Wondering What Light Sport Can Do For You?

[Gilan]

Wondering What Light Sport Can Do For You?
Maybe you are a private pilot but never renewed your medical then Sport
Pilot is a great place for you. Discussions on the new (LSA) Light-Sport
Aircraft and Sport Pilot license. Please ask questions. Talk about anything
related to Light-Sport Aircraft and the Sport Pilot license. Many UL
pilots across the country need to transition to Sport Pilot so if you are
one of them and need some answers don't waste any more time start asking.
Deadlines are coming up fast!

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:51:06 -0700, "Gilan" > wrote in
<vE8xg.122192$TK1.55545@fed1read06>::

>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

We discuss LSA in rec.aviation.piloting.

[Da Monk]

Gilan wrote:
> Wondering What Light Sport Can Do For You?
> Maybe you are a private pilot but never renewed your medical then Sport
> Pilot is a great place for you. Discussions on the new (LSA) Light-Sport
> Aircraft and Sport Pilot license. Please ask questions. Talk about anything
> related to Light-Sport Aircraft and the Sport Pilot license. Many UL
> pilots across the country need to transition to Sport Pilot so if you are
> one of them and need some answers don't waste any more time start asking.
> Deadlines are coming up fast!
>
> Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
> See ya on Sport Aircraft group
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

Is that guy landing that thing "wheels up" on the grass or did he
retract them that early in the takeoff?

Monk

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Da Monk" > wrote

> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>
> Is that guy landing that thing "wheels up" on the grass or did he
> retract them that early in the takeoff?

Low pass? With a seaplane, he could have landed, and done nothing more than
scratched the paint.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Da Monk wrote:
> ...
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>
> Is that guy landing that thing "wheels up" on the grass or did he
> retract them that early in the takeoff?
>

Retractable landing gear are not permitted on Light Sport Aircraft.

Supposedly the FAA has approved at least one exemption for
an amphiban and may extend that to all amphibians.

Otherwise, someone needs to work on designs for retractable
floats...

--

FF

[cavelamb]

Morgans wrote:
> "Da Monk" > wrote
>
>
>>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>>
>>Is that guy landing that thing "wheels up" on the grass or did he
>>retract them that early in the takeoff?
>
>
> Low pass? With a seaplane, he could have landed, and done nothing more than
> scratched the paint.

A neighbor at Zuehl (grass runway) landed his 210 gear up a couple years back.

The ONLY dammage (other than the curly prop) was an antenna on the belly.
Heck, the pain wasn't even scratched!

Richard

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article t>,
cavelamb > wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
> > "Da Monk" > wrote
> >
> >
> >>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
> >>
> >>Is that guy landing that thing "wheels up" on the grass or did he
> >>retract them that early in the takeoff?
> >
> >
> > Low pass? With a seaplane, he could have landed, and done nothing more than
> > scratched the paint.
>
> A neighbor at Zuehl (grass runway) landed his 210 gear up a couple years back.
>
> The ONLY dammage (other than the curly prop) was an antenna on the belly.
> Heck, the pain wasn't even scratched!
>
> Richard

Oh, I'm SURE that the pain WAS scratched! In fact, I'm sure that the
pain was in a bleeding wallet!

[Jose[_1_]]

> The ONLY dammage (other than the curly prop) was an antenna on the belly.
> Heck, the pain wasn't even scratched!

If I landed a 210 on its belly, I can guarantee you my pain will be more
than scratched. But if it has a curly prop, chances are good it will
need an engine teardown.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[CB]

IIRC (Ron, back me up on this?) dual-position gear are permitted for
amphibian LSAs. You don't need a case-by-case exemption.

wrote:
> Da Monk wrote:
> > ...
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
> >
> > Is that guy landing that thing "wheels up" on the grass or did he
> > retract them that early in the takeoff?
> >
>
> Retractable landing gear are not permitted on Light Sport Aircraft.
>
> Supposedly the FAA has approved at least one exemption for
> an amphiban and may extend that to all amphibians.
>
> Otherwise, someone needs to work on designs for retractable
> floats...
>
> --
>
> FF

[Jim Macklin]

But in the wisdom of a government career employee, they
can't be changed in flight, makes it rather hard to take-off
on the water with the wheels down so you can land on terra
firma.



