"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots"

[Skylune[_2_]]

Thanks to AVweb for this column. The pilot makes the point better than
I.


http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/193321-1.html

With this attitude towards fellow aviators, imagine how they feel about
noise abatement procedures, which are purely voluntary!!!

Excellent article, which will go into the file....

[Tom Young[_2_]]

Skylune wrote:
> Thanks to AVweb for this column.

No, thank you for sharing that link, and for your obvious concerns about
aviation safety. Even though you're not a member of the community of pilots
and probably never will be, I'm sure I speak for the group when I express my
gratitude for your ongoing criticism of everything related to aviation --
keeps us on our toes!

> With this attitude towards fellow aviators...

Is the writer being a little harsh? You bet! And that's okay, because he's
an experienced pilot whose views are to be respected and learned from. But
please, don't feel bad that no one listens to you. I promise, the next time
the Embittered Aviation Rejects hold *their* convention, we'll ask you for
your complete report.

Tom Young

[randall g]

On 10 Oct 2006 05:23:16 -0700, "Skylune" > wrote:

>Thanks to AVweb for this column. The pilot makes the point better than
>I.
>
>http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/193321-1.html
>
>With this attitude towards fellow aviators, imagine how they feel about
>noise abatement procedures, which are purely voluntary!!!
>
>Excellent article, which will go into the file....


You did note, of course, that Durden emphasized how few such bozos there
are, and that it would not be difficult to weed them out.





randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Montblack[_1_]]

("DeLoon DeLoon" pasted an interesting link)

<http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/193321-1.html>
"The controllers were frustrated, upset and angry about individual pilot
behavior and determined to press for a violation action against the pilot.
This year there were enough problems that the FAA stepped away from its
historic hands-off approach to pilot transgressions. It used to be "no harm,
no foul." This year the frequency of egregious behavior by airplane drivers
arriving at AirVenture caused the FAA to step in and start initiating
violation actions.


Was the FAA in charge that first Sunday morning, from 9am - noon? Whoever
was responsible for that Sunday morning "Cone of Silence" mess needs a good
talking to ...so it doesn't happen again!

Learn "why" it happened. Don't simply create a regulation, or procedure, to
manage the situation after it's been created ...and could have been avoided
in the first place.

From talking to pilots who flew to Oshkosh this year: More separation is
needed, based on low speed capabilities of different planes.

(Pick one area/group/altitude you're COMFORTABLE flying with: Then stick to
that zone's speed)

Ultralights...
50 mph zone
75 mph zone
100 mph zone
125 mph zone
150 mph zone
IFR arrivals....

The NOTAM rebate landing fee is an interesting idea. Landing fee of $50 -
waived if you have an electronic or paper version of the current NOTAM. It
would be a nightmare to administer, however.

Can't speak to the issues on the ground. My few interactions with OSH Flight
Ops volunteers have been 100% positive. They are about the nicest (most
helpful) people to deal with at OSH ...IMHO.

Of course, my dealings with OSH pilots has been 100% positive, too.

Overall, I didn't think it was one of Rick Durden's better efforts - even
though I appreciate what he's trying to say. The last paragraph, "Stop
Before They Add More Restrictions," was good.


Montblack

[Jay Honeck]

> Thanks to AVweb for this column. The pilot makes the point better than I.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/193321-1.html

The author, Rick Durden, is a regular here, and a straight shooter.
What he says in that article is 100% on the money.

Those of us who fly into Oshkosh every year know precisely what he's
talking about, and it is definitely time for EAA and the FAA to step up
enforcement action against pilots who arrogantly ignore the NOTAM.
(NOTAM = NOTice to AirMen, outlining the arrival/departure
procedures.) I saw and heard things this year that I've NEVER seen or
heard before, and we don't want Oshkosh to become endangered because of
the actions of a few idiots.

That said, the FAA itself was largely to blame for much of the
confusion over Rush and Green Lakes this year. (I know -- I was
there.) If the controllers had only said "Guys, there's been an
accident on the field, and we don't know how long the hold is going to
be." -- half the planes holding would have diverted to other airports
to wait it out.

