing all this? I only had good intentions of showing what a glider is capable of doing, but I am not a trained airshow performer and I didn't know the rules for airshow performances. If in doubt - don't do it! I hope this will help other pilots to not have to go through what I have over the last 10 months. Cheers and stay safe! Bruno - B4

Thanks for sharing this information. Our Club has participated in airshows with static displays and provided aerotows to glider performers. I can honestly say that if an airshow boss had asked us for a demo flight, we might have been eager to show off a glider.
I wonder if the airboss was totally unaware of sailplane performance and expected a sedate, boring sledride from release to landing.
cheers,
Scott

[Karl Striedieck[_2_]]

Thanks for the report Bruno. I'd bet my (so far unnoticed) "infractions" exceed yours by a factor of 10.

Also thanks for the countless hours and hassle you contribute to the sport.

One observation that may have a safety implication was noted at 6:15 on the video. The left tip was probably closer to the ground than I would like.

Hoping you find a buddy with nice two-seater to slip some surly bonds in the immediate future.

KS

[[email protected]]

I agree with Karl..........when that low...........nose up, then roll..........like checking for your spot on the range.
Enjoy your videos,
JJ

[Roy B.]

The sad part about this is that while the suspension ends after a few months the effect of it goes on forever in insurance applications ("Have you ever had any enforcement actions?"), in Glider club applications ("any incidents or suspensions?") etc. The FAA used to have a policy of expunging suspensions after a period of no further violations - but that policy ended a few years ago.

To restate what KS said, the only difference between us and Bruno is that Bruno got caught. I got caught too (low level flying in a J3 Cub within 500' of a Park Ranger I never saw). All you can do is learn from it and avoid putting yourself in a position where your flying can be criticized by the FAA. Arguing about special treatment for Boeing, for Harrison Ford, or others is pointless. We put our own shirt tail in the wringer. Bruno did a service to warn others.

ROY

[Dan Marotta]

I watched a glider touch a wing tip to the ground in a low, low final
turn.Â* Pilot walked away, the glider is still in Fidel's shop.

On 6/28/2020 7:25 AM, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> Thanks for the report Bruno. I'd bet my (so far unnoticed) "infractions" exceed yours by a factor of 10.
>
> Also thanks for the countless hours and hassle you contribute to the sport.
>
> One observation that may have a safety implication was noted at 6:15 on the video. The left tip was probably closer to the ground than I would like.
>
> Hoping you find a buddy with nice two-seater to slip some surly bonds in the immediate future.
>
> KS
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 10:21:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> I agree with Karl..........when that low...........nose up, then roll..........like checking for your spot on the range.
> Enjoy your videos,
> JJ

The origin of the "50 foot" rule in contests, when using the line finish, comes from a pilot turning before pulling and running his wing tip through a corn field.
Observers said it sounded like a machine gun. He landed safely.
Yep- gotta pull before you roll.
UH

[Bob Youngblood]

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 9:25:43 AM UTC-4, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> Thanks for the report Bruno. I'd bet my (so far unnoticed) "infractions" exceed yours by a factor of 10.
>
> Also thanks for the countless hours and hassle you contribute to the sport.
>
> One observation that may have a safety implication was noted at 6:15 on the video. The left tip was probably closer to the ground than I would like.
>
> Hoping you find a buddy with nice two-seater to slip some surly bonds in the immediate future.
>
> KS

Well only thing that I can say is too bad the FAA guy had nothing better to do than bust a good ole glider guy. I liked the pass, I have seen better, by none other than the late E9. Yes I saw Alfonso do a pass where the grass was blazing and then pull up into a loop as Bennie and I were watching and laughing as he pulled out of the loop and made a 180 to land. E9, we miss you! Bob

[Delta8]

[QUOTE=Roy B.;t policy ended a few years ago.

To restate what KS said, the only difference between us and Bruno is that Bruno got caught. I got caught too (low level flying in a J3 Cub within 500' of a Park Ranger I never saw). s.