"CB" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| IIRC (Ron, back me up on this?) dual-position gear are
permitted for
| amphibian LSAs. You don't need a case-by-case exemption.
|
| wrote:
| > Da Monk wrote:
| > > ...
| > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
| > >
| > > Is that guy landing that thing "wheels up" on the
grass or did he
| > > retract them that early in the takeoff?
| > >
| >
| > Retractable landing gear are not permitted on Light
Sport Aircraft.
| >
| > Supposedly the FAA has approved at least one exemption
for
| > an amphiban and may extend that to all amphibians.
| >
| > Otherwise, someone needs to work on designs for
retractable
| > floats...
| >
| > --
| >
| > FF
|

[[email protected]]

CB wrote:
> IIRC (Ron, back me up on this?) dual-position gear are permitted for
> amphibian LSAs. You don't need a case-by-case exemption.
>
> wrote:
> > Da Monk wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
> > >
> > > Is that guy landing that thing "wheels up" on the grass or did he
> > > retract them that early in the takeoff?
> > >
> >
> > Retractable landing gear are not permitted on Light Sport Aircraft.
> >
> > Supposedly the FAA has approved at least one exemption for
> > an amphiban and may extend that to all amphibians.
> >
> > Otherwise, someone needs to work on designs for retractable
> > floats...

Another point of contention was the distinction between
retractible and in-flight repositionable gear.

--

FF

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Rozxg.84176$ZW3.80192@dukeread04...
> But in the wisdom of a government career employee, they
> can't be changed in flight, makes it rather hard to take-off
> on the water with the wheels down so you can land on terra
> firma.

Given the risk of landing gear down on the water, I think this is an example
of where the FAA got it right. You decide before the flight whether you are
doing a seaplane flight or a land flight.

The whole point of LSA is to allow greatly reduced training costs and
airplane certification costs without reducing safety. Effectively creating
a limited seaplane rating does this.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

But once you're on land, you can't retract the wheels to
land on water. And if you're on water you can take-off and
land on terra firma. Unless a belly landing is expected and
then put the wheels down.

Of course, I plan to win the lottery and buy a dozen or so
LSA, for different uses. I'll have a Cub type on wheels,
another on straight floats, one with steam gauges and
another with a glass cockpit. Then I'll have one that
cruises at the top speed limit for day trips of 500 miles
one-way.

And I'll hire some young pilot and get him a type rating in
a Beechjet, he'll be my medical.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Rozxg.84176$ZW3.80192@dukeread04...
| > But in the wisdom of a government career employee, they
| > can't be changed in flight, makes it rather hard to
take-off
| > on the water with the wheels down so you can land on
terra
| > firma.
|
| Given the risk of landing gear down on the water, I think
this is an example
| of where the FAA got it right. You decide before the
flight whether you are
| doing a seaplane flight or a land flight.
|
| The whole point of LSA is to allow greatly reduced
training costs and
| airplane certification costs without reducing safety.
Effectively creating
| a limited seaplane rating does this.
|
| Pete
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:ALzxg.84177$ZW3.19576@dukeread04...
> But once you're on land, you can't retract the wheels to
> land on water. And if you're on water you can take-off and
> land on terra firma.

Yes, I know. What's your point? The LSA area has many restrictions. This
is one of them. As with the other restrictions, it simplifies a certain
area of aviation, removing one of the most significant risks from seaplane
operations.

Would you have preferred they simply didn't allow water flying under LSA at
all? Because that's the only other option that would have been consistent
with the "low training, cheap certification, acceptable safety" goals of
LSA.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

Then why did they approve of amphibians?