They chose, instead, to keep saying "We're doing the best we can, and
we'll get you in as soon as possible." This lack of information gave
everyone holding the false hope that the hold would end soon, and the
swarm around the lakes just kept getting bigger, and bigger, and
bigger. It was a real mess, which -- thankfully -- all worked out in
the end.

And that, Skylune, is the point you are missing, as always. Oshkosh is
well run, and continues to have a very good safety record, despite
these few transgressions. Pilots policing themselves (with peer
pressure and harsh articles like Rick's) will ultimately have the
desired effect, and will go a long ways toward stopping the "Morons to
Oshkosh".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skylune[_2_]]

randall g wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2006 05:23:16 -0700, "Skylune" > wrote:
>
> >Thanks to AVweb for this column. The pilot makes the point better than
> >I.
> >
> >http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/193321-1.html
> >
> >With this attitude towards fellow aviators, imagine how they feel about
> >noise abatement procedures, which are purely voluntary!!!
> >
> >Excellent article, which will go into the file....
>
>
> You did note, of course, that Durden emphasized how few such bozos there
> are, and that it would not be difficult to weed them out.
>
>
>
>
>
> randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
> http://www.telemark.net/randallg
> Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
> http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
> Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca


Yes, and I also agree with his comment about FAA enforcement: "no harm
no foul."

[Skylune[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Thanks to AVweb for this column. The pilot makes the point better than I.
> >
> > http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/193321-1.html
>
> The author, Rick Durden, is a regular here, and a straight shooter.
> What he says in that article is 100% on the money.
>
> Those of us who fly into Oshkosh every year know precisely what he's
> talking about, and it is definitely time for EAA and the FAA to step up
> enforcement action against pilots who arrogantly ignore the NOTAM.
> (NOTAM = NOTice to AirMen, outlining the arrival/departure
> procedures.) I saw and heard things this year that I've NEVER seen or
> heard before, and we don't want Oshkosh to become endangered because of
> the actions of a few idiots.
>
> That said, the FAA itself was largely to blame for much of the
> confusion over Rush and Green Lakes this year. (I know -- I was
> there.) If the controllers had only said "Guys, there's been an
> accident on the field, and we don't know how long the hold is going to
> be." -- half the planes holding would have diverted to other airports
> to wait it out.
>
> They chose, instead, to keep saying "We're doing the best we can, and
> we'll get you in as soon as possible." This lack of information gave
> everyone holding the false hope that the hold would end soon, and the
> swarm around the lakes just kept getting bigger, and bigger, and
> bigger. It was a real mess, which -- thankfully -- all worked out in
> the end.
>
> And that, Skylune, is the point you are missing, as always. Oshkosh is
> well run, and continues to have a very good safety record, despite
> these few transgressions. Pilots policing themselves (with peer
> pressure and harsh articles like Rick's) will ultimately have the
> desired effect, and will go a long ways toward stopping the "Morons to
> Oshkosh".
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

His comments about stupid pilot tricks matches my experience perfectly.
That, plus the BS the flight school put on us about how convenient VFR
GA was for transportation, plus minimimizing the fact that you need to
fly regularly to be safe, way beyond what the FAA minimums require to
remain current, are what caused me to quit. Fortunately, the crooks at
the flight school (a national chain) only got a few thousand of my hard
earned cash before I (and a few other students) realized we were being
played.... It still ticks me off though.

I now have the time to train again, and actually thought about it for a
while, but there is no benefit to VFR GA in the Northeast, unless you
need a hobby.

[Jay Honeck]

> I now have the time to train again, and actually thought about it for a
> while, but there is no benefit to VFR GA in the Northeast, unless you
> need a hobby.

Well, it's a damned good hobby. And we've used it for tranportation --
all VFR -- for almost 12 years now.

And I don't think you can convince me that the weather is worse in the
Northeast than it is in the Midwest. To say there is no benefit to VFR
GA is just wrong.

Bottom line: If you really want to fly, you will learn to do it. If
you really don't want to fly, you'll find every excuse imaginable not
to.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Macklin]

Jay, good VFR is common in the Midwest. Storms and front
pass by quickly, giving time for a nights rest at the Inn or
just a good meal. But in the NE, MVFR and IFR are more
common, leading to longer delays since the mountains and
ocean tend to hold water vapor, dirt and pollution around
longer.
If you fly a J3 at 80 mph, 1 sm gives time to see and avoid
towers and such, if you fly at a higher speed, like 120 mph
you only have 30 seconds to see and avoid. If you fly at
180 mph (Bonanza class) you have 20 seconds to see the tower
and guy wires, You take evasive action and hope there isn't
another tower in that direction.