ROY[/QUOTE]

So motoring down a ridge is infraction if hikers are there ?????

[Bob T]

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 4:02:10 PM UTC-6, Bob Youngblood wrote:
> On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 9:25:43 AM UTC-4, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> > Thanks for the report Bruno. I'd bet my (so far unnoticed) "infractions" exceed yours by a factor of 10.
> >
> > Also thanks for the countless hours and hassle you contribute to the sport.
> >
> > One observation that may have a safety implication was noted at 6:15 on the video. The left tip was probably closer to the ground than I would like.
> >
> > Hoping you find a buddy with nice two-seater to slip some surly bonds in the immediate future.
> >
> > KS
>
> Well only thing that I can say is too bad the FAA guy had nothing better to do than bust a good ole glider guy. I liked the pass, I have seen better, by none other than the late E9. Yes I saw Alfonso do a pass where the grass was blazing and then pull up into a loop as Bennie and I were watching and laughing as he pulled out of the loop and made a 180 to land. E9, we miss you! Bob

Have I missed something.... I notice on yesterday's OLC that he posted a flight on OLC in his 27. ?????? https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=7906941

[Roy B.]

"Have I missed something.... I notice on yesterday's OLC that he posted a flight on OLC in his 27."

A suspension usually begins 30 days from the date of the order.
Roy

[SoaringXCellence]

Actually, his suspension is over, was given before the first of the year and occurred mostly during the virus shut-down time.

[Roy B.]

> >
> > So motoring down a ridge is infraction if hikers are there ?????
>

That is correct. read FAR 91.119 (c):

"Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Like I said, everyone who has ever been down a ridge with a "structure" or a "person" on it has violated this section. Most don't get caught . . . Some do.

ROY

[Stephen Struthers]

At 01:05 29 June 2020, Roy B. wrote:


So motoring down a ridge is infraction if hikers are there ?????


That is correct. read FAR 91.119 (c):

"Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:


(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above
the
surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In
those
cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
person,
vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Like I said, everyone who has ever been down a ridge with a
"structure" or
a "person" on it has violated this section. Most don't get caught . . .
Some do.

ROY

In the UK we have a get out clause

The Civil Aviation Authority permits, under SERA.3105 and
SERA.5005(f) a glider to fly below 150 metres (500 feet) above the
ground or water or closer than 150 metres (500 feet) to any
person, vessel, vehicle or structure if it is hill-soaring.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?
catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=7417

Stephen

[Shaun Wheeler]

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 7:43:12 PM UTC-5, Delta8 wrote:
> Roy B.;t policy ended a few years ago.
>
> To restate what KS said, the only difference between us and Bruno is that Bruno got caught. I got caught too (low level flying in a J3 Cub within 500' of a Park Ranger I never saw). s.
>
> ROY[/QUOTE Wrote:
> >
> >
> > So motoring down a ridge is infraction if hikers are there ?????
>
>
>
>
> --
> Delta8

Gotta watch out for those "pesky park rangers, Yogi".

[Roy B.]

Gotta watch out for those "pesky park rangers, Yogi".


Well BooBoo, that's one answer. But smaller registration numbers on the Cub would have helped, too.
ROY

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, June 29, 2020 at 9:31:51 AM UTC-4, Roy B. wrote:
> Gotta watch out for those "pesky park rangers, Yogi".
>
>
> Well BooBoo, that's one answer. But smaller registration numbers on the Cub would have helped, too.
> ROY

Or a faster airplane :-).

T8

[Dennis Cavagnaro]

Bruno was never in a position to go to jail! There was no crime In either case just violations. And if you think Boeing has gotten off easy then you must not have owned any of their stock.