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:ALzxg.84177$ZW3.19576@dukeread04...
| > But once you're on land, you can't retract the wheels to
| > land on water. And if you're on water you can take-off
and
| > land on terra firma.
|
| Yes, I know. What's your point? The LSA area has many
restrictions. This
| is one of them. As with the other restrictions, it
simplifies a certain
| area of aviation, removing one of the most significant
risks from seaplane
| operations.
|
| Would you have preferred they simply didn't allow water
flying under LSA at
| all? Because that's the only other option that would have
been consistent
| with the "low training, cheap certification, acceptable
safety" goals of
| LSA.
|
| Pete
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:b9Jxg.84217$ZW3.53266@dukeread04...
> Then why did they approve of amphibians?

They didn't.

[Jim Macklin]

They did.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:b9Jxg.84217$ZW3.53266@dukeread04...
| > Then why did they approve of amphibians?
|
| They didn't.
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:z3Oxg.84242$ZW3.36485@dukeread04...
> They did.

No, they didn't. They approved airplanes that can be configured as *either*
a seaplane, or a landplane, but not both at the same time. A frog doesn't
have to decide ahead of time whether it's going to swim or walk.

A true amphibian has particular operating characteristics unique to
amphibians, not shared with an ordinary seaplane or an ordinary landplane.
The LSA requirements specifically exclude airplanes with these particular
operating characteristics, by excluding true amphibians.

Pete

[Kingfish]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>> A frog doesn't have to decide ahead of time whether it's going to swim or walk.<<

Lucky for him, otherwise he might fall under the auspices of some
obscure government regulation...

[Jim Macklin]

yep
"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote
in message
...
| "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
|
| >A true amphibian has particular operating characteristics
unique to
| >amphibians, not shared with an ordinary seaplane or an
ordinary landplane.
| >The LSA requirements specifically exclude airplanes with
these particular
| >operating characteristics, by excluding true amphibians.
|
| It is worth noting, however, that the FAA has granted at
| least one waiver to that exclusion, permitting a true
| amphibian with the ability to take off on either land or
| water and land on the other.
|
| --
| Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a
spin it will return to earth without further attention on
the part of the aeronaut.
|
| (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Ken Finney]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote
>
>> It is worth noting, however, that the FAA has granted at
>> least one waiver to that exclusion, permitting a true
>> amphibian with the ability to take off on either land or
>> water and land on the other.
>
> I thought I remember reading that the FAA had given assurances to someone
> (EAA?) that there would be new language to work out the problem of
> repositionable gear for amphibians. Am I dreaming this, or does anybody
> else remember this, too?

http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/pr%20new.html

[Morgans[_3_]]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote

> It is worth noting, however, that the FAA has granted at
> least one waiver to that exclusion, permitting a true
> amphibian with the ability to take off on either land or
> water and land on the other.

I thought I remember reading that the FAA had given assurances to someone
(EAA?) that there would be new language to work out the problem of
repositionable gear for amphibians. Am I dreaming this, or does anybody
else remember this, too?
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> You might read the Exemption as saying that the reasoning
> behind granting it applies only to the specific design of
> the Mermaid:
>
> "The FAA finds the structural integrity of the Mermaid
> aircraft is enhanced by its "flying boat" design. This
> design offers increased protection for the occupants in
> event of landing with improperly positioned landing gear. "

Interesting.

The finding of "structural integrity" would apply to any amphibian,
boat-hull or float-equipped. It's almost as though the FAA was not at all
concerned about gear-down water landings, but rather gear-up land landings,
and that it's really just the prohibition against retractable gear as it
relates to the usual landplane retractable gear issues that they were
focused on.

If so, I take back what I said about the FAA's thinking making sense. As an
owner of an amphib myself, I suppose I might have jumped to conclusions and
given the FAA the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they correctly
identified gear-down water landings as a significant safety risk that LSA
ought to avoid (gear-up on land is usually just expensive, gear-down on
water is often fatal and at a minimum almost always involves injuries). But
based on a reading of the text you've quoted, it seems they might have
foolishly just been worried about gear-up landings on land and don't really
care about the water-flying issues.

