Pipistrel Kit Aircraft now FAA 51% Accepted

[User]

Greetings all, the Pipistrel Sinus and Virus aircraft have been
inspected over the last couple of days and have been accepted by the
FAA is a 51% accepted kit.

This means that any customers purchasing these aircraft as kits do not
have to worry about certification themselves as it has already been
completed. More information will be forthcoming in the next few weeks
where we also hope to advise you of our success with the LSA approvals.

More information http://www.pipistrel-usa.com

Kind regards Michael Coates Pipistrel USA

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:36:22 GMT, USER > wrote:

>Greetings all, the Pipistrel Sinus and Virus aircraft have been
>inspected over the last couple of days and have been accepted by the
>FAA is a 51% accepted kit.
>
>This means that any customers purchasing these aircraft as kits do not
>have to worry about certification themselves as it has already been
>completed.

Ummm, well, no. Aircraft still have to go through the certification process.
The 51%-certification is a nice-to-have, but in itself doesn't guarantee the FAA
will certify the airplane as Experimental Amateur-Built. It's still possible
for the FAA to reject certification of an individual aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

[Opie]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:36:22 GMT, USER > wrote:

>
> Ummm, well, no. Aircraft still have to go through the certification
> process.
> The 51%-certification is a nice-to-have, but in itself doesn't guarantee
> the FAA
> will certify the airplane as Experimental Amateur-Built. It's still
> possible
> for the FAA to reject certification of an individual aircraft.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch of
self righteous bureaucrats!

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:11:20 GMT, "Opie" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:36:22 GMT, USER > wrote:
>
>>
>> Ummm, well, no. Aircraft still have to go through the certification
>> process.
>> The 51%-certification is a nice-to-have, but in itself doesn't guarantee
>> the FAA
>> will certify the airplane as Experimental Amateur-Built. It's still
>> possible
>> for the FAA to reject certification of an individual aircraft.
>
>C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch of
>self righteous bureaucrats!

For the next (at least) two years, they'll be officious self-lefteous
bureaucrats. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Brad]

Really? so the whole staff gets flipped?

Brad

BTW.......when did you last hear of a kit that wasn't accepted as
amateur built by the FAA?


Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:11:20 GMT, "Opie" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:36:22 GMT, USER > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Ummm, well, no. Aircraft still have to go through the certification
> >> process.
> >> The 51%-certification is a nice-to-have, but in itself doesn't guarantee
> >> the FAA
> >> will certify the airplane as Experimental Amateur-Built. It's still
> >> possible
> >> for the FAA to reject certification of an individual aircraft.
> >
> >C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch of
> >self righteous bureaucrats!
>
> For the next (at least) two years, they'll be officious self-lefteous
> bureaucrats. :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 24 Nov 2006 19:33:22 -0800, "Brad" > wrote:

>BTW.......when did you last hear of a kit that wasn't accepted as
>amateur built by the FAA?

Christen Eagle is the only one I know about, but that was way back in the dawn
o' time. Otherwise, companies are not likely to advertise that they flunked. I
suspect the FAA is usually specific enough where the company knows what they
have to do for their plane to pass. Many companies undoubtedly work with the
FAA as they develop the kit...for instance, I'm sure Van's worked it all out
with the Feds before they started having the contractor partially complete kits
for delivery as quick-build kits.

The big thing, of course, is that the type's inclusion on the approved 51% list
is *not* a pre-requisite to a homebuilt getting certified. The only thing it
does is offer some protection against capricious FSDO decisions.

Ron Wanttaja

[Brad]

They could still get a Experimental-Exhibition tho right? Not quite the
freedom a Amateur built COFA gives, but can still fly it.

The 2 sailplane kits I built and had inspected went thru the inspection
without any hassles. I was quite worried about the first kit; as it was
the first I ever built, and seemed to me to be quite complete when it
came out of the box. But, as you know, that manufacturer-builder check
list can be quite a handy tool!

I also want to give KUDO's to the Seattle MIDO, the two gentlemen I
worked with were quite professional, and very helpful.........hopefully
the next aircraft I build will be inspected by one of these fellows.

Cheers,
Brad


Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2006 19:33:22 -0800, "Brad" > wrote:
>
> >BTW.......when did you last hear of a kit that wasn't accepted as
> >amateur built by the FAA?
>
> Christen Eagle is the only one I know about, but that was way back in the dawn
> o' time. Otherwise, companies are not likely to advertise that they flunked. I
> suspect the FAA is usually specific enough where the company knows what they
> have to do for their plane to pass. Many companies undoubtedly work with the
> FAA as they develop the kit...for instance, I'm sure Van's worked it all out
> with the Feds before they started having the contractor partially complete kits
> for delivery as quick-build kits.
>
> The big thing, of course, is that the type's inclusion on the approved 51% list
> is *not* a pre-requisite to a homebuilt getting certified. The only thing it
> does is offer some protection against capricious FSDO decisions.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Natalie]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>
> For the next (at least) two years, they'll be officious self-lefteous
> bureaucrats. :-)
>
Nope, congress doesn't appoint those bureaucrats, the president (one
child left behind) does.