DC

[Stephen Coan]

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:46:20 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I searched and did not find that this topic was already posted on RAS.
>
> Here's the video that documents the infraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=QwK9wu8Cxeo&feature=emb_logo
>
> Here's Bruno's recent comment:
>
> 2 weeks ago
> Update 10 months later: I uploaded this video and 4 days later had over 200k views. The video got reported and the FAA had serious concerns with this performance/flight. Lesson learned: Don't fly any kind of performance for any group or crowd (even if asked by the airshow management and cleared through the airboss) if you are NOT an approved airshow performer (have something called a SAC card)!!! The FAA will surely come after you with violations. The end result for me: $$ thousands spent on legal fees and I will soon be taking a 7 month break from flying. :( I was told I was very luck to not lose my license over this. Yikes! Why am I sharing all this? I only had good intentions of showing what a glider is capable of doing, but I am not a trained airshow performer and I didn't know the rules for airshow performances. If in doubt - don't do it! I hope this will help other pilots to not have to go through what I have over the last 10 months. Cheers and stay safe! Bruno - B4

I'm a bit confused.... I recently read a post from a performer at that airshow who stated that the airshow was over and that Bruno was asked to take a tow, fly around and then land and that no aerobatics was even discussed.

[Paul Agnew]

Listen to the audio again. Note the radio call when he's encouraged to keep going by the airshow boss.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:59:14 PM UTC-6, Paul Agnew wrote:
> Listen to the audio again. Note the radio call when he's encouraged to keep going by the airshow boss.

Perhaps the 'legal' issue was that the airshow NOTAM had expired. I believe Bruno was aware of this prior to his flight.

[Tango Whisky]

In the video he asked "Why not?"
I guess he's got his answer.

[Richard Smith]

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:46:20 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I searched and did not find that this topic was already posted on RAS.
>
> Here's the video that documents the infraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=QwK9wu8Cxeo&feature=emb_logo
>
> Here's Bruno's recent comment:
>
> 2 weeks ago
> Update 10 months later: I uploaded this video and 4 days later had over 200k views. The video got reported and the FAA had serious concerns with this performance/flight. Lesson learned: Don't fly any kind of performance for any group or crowd (even if asked by the airshow management and cleared through the airboss) if you are NOT an approved airshow performer (have something called a SAC card)!!! The FAA will surely come after you with violations. The end result for me: $$ thousands spent on legal fees and I will soon be taking a 7 month break from flying. :( I was told I was very luck to not lose my license over this. Yikes! Why am I sharing all this? I only had good intentions of showing what a glider is capable of doing, but I am not a trained airshow performer and I didn't know the rules for airshow performances. If in doubt - don't do it! I hope this will help other pilots to not have to go through what I have over the last 10 months. Cheers and stay safe! Bruno - B4

Bruno, that is a bummer, Sorry to hear about this. Always enjoy your videos. Hope to see you back in the air ASAP. Rich Smith ZD

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Dear Buno, I have followed this thread. I am sorry for your timeout. I really enjoy your videos and recommend your work to both pilots and non-pilots. Might I interest you in the benefits of two place flying? A guy like you could really use an ASH-30mi or similar. My most fun flights have been in a nimbus 3D or nimbus 4D, and you could probably find a partner that hasn’t been posting his sins on YouTube for years. All the best, can hardly wait for new soaring videos from you

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 6:05:27 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
> > >
> > > So motoring down a ridge is infraction if hikers are there ?????
> >
>
> That is correct. read FAR 91.119 (c):
>
> "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
>
> (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
>
> Like I said, everyone who has ever been down a ridge with a "structure" or a "person" on it has violated this section. Most don't get caught . . . Some do.
>
> ROY

I believe that for Gliders, down a ridge with structure or people is legal if it is your only legitimate source of lift, because according to FAR 91.3 B: In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. But per part C, you may have to defend it.

Dated info now, but 30ish years ago at Torrey Pines a friend did a wingover directly in front of the windows of the Cal Fisheries building (which is built on the edge of the cliff providing lift). I can't imagine a better seat for an airshow, and yes, it generated a visit from the FAA. The pilot stated that the wingover was necessary to keep the glider within the narrow band of lift offered by the steep ridge and that it was the only way to maintain enough altitude to affect a safe landing. No enforcement action followed.