It will be interesting to see if they extend this waiver from the "no
retractable gear" rule for all amphibious LSA aircraft. If so, then they
are just being foolishly inconsistent, as usual. :(

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

If you splashdown in a Lake with the wheels down, the water
will enter the nosewheel compartment and cause some very
serious problems with the next take-off. The airplane will
perform an imitation of a submarine.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "T o d d P a t t i s t" >
wrote in message
| ...
| > [...]
| > You might read the Exemption as saying that the
reasoning
| > behind granting it applies only to the specific design
of
| > the Mermaid:
| >
| > "The FAA finds the structural integrity of the Mermaid
| > aircraft is enhanced by its "flying boat" design. This
| > design offers increased protection for the occupants in
| > event of landing with improperly positioned landing
gear. "
|
| Interesting.
|
| The finding of "structural integrity" would apply to any
amphibian,
| boat-hull or float-equipped. It's almost as though the
FAA was not at all
| concerned about gear-down water landings, but rather
gear-up land landings,
| and that it's really just the prohibition against
retractable gear as it
| relates to the usual landplane retractable gear issues
that they were
| focused on.
|
| If so, I take back what I said about the FAA's thinking
making sense. As an
| owner of an amphib myself, I suppose I might have jumped
to conclusions and
| given the FAA the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they
correctly
| identified gear-down water landings as a significant
safety risk that LSA
| ought to avoid (gear-up on land is usually just expensive,
gear-down on
| water is often fatal and at a minimum almost always
involves injuries). But
| based on a reading of the text you've quoted, it seems
they might have
| foolishly just been worried about gear-up landings on land
and don't really
| care about the water-flying issues.
|
| It will be interesting to see if they extend this waiver
from the "no
| retractable gear" rule for all amphibious LSA aircraft.
If so, then they
| are just being foolishly inconsistent, as usual. :(
|
| Pete
|
|

[Ken Finney]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> You might read the Exemption as saying that the reasoning
>> behind granting it applies only to the specific design of
>> the Mermaid:
>>
>> "The FAA finds the structural integrity of the Mermaid
>> aircraft is enhanced by its "flying boat" design. This
>> design offers increased protection for the occupants in
>> event of landing with improperly positioned landing gear. "
>
> Interesting.
>
> The finding of "structural integrity" would apply to any amphibian,
> boat-hull or float-equipped. It's almost as though the FAA was not at all
> concerned about gear-down water landings, but rather gear-up land
> landings, and that it's really just the prohibition against retractable
> gear as it relates to the usual landplane retractable gear issues that
> they were focused on.
>
> If so, I take back what I said about the FAA's thinking making sense. As
> an owner of an amphib myself, I suppose I might have jumped to conclusions
> and given the FAA the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they correctly
> identified gear-down water landings as a significant safety risk that LSA
> ought to avoid (gear-up on land is usually just expensive, gear-down on
> water is often fatal and at a minimum almost always involves injuries).
> But based on a reading of the text you've quoted, it seems they might have
> foolishly just been worried about gear-up landings on land and don't
> really care about the water-flying issues.
>
> It will be interesting to see if they extend this waiver from the "no
> retractable gear" rule for all amphibious LSA aircraft. If so, then they
> are just being foolishly inconsistent, as usual. :(
>
> Pete
>

OK, the scoop I've been told SEVERAL times by the EAA is that the FAA
screwed up, and was "shocked" to see how the final wording read. But, being
a bureacracy, you can't ever admit to being wrong, so they had to come up
with words to solve the immediate problem, and words to solve the permanent
problem, all without admitting a mistake in the first place. When viewed in
that light, the Exemption wording makes a lot of sense.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:fc8yg.84357$ZW3.70188@dukeread04...
> If you splashdown in a Lake with the wheels down, the water
> will enter the nosewheel compartment and cause some very
> serious problems with the next take-off. The airplane will
> perform an imitation of a submarine.