VFR is OK, but if you are needing to travel on a schedule,
IFR is essential anytime the weather is MVFR and you can't
see the ridges or the towers.


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

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|> I now have the time to train again, and actually thought
about it for a
| > while, but there is no benefit to VFR GA in the
Northeast, unless you
| > need a hobby.
|
| Well, it's a damned good hobby. And we've used it for
tranportation --
| all VFR -- for almost 12 years now.
|
| And I don't think you can convince me that the weather is
worse in the
| Northeast than it is in the Midwest. To say there is no
benefit to VFR
| GA is just wrong.
|
| Bottom line: If you really want to fly, you will learn to
do it. If
| you really don't want to fly, you'll find every excuse
imaginable not
| to.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[Larry Dighera]

On 10 Oct 2006 11:56:56 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>Oshkosh is
>well run, and continues to have a very good safety record, despite
>these few transgressions. Pilots policing themselves (with peer
>pressure and harsh articles like Rick's) will ultimately have the
>desired effect, and will go a long ways toward stopping the "Morons to
>Oshkosh".

All should be aware, that EAA members do not typify airmen in general.
They are a 'special' group of airmen, many of whom do a lot more
building than flying throughout the year, which may account for the
issue Mr. Durden's article addresses.

[Tom Young[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> All should be aware, that EAA members do not typify airmen in general.
> They are a 'special' group of airmen, many of whom do a lot more
> building than flying throughout the year, which may account for the
> issue Mr. Durden's article addresses.

Doubtful. An analysis of homebuilt accidents in Kitplanes magazine a couple
of year ago (October 2004) shows that homebuilders are higher time pilots
than the average GA pilot and have fewer accidents, hour for hour, that
involve pilot error. Homebuilt aircraft admittedly have more accidents
overall due to mechanical failures, but that has nothing to do with what was
going on at Oshkosh. In my opinion, Mr. Durden's article was about too many
pilots with too little concern for safety trying to be in the same place at
the same time.

Tom Young (building the world's safest RV-4)

[Jay Honeck]

> VFR is OK, but if you are needing to travel on a schedule,
> IFR is essential anytime the weather is MVFR and you can't
> see the ridges or the towers.

Very true. And even IFR there are days you're not going to be flying
anywhere in a Spam can.

Luckily, the schedules I fly on are usually quite "soft" and allow for
a fair degree of flexibility.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:
If you fly at
> 180 mph (Bonanza class)


If I'm throttled back.

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> The author, Rick Durden, is a regular here, and a straight shooter.
> What he says in that article is 100% on the money.

I agree completely. I was there too, and although I haven't been there as many times as Jay has, it was
chaotic enough to really think about the risks involved. We were following two RV's who had no concept
of the traffic pattern, how to hold altitude and speed at the same time, how to follow instructions, how to
wait their turn, etc. I have no idea if they had the Notam, but in short, it was just a mess.

> That said, the FAA itself was largely to blame for much of the
> confusion over Rush and Green Lakes this year. (I know -- I was
> there.) If the controllers had only said "Guys, there's been an
> accident on the field, and we don't know how long the hold is going to
> be." -- half the planes holding would have diverted to other airports
> to wait it out.

Yes, a little information would have gone a long way. I was about "that close" to bailing out of the holding
pattern and going to land somewhere until the rush (no pun) died down. An estimate of the closure time
would have been very helpful, and maybe a calming influence on the rabble.

Mike

[Newps]

Tom Young wrote:


>
>
> Doubtful. An analysis of homebuilt accidents in Kitplanes magazine a couple
> of year ago (October 2004) shows that homebuilders are higher time pilots
> than the average GA pilot and have fewer accidents, hour for hour, that
> involve pilot error.