And as others have said, Bruno, thanks for all the great videos, and for bringing this to everyone's attention. Glad your back up in the air!
-Greg

[Dee[_2_]]

Bruno, looks like you just started the 7-month hiatus from single seat flying on the 4th?. So, between July and next February if you're in Texas I'm sure we can find a ship you can use to help train some budding XC pilots.
Dee

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 9:30:07 PM UTC+1, Jonathon May wrote:
> My sympathy is with is with Bruno but!!!
> In England 3 or so years back an occasional display pilot got it wrong
> at an air show and put his vintage jet onto the highwayman ,many
> dead but not him.The aftermath is still going on.
>
> It's not just the licence the whole flight has to be thought out ,written
> out and agreed with every one.
> If that was done the organises would have had to ask for all the
> paperwork to show their "duty of care",it's not just Bruno's fault.
>
> At a UK comp you need your comp licence ,glider inspection certs
> ,insurance and medical cert to compete.Because the organisers can't
> afford any jack the lad thats done a bit turning up and putting
> everyone else's life at risk.
> And they do "forget their medical has lapsed or they forgot to pay
> the insurance" .Thats why we check
>
>
>
>
>
> At 17:11 27 June 2020, Scott Williams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 12:25:20 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:46:49 PM UTC-7, Charles Longley
> wrote:
> >> > Wow bummer! Bruno is a super nice guy. I message him
> occasionally on
> >FB=
> > for advice.
> >>=20
> >> Air shows are highly regulated events. I know - I have been
> involved in
> >s=
> >everal as a volunteer. The FAA oversees each of these events, as is
> their
> >d=
> >uty as codified by law. All performers are expected to know the
> >regulations=
> >, as in "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Here is an excerpt of
> these
> >re=
> >gulations
> >
> (https://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapt
> er%20=
> >06/03_006_001.htm):
> >>=20
> >> 1) Aerobatic Maneuvering. Requires a Statement of Aerobatic
> >Competency=
> > (SAC) with an aerobatic maneuvering endorsement for civilian
> pilots (see
> >s=
> >ubparagraph 3-146B).
> >> a) In a solo flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the pitch
> attitude
> >=
> >of the aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the
> horizon
> >and/o=
> >r the angle of bank is greater than 75 degrees in reference to the
> horizon.
> >> b) In a formation flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the
> pitch
> >atti=
> >tude of an aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the
> horizon
> >a=
> >nd/or the bank angle is greater than 75 degrees to the horizon.
> >> 2) Dynamic Maneuvering. Requires a SAC with a dynamic
> maneuvering
> >endo=
> >rsement for civilian pilots (see subparagraph 3-146B).
> >> a) In a solo flight, dynamic maneuvering includes abrupt
> maneuvering,
> >=
> >crossing maneuvers, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank
> limitations
> >=
> >are when the pitch attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60
> >deg=
> >rees above or below the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than
> or
> >equal=
> > to 90 degrees in reference to the horizon.
> >> b) In a formation flight, dynamic maneuvering includes
> formation
> >separ=
> >ation, formation configuration/position changes, rejoins, crossing
> >maneuver=
> >s, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank limitations are
> when the
> >pitc=
> >h attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60 degrees above
> or
> >bel=
> >ow the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than or equal to 75
> degrees
> >in=
> > reference to the horizon.
> >>=20
> >> All of this has NOTHING to do with Boeing and aircraft
> certification.
> >>=20
> >> Tom
> >turd in the punch bowl
> >
> >n. A person who spoils a pleasant social situation.
> >
> >This metaphor is powered by a particularly vivid contrast: the
> inviting
> >sen=
> >sory appeal of a festive beverage juxtaposed with the revolting
> suggestion
> >=
> >of feculent contagion. Therefore, labeling someone a turd in the
> punch
> >bowl=
> > is most appropriate when the individual's deleterious influence
> goes
> >beyon=
> >d mere faux pas or nuisance behaviors, and rises to the level of
> >deliberate=
> > offense for its own sake. Consider that the literal act of depositing
> or
> >e=
> >xcreting fecal matter into a communal food-service container would
> be
> >sabot=
> >age.
> >
> >The punch bowl and the feces connote certain additional nuances.
> The
> >former=
> > is a symbol of public community, as such dispensers are frequently
> >encount=
> >ered at parties where they become a focal point for interaction.
> Freud
> >famo=
> >usly identified feces with aggression and the possessive instinct.
> Thus a
> >t=
> >urd in the punch bowl suggests rage toward, and / or the urge to
> conquer,
> >a=
> > community or society as a whole. Defecating into a punch bowl is a
> very
> >pu=
> >blic act, in contrast with poisoning the well or laying an upper
> decker,
> >wh=
> >ich are generally surreptitious. In particular then, to be a turd in the
> >pu=
> >nch bowl is to be a willful and attention-seeking obstructor to the
> >success=
> > of a social community.
> >