How many times have you landed a Lake in the water with the wheels down?
What data do you have to support your claim that the consequences you
mention are assured? And why in the world do you think that water in the
nosewheel compartment will "cause some very serious problems with the next
take-off"? For someone who presumes to know what will happen in a gear-down
landing in a Lake amphib, it's interesting to note that you clearly have no
idea that the nosewheel compartment of a Lake amphib is not watertight, and
that water inside it is not an issue whatsoever.

I am amazed at your willingness to make claims regarding topics you
obviously know nothing about.

[Jim Macklin]

When I learned to fly a seaplane, the instructor, a very
experienced seaplane pilot recounted his personal witnessed
landing of a Lake with the wheels down. He is dead now of
old age, so I guess you can just take my word that it isn't
a good idea or you can buy a Lake and try it for yourself.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:fc8yg.84357$ZW3.70188@dukeread04...
| > If you splashdown in a Lake with the wheels down, the
water
| > will enter the nosewheel compartment and cause some very
| > serious problems with the next take-off. The airplane
will
| > perform an imitation of a submarine.
|
| How many times have you landed a Lake in the water with
the wheels down?
| What data do you have to support your claim that the
consequences you
| mention are assured? And why in the world do you think
that water in the
| nosewheel compartment will "cause some very serious
problems with the next
| take-off"? For someone who presumes to know what will
happen in a gear-down
| landing in a Lake amphib, it's interesting to note that
you clearly have no
| idea that the nosewheel compartment of a Lake amphib is
not watertight, and
| that water inside it is not an issue whatsoever.
|
| I am amazed at your willingness to make claims regarding
topics you
| obviously know nothing about.
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> [...] But based on a reading of the text you've quoted, it seems they
> might have foolishly just been worried about gear-up landings on land and
> don't really care about the water-flying issues.

Well, I've had a chance to read the whole document now, and it appears that
the FAA believes that with smaller airplanes (ie LSA sized airplanes), a
gear-down water landing is "no big deal", at least with boat-hull amphibs.
They claim that the Seaplane Pilots Association has provided data that
somehow proves this. I know that my insurance company certainly does not
feel it's true, at least for the larger boat-hull amphibs such as the one I
own.

So, it seems that perhaps the FAA is considering this issue carefully and
rationally after all. The document refers to the NPRM for the Sport Pilot
stuff, which I haven't had a chance to read, saying that the NPRM itself
outlines the motivation behind the retractable gear language that's
currently in the rules. Obviously, reading the NPRM would offer a lot of
insight into the thinking behind those rules, as opposed to the various
inferences made in this thread.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:2u8yg.84360$ZW3.50960@dukeread04...
> When I learned to fly a seaplane, the instructor, a very
> experienced seaplane pilot recounted his personal witnessed
> landing of a Lake with the wheels down. He is dead now of
> old age, so I guess you can just take my word that it isn't
> a good idea or you can buy a Lake and try it for yourself.

I am unclear as to your point. I wrote in my post that gear-down landings
are hazardous. You replied in a way that implied disagreement. Now you are
claiming that "it isn't a good idea", which is exactly what I've been saying
all along.

Do you, or do you not, agree with me that gear-down landings on the water
are hazardous?

As far as buying a Lake and trying it myself, I own a Lake and would never
intentionally land it gear down, for the very reasons I've stated repeatedly
in this thread. If you'd been paying any attention, you'd realize that.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

I think you completely misread my posts and the intention.

Landing gear down is important on land and gear up on water
is even more important.

The Lake with the wheels down has a large scoop effect on
the nose compartment. On the airplane that was seen, the
water blew out the nose compartment bulkhead. A rapid dive
was the result. Perhaps Lake has strengthened the bulkhead.

On a floatplane with conventional floats, a level or nose
low landing or rough water can [will] dig in and cause the
airplane to flip and sink until the floats are at the
surface and the cabin is under about 6 to 10 feet. With
amphibian floats and a proper nose high landing, being
flipped upside down is still a possibility and no worse than
with conventional floats.