I can vouch for that. There's a guy just down the hangar row from me.
Big EAA guy. Thousands of hours as a Navy pilot. He went on to be a
test pilot. He was one of the test pilots for the F14, F18 and F111.
He should know more than mopst of us put together. Now fast forwad 25
years after his militray career is over. Quite possibly the dumbest guy
you've ever met. He built a Kitfox, which is dumb enough, but loaded it
up with so much crap that with a full tank and him on board he was 50
pounds over gross. He installed an air horn, yes, an air horn. Just
like on the General Lee. Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
by the way. Storms approaching, wind blowing 15 kts at takeoff. Flies
20 miles away and engine pukes because he screwed up the fuel system.
Then he proceeds to deadstick, with a 30 kt tailwind and busts the plane
in half. Breaks his back and has to walk out to a road to be found.
Scratch one ****box Kitfox. Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief. This
is ****box number two. Yoke won't smoothly go in and out because he has
stuff behind the panel interfering with its travel. Takes it out for
taxi practice on another day with a storm approaching, ground loops it
and breaks the spar a couple feet in from the end. Opens up the wing
and screws a metal patch on either side of busted spar and covers it all
back up. Not even remotely airworthy. Most EAA guys I've seen aren't
this bad but they are the absolute bottom of the barrel pilot skill wise.

[Skylune[_2_]]

Newps wrote:
> Tom Young wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Doubtful. An analysis of homebuilt accidents in Kitplanes magazine a couple
> > of year ago (October 2004) shows that homebuilders are higher time pilots
> > than the average GA pilot and have fewer accidents, hour for hour, that
> > involve pilot error.
>
> I can vouch for that. There's a guy just down the hangar row from me.
> Big EAA guy. Thousands of hours as a Navy pilot. He went on to be a
> test pilot. He was one of the test pilots for the F14, F18 and F111.
> He should know more than mopst of us put together. Now fast forwad 25
> years after his militray career is over. Quite possibly the dumbest guy
> you've ever met. He built a Kitfox, which is dumb enough, but loaded it
> up with so much crap that with a full tank and him on board he was 50
> pounds over gross. He installed an air horn, yes, an air horn. Just
> like on the General Lee. Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
> by the way. Storms approaching, wind blowing 15 kts at takeoff. Flies
> 20 miles away and engine pukes because he screwed up the fuel system.
> Then he proceeds to deadstick, with a 30 kt tailwind and busts the plane
> in half. Breaks his back and has to walk out to a road to be found.
> Scratch one ****box Kitfox. Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief. This
> is ****box number two. Yoke won't smoothly go in and out because he has
> stuff behind the panel interfering with its travel. Takes it out for
> taxi practice on another day with a storm approaching, ground loops it
> and breaks the spar a couple feet in from the end. Opens up the wing
> and screws a metal patch on either side of busted spar and covers it all
> back up. Not even remotely airworthy. Most EAA guys I've seen aren't
> this bad but they are the absolute bottom of the barrel pilot skill wise.


And this is all perfectly legal under the FARs.

[Tom Young[_2_]]

Newps wrote:
> I can vouch for that. There's a guy just down the hangar row from me. Big
> EAA guy. Thousands of hours as a Navy pilot. He went on to be a test
> pilot. He was one of the test pilots for the F14, F18 and F111. He should
> know more than mopst of us put together. Now fast forwad 25 years after
> his militray career is over. Quite possibly the dumbest guy you've ever
> met. He built a Kitfox, which is dumb enough, but loaded it up with so
> much crap that with a full tank and him on board he was 50 pounds over
> gross. He installed an air horn, yes, an air horn. Just like on the
> General Lee. Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time by the way.
> Storms approaching, wind blowing 15 kts at takeoff. Flies 20 miles away
> and engine pukes because he screwed up the fuel system. Then he proceeds
> to deadstick, with a 30 kt tailwind and busts the plane in half. Breaks
> his back and has to walk out to a road to be found. Scratch one ****box
> Kitfox.

Good story, but it sounds like the decision of a macho doofus who
overestimated his skills and underestimated the demands of his aircraft, not
your average experimental builder. Most of us -- the ones with brains,
anyway -- work with EAA tech counselors to get building advice and
inspections during the building process, and we work with flight advisors
for checking out the aircraft THOROUGHLY before the first flight and during
the testing phase. Many builders wouldn't even consider being the first to
test fly their airplane, because, yeah, that makes them a test pilot and
they know they don't have the skills.

> Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief. This is ****box number two. Yoke
> won't smoothly go in and out because he has stuff behind the panel
> interfering with its travel. Takes it out for taxi practice on another
> day with a storm approaching, ground loops it and breaks the spar a couple
> feet in from the end. Opens up the wing and screws a metal patch on
> either side of busted spar and covers it all back up. Not even remotely
> airworthy.

****box number two is not an experimental aircraft, so this accident goes
into the non-experimental category. From where I'm standing it looks like a
wash: one accident for an experimental aircraft, one for a normal aircraft.

Tom Young

[Tom Young[_2_]]

I'm rearranging this just a bit for clarity. Responses below.

Skylune wrote:
>And this is all perfectly legal under the FARs.

Assuming this ex-test pilot was in the US, no, all of this is definitely not
legal. Here are some illegal things this guy did, per Newps' description:

> Newps wrote:
>> loaded it
>> up with so much crap that with a full tank and him on board he was 50
>> pounds over gross.

He flew the airplane outside of its operating limitations.

>> Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
>> by the way.

He flew a conventional gear aircraft without having a tailwheel endorsement.

>> Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief.

He can only make major repairs or alterations if he's certificated to do so.
I guess he could be, but it sure doesn't sound like it.

>> Yoke won't smoothly go in and out because he has
>> stuff behind the panel interfering with its travel.

The aircraft was not in airworthy condition.

>> Opens up the wing
>> and screws a metal patch on either side of busted spar and covers it all
>> back up. Not even remotely airworthy.

Enough said.

Bottom line is, the necessary regulations are already in place to make
experimental aviation a safe activity, but there are plenty of rules in the
FARs that builders and pilots can ignore if they choose. Personal
responsibility is crucial.

Tom Young

[Bob Moore]

Tom Young wrote

>> Newps wrote:
>>> loaded it up with so much crap that with a full tank
>>> and him on board he was 50 pounds over gross.
>
> He flew the airplane outside of its operating limitations.

AS builder of the aircraft, he gets to set the GTOW to any
number that he desires.
>
>>> Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
>>> by the way.
>
> He flew a conventional gear aircraft without having a
> tailwheel endorsement.

(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to—

(iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under
the authority of—
(B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying
a passenger

>
>>> Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief.
>
> He can only make major repairs or alterations if he's certificated to
> do so. I guess he could be, but it sure doesn't sound like it.

His airplane, he can do anything he wants to provided an airman
certificated to determine the airworthiness of aircraft makes a
determination that it is in fact airworthy and so states in the
aircraft log book.

Bob Moore
Builder and Test Pilot....MiniMax

[Tom Young[_2_]]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Tom Young wrote
>
>>> Newps wrote:
>>>> loaded it up with so much crap that with a full tank
>>>> and him on board he was 50 pounds over gross.
>>
>> He flew the airplane outside of its operating limitations.
>
> AS builder of the aircraft, he gets to set the GTOW to any
> number that he desires.

Yes, but just on the fly like that? I assumed that the builder sets it when
he originally certifies the airplane and has to recertify if he wants to
change it later. Am I wrong about that?

>>>> Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
>>>> by the way.
>>
>> He flew a conventional gear aircraft without having a
>> tailwheel endorsement.
>
> (2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to-
>
> (iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under
> the authority of-
> (B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying
> a passenger

Ack. I didn't see paragraph (k). My mistake.

>>>> Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief.
>>
>> He can only make major repairs or alterations if he's certificated to
>> do so. I guess he could be, but it sure doesn't sound like it.
>
> His airplane, he can do anything he wants to provided an airman
> certificated to determine the airworthiness of aircraft makes a
> determination that it is in fact airworthy and so states in the
> aircraft log book.

That much I knew, actually. I took the statement that the repair wasn't
airworthy at face value, but only to make the point that the FARs do include
provisions about shoddy mechanical work.

Anyway, thanks for the correx.

Tom (still learning the rules) Young

[Ron Natalie]

Tom Young wrote:

> Yes, but just on the fly like that? I assumed that the builder sets it when
> he originally certifies the airplane and has to recertify if he wants to
> change it later. Am I wrong about that?

Yes, you are wrong. Of course, the gross weight is initially set
prior to any test flying that could be used to reasonably verify if
the aircraft is capable of it.