There is so much still to come to light, such as an altimeter being fitted that was bought on Ebay
It certainly is not over
It is the regulations that do keep us all safe

[[email protected]]

On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 9:30:07 PM UTC+1, Jonathon May wrote:
> > My sympathy is with is with Bruno but!!!
> > In England 3 or so years back an occasional display pilot got it wrong
> > at an air show and put his vintage jet onto the highwayman ,many
> > dead but not him.The aftermath is still going on.
> >
> > It's not just the licence the whole flight has to be thought out ,written
> > out and agreed with every one.
> > If that was done the organises would have had to ask for all the
> > paperwork to show their "duty of care",it's not just Bruno's fault.
> >
> > At a UK comp you need your comp licence ,glider inspection certs
> > ,insurance and medical cert to compete.Because the organisers can't
> > afford any jack the lad thats done a bit turning up and putting
> > everyone else's life at risk.
> > And they do "forget their medical has lapsed or they forgot to pay
> > the insurance" .Thats why we check
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 17:11 27 June 2020, Scott Williams wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 12:25:20 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> > >> On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:46:49 PM UTC-7, Charles Longley
> > wrote:
> > >> > Wow bummer! Bruno is a super nice guy. I message him
> > occasionally on
> > >FB=
> > > for advice.
> > >>=20
> > >> Air shows are highly regulated events. I know - I have been
> > involved in
> > >s=
> > >everal as a volunteer. The FAA oversees each of these events, as is
> > their
> > >d=
> > >uty as codified by law. All performers are expected to know the
> > >regulations=
> > >, as in "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Here is an excerpt of
> > these
> > >re=
> > >gulations
> > >
> > (https://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapt
> > er%20=
> > >06/03_006_001.htm):
> > >>=20
> > >> 1) Aerobatic Maneuvering. Requires a Statement of Aerobatic
> > >Competency=
> > > (SAC) with an aerobatic maneuvering endorsement for civilian
> > pilots (see
> > >s=
> > >ubparagraph 3-146B).
> > >> a) In a solo flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the pitch
> > attitude
> > >=
> > >of the aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the
> > horizon
> > >and/o=
> > >r the angle of bank is greater than 75 degrees in reference to the
> > horizon.
> > >> b) In a formation flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the
> > pitch
> > >atti=
> > >tude of an aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the
> > horizon
> > >a=
> > >nd/or the bank angle is greater than 75 degrees to the horizon.
> > >> 2) Dynamic Maneuvering. Requires a SAC with a dynamic
> > maneuvering
> > >endo=
> > >rsement for civilian pilots (see subparagraph 3-146B).
> > >> a) In a solo flight, dynamic maneuvering includes abrupt
> > maneuvering,
> > >=
> > >crossing maneuvers, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank
> > limitations
> > >=
> > >are when the pitch attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60
> > >deg=
> > >rees above or below the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than
> > or
> > >equal=
> > > to 90 degrees in reference to the horizon.
> > >> b) In a formation flight, dynamic maneuvering includes
> > formation
> > >separ=
> > >ation, formation configuration/position changes, rejoins, crossing
> > >maneuver=
> > >s, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank limitations are
> > when the
> > >pitc=
> > >h attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60 degrees above
> > or
> > >bel=
> > >ow the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than or equal to 75
> > degrees
> > >in=
> > > reference to the horizon.
> > >>=20
> > >> All of this has NOTHING to do with Boeing and aircraft
> > certification.
> > >>=20
> > >> Tom
> > >turd in the punch bowl
> > >
> > >n. A person who spoils a pleasant social situation.
> > >
> > >This metaphor is powered by a particularly vivid contrast: the
> > inviting
> > >sen=
> > >sory appeal of a festive beverage juxtaposed with the revolting
> > suggestion
> > >=
> > >of feculent contagion. Therefore, labeling someone a turd in the
> > punch
> > >bowl=
> > > is most appropriate when the individual's deleterious influence
> > goes
> > >beyon=
> > >d mere faux pas or nuisance behaviors, and rises to the level of
> > >deliberate=
> > > offense for its own sake. Consider that the literal act of depositing
> > or
> > >e=
> > >xcreting fecal matter into a communal food-service container would
> > be
> > >sabot=
> > >age.
> > >
> > >The punch bowl and the feces connote certain additional nuances.
> > The
> > >former=
> > > is a symbol of public community, as such dispensers are frequently
> > >encount=
> > >ered at parties where they become a focal point for interaction.
> > Freud
> > >famo=
> > >usly identified feces with aggression and the possessive instinct.
> > Thus a
> > >t=
> > >urd in the punch bowl suggests rage toward, and / or the urge to
> > conquer,
> > >a=
> > > community or society as a whole. Defecating into a punch bowl is a
> > very
> > >pu=
> > >blic act, in contrast with poisoning the well or laying an upper
> > decker,
> > >wh=
> > >ich are generally surreptitious. In particular then, to be a turd in the
> > >pu=
> > >nch bowl is to be a willful and attention-seeking obstructor to the
> > >success=
> > > of a social community.
> > >
>
> There is so much still to come to light, such as an altimeter being fitted that was bought on Ebay
> It certainly is not over
> It is the regulations that do keep us all safe