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Opie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:36:22 GMT, USER > wrote:
>
>>
>> Ummm, well, no. Aircraft still have to go through the certification
>> process.
>> The 51%-certification is a nice-to-have, but in itself doesn't guarantee
>> the FAA
>> will certify the airplane as Experimental Amateur-Built. It's still
>> possible
>> for the FAA to reject certification of an individual aircraft.
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
> C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch of
> self righteous bureaucrats!

What else do they call themselves?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Brad" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> They could still get a Experimental-Exhibition tho right? Not quite the
> freedom a Amateur built COFA gives, but can still fly it.

That depends where they stick you in the Exp/Exh structure. Some of the
subcategories are more restrictive than others.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eric Greenwell]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
ect certification of an individual aircraft.
>>>
>>> Ron Wanttaja
>> C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch of
>> self righteous bureaucrats!
>
> What else do they call themselves?

The ones I've worked with called themselves things like "Bob",
"Charlie", and "Sue", while they went out of their way to certify my
glider, set up our wave windows, and get me the waiver I requested.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:20:28 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

>
>"Brad" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> They could still get a Experimental-Exhibition tho right? Not quite the
>> freedom a Amateur built COFA gives, but can still fly it.
>
>That depends where they stick you in the Exp/Exh structure. Some of the
>subcategories are more restrictive than others.

The guys building the Me262s in Washington State came within a gnat's eyelash of
getting them Experimental/Amateur-Built. The DAR was going to sign them off,
but the local FSDO refused to allow it. They've got Exp/Exh, but with pretty
loose restrictions.

Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:20:28 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brad" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> They could still get a Experimental-Exhibition tho right? Not quite the
>>> freedom a Amateur built COFA gives, but can still fly it.
>>
>>That depends where they stick you in the Exp/Exh structure. Some of the
>>subcategories are more restrictive than others.
>
> The guys building the Me262s in Washington State came within a gnat's eyelash
> of
> getting them Experimental/Amateur-Built. The DAR was going to sign them off,
> but the local FSDO refused to allow it. They've got Exp/Exh, but with pretty
> loose restrictions.

I thought they were going to get the same classification as other warbirds,
since they were built according to factory plans, or is that what the other
warbirds get?
--
Jim in NC

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:20:28 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brad" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> They could still get a Experimental-Exhibition tho right? Not quite the
>>> freedom a Amateur built COFA gives, but can still fly it.
>>
>>That depends where they stick you in the Exp/Exh structure. Some of the
>>subcategories are more restrictive than others.
>
> The guys building the Me262s in Washington State came within a gnat's
> eyelash of
> getting them Experimental/Amateur-Built. The DAR was going to sign them
> off,
> but the local FSDO refused to allow it. They've got Exp/Exh, but with
> pretty
> loose restrictions.

You wouldn't have a copy of their op limitations, do ya? :)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:BI5ah.13303$_x3.11069@trndny02...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
> ect certification of an individual aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Wanttaja
>>> C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch of
>>> self righteous bureaucrats!
>>
>> What else do they call themselves?
>
> The ones I've worked with called themselves things like "Bob", "Charlie",
> and "Sue", while they went out of their way to certify my glider, set up
> our wave windows, and get me the waiver I requested.

Lucky you, you ran into the minority...



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:47:51 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The guys building the Me262s in Washington State came within a gnat's eyelash
>> of getting them Experimental/Amateur-Built. The DAR was going to sign them off,
>> but the local FSDO refused to allow it. They've got Exp/Exh, but with pretty
>> loose restrictions.
>
>I thought they were going to get the same classification as other warbirds,
>since they were built according to factory plans, or is that what the other
>warbirds get?

You're probably right. The head of the operation is a member of EAA 26 (past
president, in fact) and he gave a talk at the last meeting, including the tale
of the certification process. Afterwards, I asked how bad his restrictions
were, and they sounded little different from Exp/Am-Built. They are permanent,
too, they don't have to be renewed every year like some of the Exp/Exh
airplanes. IIRC, he said it took them four months to get the first 262
licensed, and two weeks for the second. Beyond that, I can't tell you the
operating limitations.

The planes aren't just built to factory plans, they are considered factory
aircraft. Daimler Benz Aerospace assigned them the next five serial numbers on
from the wartime records. Other than critical safety issues (modern engines,
modern alloys, etc.), these planes are built the same as the wartime aircraft.
They've got steel where the WWII models had steel (LOTS of steel) and wood where
Messerschmitt used wood. They've even got dummy guns (needed for CG) and have
tankage for only 60-90 minutes of fuel.