It seems that even a sport pilot with just a few hours could
be taught to raise and lower the gear. I think as much as
safety, the FAA position on LSA is based on retractable
landplanes exceeding the speed limit, something no
floatplane will do.

I hold an ATP but presently no medical. I could fly a LSA,
it does seem that there may be more restrictions than are
necessary. I think a 61.31 endorsement should handle these
types of issues, just as sport pilots can get an endorsement
for different airspace classification, something a student
pilot can handle at 15-20 hours and night flight is allowed
student pilots but not sport pilots.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:2u8yg.84360$ZW3.50960@dukeread04...
| > When I learned to fly a seaplane, the instructor, a very
| > experienced seaplane pilot recounted his personal
witnessed
| > landing of a Lake with the wheels down. He is dead now
of
| > old age, so I guess you can just take my word that it
isn't
| > a good idea or you can buy a Lake and try it for
yourself.
|
| I am unclear as to your point. I wrote in my post that
gear-down landings
| are hazardous. You replied in a way that implied
disagreement. Now you are
| claiming that "it isn't a good idea", which is exactly
what I've been saying
| all along.
|
| Do you, or do you not, agree with me that gear-down
landings on the water
| are hazardous?
|
| As far as buying a Lake and trying it myself, I own a Lake
and would never
| intentionally land it gear down, for the very reasons I've
stated repeatedly
| in this thread. If you'd been paying any attention, you'd
realize that.
|
| Pete
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:yR8yg.84361$ZW3.33772@dukeread04...
>I think you completely misread my posts and the intention.
>
> Landing gear down is important on land and gear up on water
> is even more important.

So you are agreeing with my point.

> [...]
> It seems that even a sport pilot with just a few hours could
> be taught to raise and lower the gear.

You'd think a full-fledged Private certificate holder could be taught the
same. And yet, landings with the gear in the wrong position continue to
happen.

And that's my point. The Sport Pilot rules are specifically designed to try
to remove some of the more common opportunities for error that the general
pilot population runs into. It seems plausible that the FAA was trying to
address one of those common opportunities by restricting the type of landing
gear an LSA airplane is allowed to have.

> I think as much as
> safety, the FAA position on LSA is based on retractable
> landplanes exceeding the speed limit, something no
> floatplane will do.

I doubt that. The airspeed limit can be exceeded even with fixed-gear
designs, and it's simple enough to flight test any design to find whether it
exceeds the LSA speed limit or not. There should be no reason to add
addition design restrictions for that purpose.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

I think that you are agreeing with me on the basic point, I
never said that landings with the gear in the wrong position
are safe. I also not that high time commercial and ATP and
even CFI land gear up on runways, the USAF landed a C130 on
the water runway at Patterson, LA many years ago. It was
night and the crew saw the runway lights and landed. The
runway they selected was water with green edge lights and
white threshold lights. Brings to mind that 3,000 foot wide
runway only 150 feet long.

I'm just not look for an argument.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:yR8yg.84361$ZW3.33772@dukeread04...
| >I think you completely misread my posts and the
intention.
| >
| > Landing gear down is important on land and gear up on
water
| > is even more important.
|
| So you are agreeing with my point.
|
| > [...]
| > It seems that even a sport pilot with just a few hours
could
| > be taught to raise and lower the gear.
|
| You'd think a full-fledged Private certificate holder
could be taught the
| same. And yet, landings with the gear in the wrong
position continue to
| happen.
|
| And that's my point. The Sport Pilot rules are
specifically designed to try
| to remove some of the more common opportunities for error
that the general
| pilot population runs into. It seems plausible that the
FAA was trying to
| address one of those common opportunities by restricting
the type of landing
| gear an LSA airplane is allowed to have.
|
| > I think as much as
| > safety, the FAA position on LSA is based on retractable
| > landplanes exceeding the speed limit, something no
| > floatplane will do.
|
| I doubt that. The airspeed limit can be exceeded even
with fixed-gear
| designs, and it's simple enough to flight test any design
to find whether it
| exceeds the LSA speed limit or not. There should be no
reason to add
| addition design restrictions for that purpose.
|
| Pete
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:%Pdyg.84400$ZW3.14020@dukeread04...
>I think that you are agreeing with me on the basic point

If it makes your ego feel better to word it that way, that's fine with me.
Even though it was I who first brought up the issue of the hazard of
gear-down water landings. :p

[Jim Macklin]

Is this sweeps week?