Care to elaborate? If it is illegal to install an altimeter purchased from ebay, I'm rightly or wrongly assuming that is what you are suggesting, please point to the regulation that you are referring to. After all, as you say, it is the regulations that do keep us all safe.

[Scott Williams[_2_]]

The Glider Club I belong to is operating a 1956 Cessna 182 we bought off E-Bay.
We hit a buy it now, best deal ever. Saved our club from dissolving and we're very happy with it. 182s make great towplanes!!
Scott

[2G]

On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 10:39:01 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 9:30:07 PM UTC+1, Jonathon May wrote:
> > > My sympathy is with is with Bruno but!!!
> > > In England 3 or so years back an occasional display pilot got it wrong
> > > at an air show and put his vintage jet onto the highwayman ,many
> > > dead but not him.The aftermath is still going on.
> > >
> > > It's not just the licence the whole flight has to be thought out ,written
> > > out and agreed with every one.
> > > If that was done the organises would have had to ask for all the
> > > paperwork to show their "duty of care",it's not just Bruno's fault.
> > >
> > > At a UK comp you need your comp licence ,glider inspection certs
> > > ,insurance and medical cert to compete.Because the organisers can't
> > > afford any jack the lad thats done a bit turning up and putting
> > > everyone else's life at risk.
> > > And they do "forget their medical has lapsed or they forgot to pay
> > > the insurance" .Thats why we check
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 17:11 27 June 2020, Scott Williams wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 12:25:20 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:46:49 PM UTC-7, Charles Longley
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > Wow bummer! Bruno is a super nice guy. I message him
> > > occasionally on
> > > >FB=
> > > > for advice.
> > > >>=20
> > > >> Air shows are highly regulated events. I know - I have been
> > > involved in
> > > >s=
> > > >everal as a volunteer. The FAA oversees each of these events, as is
> > > their
> > > >d=
> > > >uty as codified by law. All performers are expected to know the
> > > >regulations=
> > > >, as in "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Here is an excerpt of
> > > these
> > > >re=
> > > >gulations
> > > >
> > > (https://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapt
> > > er%20=
> > > >06/03_006_001.htm):
> > > >>=20
> > > >> 1) Aerobatic Maneuvering. Requires a Statement of Aerobatic
> > > >Competency=
> > > > (SAC) with an aerobatic maneuvering endorsement for civilian
> > > pilots (see
> > > >s=
> > > >ubparagraph 3-146B).
> > > >> a) In a solo flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the pitch
> > > attitude
> > > >=
> > > >of the aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the
> > > horizon
> > > >and/o=
> > > >r the angle of bank is greater than 75 degrees in reference to the
> > > horizon.
> > > >> b) In a formation flight, aerobatic maneuvering is when the
> > > pitch
> > > >atti=
> > > >tude of an aircraft is greater than 60 degrees above or below the
> > > horizon
> > > >a=
> > > >nd/or the bank angle is greater than 75 degrees to the horizon.
> > > >> 2) Dynamic Maneuvering. Requires a SAC with a dynamic