Subsequent changes only require "notification", not recertification.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-11, Skylune > wrote:
> And this is all perfectly legal under the FARs.

Where did you get that idiotic idea from?
I can cite probably a dozen violations of the FARs if I had them in
front of me, but I don't - so these are the ones I can immediately think
of without even trying:

- careless and reckless operation of an aircraft
- flying an aircraft over its gross weight
- unapproved repairs (even if he was an A&P, the repair he made to the
certificated Chief was illegal)
- no tailwheel signoff
- aircraft in an unairworthy condition (both of them)

A good FAA inspector would probably be able to find much more than that
(and probably get his ticket yanked as well).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Kris Kortokrax]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Tom Young wrote
>
>>> Newps wrote:

>>>> Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
>>>> by the way.
>> He flew a conventional gear aircraft without having a
>> tailwheel endorsement.
>
> (2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to—
>
> (iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under
> the authority of—
> (B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying
> a passenger
>

When did they amend 61.5(b) to include "tailwheel" as a rating?

Kris

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Kris Kortokrax wrote:
>>> He flew a conventional gear aircraft without having a
>>> tailwheel endorsement.
>
> When did they amend 61.5(b) to include "tailwheel" as a rating?



When did an endorsement become a rating? I have a tailwheel endorsement in my
logbook. I have an instrument rating on my license.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Kris Kortokrax]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Kris Kortokrax wrote:
>>>> He flew a conventional gear aircraft without having a
>>>> tailwheel endorsement.
>> When did they amend 61.5(b) to include "tailwheel" as a rating?
>
>
>
> When did an endorsement become a rating? I have a tailwheel endorsement in my
> logbook. I have an instrument rating on my license.
>
>
>
We're in agreement. It was Bob Moore who cited 61.31 (k) in an attempt
to circumvent the requirement for a tailwheel endorsement.

Kris

[Tom Young[_2_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Tom Young wrote:
>
>> Yes, but just on the fly like that? I assumed that the builder sets it
>> when he originally certifies the airplane and has to recertify if he
>> wants to change it later. Am I wrong about that?
>
> Yes, you are wrong. Of course, the gross weight is initially set
> prior to any test flying that could be used to reasonably verify if
> the aircraft is capable of it.
>
> Subsequent changes only require "notification", not recertification.

Okay, good to know.

Tom Young

[boB]

Bob Moore wrote:

> His airplane, he can do anything he wants to provided an airman
> certificated to determine the airworthiness of aircraft makes a
> determination that it is in fact airworthy and so states in the
> aircraft log book.
>
> Bob Moore
> Builder and Test Pilot....MiniMax


Hey Bob. I've always liked the mini-max. Do you have any pictures you
can share showing the build progress and in flight. It would be nice if
someone familiar with the performance of the mini-max would build a sim
model of this guy that actually flew like the real thing.

Of course it needs to be FS9 compatible. :)

This web site was last updated in 1996 so nothing in the whole web site
is up to date. I leave it online in case someone can get some information.

http://members.tripod.com/~DragonFlight/3drmini.html


--

boB
Wing 70


U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas
5NM West of Gray Army/Killeen Regional (KGRK)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 10 Oct 2006 05:23:16 -0700, "Skylune" > wrote:

>Thanks to AVweb for this column. The pilot makes the point better than
>I.
>
>
>http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/193321-1.html

And as others have already said, the ones he singles out are a very
small number and small percentage of those flying in.

You also have to remember Oshkosh is a flying environment that few
pilots (relatively speaking) get exposed to and for those that go it's
the only time many of them are exposed to that kind of flying.

For instance and probably the biggest difference: We are all taught
to fly a stabilized pattern and that good landings come from a well
set up pattern. At Oshkosh you are flying *close* to other airplanes
and you have some one else telling you when to turn, where to turn,
and the spot on the runway where _you_are_going_to_put_it_down, or you
had better at least be close. You may need to slow down quickly or
keep the speed up or both. The one thing certain is you won't be
flying a stabilized pattern.