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:%Pdyg.84400$ZW3.14020@dukeread04...
| >I think that you are agreeing with me on the basic point
|
| If it makes your ego feel better to word it that way,
that's fine with me.
| Even though it was I who first brought up the issue of the
hazard of
| gear-down water landings. :p
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:lbfyg.84408$ZW3.66092@dukeread04...
> Is this sweeps week?

Yes, and the ratings count double.

[Jim Macklin]

LOL


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:lbfyg.84408$ZW3.66092@dukeread04...
| > Is this sweeps week?
|
| Yes, and the ratings count double.
|
|

[cavelamb]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article t>,
> cavelamb > wrote:
>
>
>>Morgans wrote:
>>
>>>"Da Monk" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>>>>
>>>>Is that guy landing that thing "wheels up" on the grass or did he
>>>>retract them that early in the takeoff?
>>>
>>>
>>>Low pass? With a seaplane, he could have landed, and done nothing more than
>>>scratched the paint.
>>
>>A neighbor at Zuehl (grass runway) landed his 210 gear up a couple years back.
>>
>>The ONLY dammage (other than the curly prop) was an antenna on the belly.
>>Heck, the pain wasn't even scratched!
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> Oh, I'm SURE that the pain WAS scratched! In fact, I'm sure that the
> pain was in a bleeding wallet!

I saw that after I posted it...

No dammage to the PainT...

You are right about the bleeding wallet though.

That prop still hasn't been replaced.
Sad...


Ricahrd

[Highflyer]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> The ONLY dammage (other than the curly prop) was an antenna on the belly.
>> Heck, the pain wasn't even scratched!
>
> If I landed a 210 on its belly, I can guarantee you my pain will be more
> than scratched. But if it has a curly prop, chances are good it will need
> an engine teardown.
>
> Jose
>

Actually chances are not "good" it will need an engine teardown. The FAA
has issued a circular to all IA's stating
that "any prop strike, even one where the engine is not stopped but only
suffers a loss of RPM" is likely to cause unseen internal damage and will
require an inspection teardown to be returned to service. Using a dial
indicator on the prop flange to check for runout is no longer considered
sufficient inspection.

I recently saw a Lycoming where the prop flange was as close to perfect as
they get. No runout at all. However the crank was in two pieces. It had
broken between the two rows of cylinders. The break was diagonal and the
engine still ran and developed power. However, it did stop pretty quickly
when you pulled the mixture out!

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Gilan]

why wouldn't you discuss LSA in rec.aviation.piloting?

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





"Larry Dighera" wrote >
We discuss LSA in rec.aviation.piloting.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:31:57 -0700, "Gilan" > wrote in
<y2zzg.5652$Mz3.3896@fed1read07>::

>why wouldn't you discuss LSA in rec.aviation.piloting?

As I recall, it was this sentence of yours (apparently lacking a verb)
that provoked that follow up:

"Discussions on the new (LSA) Light-Sport Aircraft and Sport Pilot
license."

As a multi-decade participant in Usenet, I also understood, that
YahooGroups, although flashier, lacked the ability to attract a
readership anywhere near as large as that of Usenet. This newsgroup
generates about 6,000 messages per month.

While GoogleGroups archives Usenet and provides a public portal, it
too, like YahooGroups, provides an alternate communications forum
separate from Usenet, thus fractionalizing the content over multiple
forums. That makes the information more difficult to search.

To be fair, I congratulate your LSA discussion group for its continued
activity since November 2002. And I wish you oodles of success in
attracting participants.