> > > maneuvering
> > > >endo=
> > > >rsement for civilian pilots (see subparagraph 3-146B).
> > > >> a) In a solo flight, dynamic maneuvering includes abrupt
> > > maneuvering,
> > > >=
> > > >crossing maneuvers, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank
> > > limitations
> > > >=
> > > >are when the pitch attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60
> > > >deg=
> > > >rees above or below the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than
> > > or
> > > >equal=
> > > > to 90 degrees in reference to the horizon.
> > > >> b) In a formation flight, dynamic maneuvering includes
> > > formation
> > > >separ=
> > > >ation, formation configuration/position changes, rejoins, crossing
> > > >maneuver=
> > > >s, and opposing maneuvers. The pitch and bank limitations are
> > > when the
> > > >pitc=
> > > >h attitude of the aircraft is less than or equal to 60 degrees above
> > > or
> > > >bel=
> > > >ow the horizon and/or the bank angle is less than or equal to 75
> > > degrees
> > > >in=
> > > > reference to the horizon.
> > > >>=20
> > > >> All of this has NOTHING to do with Boeing and aircraft
> > > certification.
> > > >>=20
> > > >> Tom
> > > >turd in the punch bowl
> > > >
> > > >n. A person who spoils a pleasant social situation.
> > > >
> > > >This metaphor is powered by a particularly vivid contrast: the
> > > inviting
> > > >sen=
> > > >sory appeal of a festive beverage juxtaposed with the revolting
> > > suggestion
> > > >=
> > > >of feculent contagion. Therefore, labeling someone a turd in the
> > > punch
> > > >bowl=
> > > > is most appropriate when the individual's deleterious influence
> > > goes
> > > >beyon=
> > > >d mere faux pas or nuisance behaviors, and rises to the level of
> > > >deliberate=
> > > > offense for its own sake. Consider that the literal act of depositing
> > > or
> > > >e=
> > > >xcreting fecal matter into a communal food-service container would
> > > be
> > > >sabot=
> > > >age.
> > > >
> > > >The punch bowl and the feces connote certain additional nuances.
> > > The
> > > >former=
> > > > is a symbol of public community, as such dispensers are frequently
> > > >encount=
> > > >ered at parties where they become a focal point for interaction.
> > > Freud
> > > >famo=
> > > >usly identified feces with aggression and the possessive instinct.
> > > Thus a
> > > >t=
> > > >urd in the punch bowl suggests rage toward, and / or the urge to
> > > conquer,
> > > >a=
> > > > community or society as a whole. Defecating into a punch bowl is a
> > > very
> > > >pu=
> > > >blic act, in contrast with poisoning the well or laying an upper
> > > decker,
> > > >wh=
> > > >ich are generally surreptitious. In particular then, to be a turd in the
> > > >pu=
> > > >nch bowl is to be a willful and attention-seeking obstructor to the
> > > >success=
> > > > of a social community.
> > > >
> >
> > There is so much still to come to light, such as an altimeter being fitted that was bought on Ebay
> > It certainly is not over
> > It is the regulations that do keep us all safe
>
> Care to elaborate? If it is illegal to install an altimeter purchased from ebay, I'm rightly or wrongly assuming that is what you are suggesting, please point to the regulation that you are referring to. After all, as you say, it is the regulations that do keep us all safe.