Osh really isn't a place for those who only fly stabilized patterns,
nor is it a place for those who do not have the patience and foresight
to plan ahead and do what they are told, when they are told. They
probably haven't set up in the clouds flying racetrack patterns
(Holds) waiting for a spot to land. They aren't used to carrying a
couple extra hours worth of fuel for the "just-in-case" they have to
hold for a couple of hours. Maybe they have an airsick passenger, or
one that just developed a case of the green apple two step and don't
know how to let ATC know they have a problem Maybe it's a case of
"Get there itis" where they are getting low on fuel and don't think
they'll be able to get into OSH if they leave the pattern and go some
where else to top off the tanks and start the whole thing over again.

All this after having spent 2 hours flying up the rail road tracks,
then flying around the lake, while all the time being far closer to
other airplanes and pilots than they ever have before. They have been
doing this under more pressure than they have ever been under before
while being able to see their destination just off to the right a ways
for the last hour or two while also being just a half a hair from a
panic attack. Then there is the guy in a high performance single
behind a T-craft whose pilot has decided to slow down to minimum
control speed for the single 10 miles out. Or OTOH the guy in the
T-craft that has only flown in and out of couple of grass strips for
the last 10 years and now has traffic piling up behind him. (really
close)

Many on here probably remember the infamous "Blue Bonanza". ATC was
telling him to keep his speed up,keep his speed up, then put the gear
down now, blue bonanza turn base now....Blue Bonanza turn base
now.....BLUE....BONANZA....TURN...BASE...NOW...<sigh> Awwwww...don't
go clear to the lakeee...Said Bo proceeded to fly all the way to the
edge of Lake Winabago, turn right base which was going to cut off a
twin on IFR to 27, and then proceed to fly a long final to 27. It was
quite obvious the pilot flew nothing but stabilized patterns at
specific air speeds for each leg. That was years back but I'm sure
they had a talk with him.

That is not an excuse or reason for their performance, but rather a
reason they shouldn't be in that situation in the first place.
Like any high pressure environment Osh can bring out the best and
worst in people.

I've been on an IFR approach to 27 coming up on the west lake shore
(meaning I was getting close) when the tower warned me about a 182
coming from the south. He came up the lake shore and turned in for
final on 27. The tower had worked things so the VFR traffic to 27 and
I would dove tail nicely. They hadn't planned on the 182. I don't
remember for sure what happened to the 182. I don't remember if he had
to go around or if he landed but it seems as he landed and the safety
crew had a talk with him, but that was a few years ago. I do know his
right seat passenger got a good look at me as I could see his eyes
open wide as they made the left turn in front of me as I had to alter
course so we didn't occupy the same place at the same time. I don't
think the other pilot knew I was there unless his passenger let him
know.

>
>With this attitude towards fellow aviators, imagine how they feel about
>noise abatement procedures, which are purely voluntary!!!

I think a lot more needs to be taken into account with most of those
pilots. True, they shouldn't have been there if they couldn't take the
pressure, follow the rules, or take time to get the NOTAM, but I think
in many cases its probably more than just an attitude. I'd bet that
most of them are "out of their element" (clueless comes to mind) and
are going to get on the ground regardless. Do I think the FAA should
take them to task? You bet I do.

When "in their element" meaning doing the type of flying they normally
do I'd bet most of these pilots do pretty well, but they do not have
the proficiency, or the capacity to be in such a high pressure
environment.

When you consider OSH may be running twice the movements O'Hare in 24
hours and they are doing it in day light only AND with the *reduced*
separation standards, the controllers do one mighty find job and they
have my respect. At times there are so many airplanes in the air it
looks like a swarm of bees or birds coming in.

>
>Excellent article, which will go into the file....
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Blanche Cohen]

Dudley explains
>You also have to remember Oshkosh is a flying environment that few
>pilots (relatively speaking) get exposed to and for those that go it's
>the only time many of them are exposed to that kind of flying.

Yuppers. That's me. And that's why last year, when I took the putt-putt
to OSH (instead of that United 747 to ORD, then into ATW) I invited
a couple friends who had flown to OSH a number of times. For the last
leg (about an hour) DS flew the route along the tracks and did the
landing. I kept my head swiveling and was absolutely astonished at
the traffic -- and how close all those other airplanes were!

Would I do the landing next time? I'm not sure. I had been practicing
very small patterns and attempting spot landings but I'm convinced
that I wouldn't have done well at OSH.