It is the same as buying a used altimeter from a friend. If your aircraft is experimental, you can put anything in it. If it is certified, the ALT better be TSO'd.

Tom

[John Howell]

>It is the same as buying a used altimeter from a friend. If your aircraft
>i=
>s experimental, you can put anything in it. If it is certified, the ALT
>bet=
>ter be TSO'd.
>
>Tom
>

..and in Europe we don't have any such thing as an experimental category.

[Dan Marotta]

So, do you have home built or kit built aircraft in Europe?Â* If so, in
what category are they registered?Â* If not, that's a shame.

On 7/8/2020 12:59 AM, John Howell wrote:
>> It is the same as buying a used altimeter from a friend. If your aircraft
>> i=
>> s experimental, you can put anything in it. If it is certified, the ALT
>> bet=
>> ter be TSO'd.
>>
>> Tom
>>
> .and in Europe we don't have any such thing as an experimental category.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

Within most European countries there's experimental/homebuilt/amateur or ultralight categories and it's really not so different to the US, possibly easier. You can build and fly your own plane in almost all European countries..
The problem is crossing borders with them, the same as with your American-built experimental plane - you (may) need permission from the other country first.

The 'real' difference between EU countries and the US is the EU countries are much smaller.

On Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 9:05:12 PM UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
> So, do you have home built or kit built aircraft in Europe?Â* If so, in
> what category are they registered?Â* If not, that's a shame.
>
> On 7/8/2020 12:59 AM, John Howell wrote:
> >> It is the same as buying a used altimeter from a friend. If your aircraft
> >> i=
> >> s experimental, you can put anything in it. If it is certified, the ALT
> >> bet=
> >> ter be TSO'd.
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> > .and in Europe we don't have any such thing as an experimental category..
> >
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

Good information - thanks!

I'm 37.5 hours into the Phase I Experimental Test Flight program of my
Polish-built gyroplane kit.Â* So far, so good with only a few minor
glitches and I plan to begin the 500 nm flight home on Saturday
morning.Â* I'm pretty sure I can't fly it into Canada and I don't know
about Mexico.Â* But there's so much of the western US that I can't wait
to explore a bit lower than at sailplane altitudes. :-D

On 7/9/2020 3:29 AM, wrote:
> Within most European countries there's experimental/homebuilt/amateur or ultralight categories and it's really not so different to the US, possibly easier. You can build and fly your own plane in almost all European countries.
> The problem is crossing borders with them, the same as with your American-built experimental plane - you (may) need permission from the other country first.
>
> The 'real' difference between EU countries and the US is the EU countries are much smaller.
>
> On Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 9:05:12 PM UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> So, do you have home built or kit built aircraft in Europe?Â* If so, in
>> what category are they registered?Â* If not, that's a shame.
>>
>> On 7/8/2020 12:59 AM, John Howell wrote:
>>>> It is the same as buying a used altimeter from a friend. If your aircraft
>>>> i=
>>>> s experimental, you can put anything in it. If it is certified, the ALT
>>>> bet=
>>>> ter be TSO'd.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>> .and in Europe we don't have any such thing as an experimental category.
>>>
>> --
>> Dan, 5J

--
Dan, 5J