One landing gear leg collapsed on the second landing, and it turned out to be a
manifestation of a common wartime fault (a built-up of tolerances in the
mechanism). After it happened, one of the old-time Messerschmitt mechanics
called from Germany to tell them exactly what to look for....

Ron Wanttaja

[Eric Greenwell]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> news:BI5ah.13303$_x3.11069@trndny02...
>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> ect certification of an individual aircraft.
>>>>> Ron Wanttaja
>>>> C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch of
>>>> self righteous bureaucrats!
>>> What else do they call themselves?
>> The ones I've worked with called themselves things like "Bob", "Charlie",
>> and "Sue", while they went out of their way to certify my glider, set up
>> our wave windows, and get me the waiver I requested.
>
> Lucky you, you ran into the minority...

It's not luck when it happens repeatedly over a 30 year period at
multiple FSDOs, towers, and elsewhere. I do know people that always seem
to get the obnoxious ones, and it's not luck then, either.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:u0nah.7612$IW2.3020@trndny03...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>> news:BI5ah.13303$_x3.11069@trndny02...
>>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>> ect certification of an individual aircraft.
>>>>>> Ron Wanttaja
>>>>> C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch
>>>>> of self righteous bureaucrats!
>>>> What else do they call themselves?
>>> The ones I've worked with called themselves things like "Bob",
>>> "Charlie", and "Sue", while they went out of their way to certify my
>>> glider, set up our wave windows, and get me the waiver I requested.
>>
>> Lucky you, you ran into the minority...
>
> It's not luck when it happens repeatedly over a 30 year period at multiple
> FSDOs, towers, and elsewhere. I do know people that always seem to get the
> obnoxious ones, and it's not luck then, either.

In my experience, running into "good ones" all the time means that whoever
is doing the running has figured out there are things the FAA doesn't need
to know.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Jack]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> In my experience, running into "good ones" all the time means that whoever
> is doing the running has figured out there are things the FAA doesn't need
> to know.

Juan, any boy with parents learns that by the time he's ten.

Good luck.


Jack

[Bruce Greef]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>> news:BI5ah.13303$_x3.11069@trndny02...
>>
>>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>> ect certification of an individual aircraft.
>>>
>>>>>> Ron Wanttaja
>>>>>
>>>>> C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious
>>>>> bunch of self righteous bureaucrats!
>>>>
>>>> What else do they call themselves?
>>>
>>> The ones I've worked with called themselves things like "Bob",
>>> "Charlie", and "Sue", while they went out of their way to certify my
>>> glider, set up our wave windows, and get me the waiver I requested.
>>
>>
>> Lucky you, you ran into the minority...
>
>
> It's not luck when it happens repeatedly over a 30 year period at
> multiple FSDOs, towers, and elsewhere. I do know people that always seem
> to get the obnoxious ones, and it's not luck then, either.
>
Touche Eric, I was wondering if there was a good way to say that.

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Jack" > wrote in message
t...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> In my experience, running into "good ones" all the time means that
>> whoever is doing the running has figured out there are things the FAA
>> doesn't need to know.
>
> Juan, any boy with parents learns that by the time he's ten.
>
> Good luck.

What can I say, I was taught to do things by the book, correctly, or not do
them at all.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Bruce Greef" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>>> news:BI5ah.13303$_x3.11069@trndny02...
>>>
>>>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>> ect certification of an individual aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Wanttaja
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch
>>>>>> of self righteous bureaucrats!
>>>>>
>>>>> What else do they call themselves?
>>>>
>>>> The ones I've worked with called themselves things like "Bob",
>>>> "Charlie", and "Sue", while they went out of their way to certify my
>>>> glider, set up our wave windows, and get me the waiver I requested.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lucky you, you ran into the minority...
>>
>>
>> It's not luck when it happens repeatedly over a 30 year period at
>> multiple FSDOs, towers, and elsewhere. I do know people that always seem
>> to get the obnoxious ones, and it's not luck then, either.
>>
> Touche Eric, I was wondering if there was a good way to say that.

I wouldn't be so much in agreement if I were you.

Ever hear of an outfit the FAA calls the "Charter Quest Team"? It's a little
group the FAA has put together to blast the livelihood from under part 135
operators on the basis of murky interpretations of "operational control".
They don't talk to the FSDO's that have authority over the operators, the
FAA won't tell you who they are or where they work out of, and if you ask
them what rules the team is working under, the request is refused and you
are pointed to FOIA procedures. These are people who have already been at
work destroying companies who have done nothing wrong other than try to live
to up to the spirit of regulations and "do the right thing." You think luck
is involved in any way in this? Even the NTSB has blasted this hit man team
the FAA has put together. You had better hope your luck holds out if you run
into them.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Brad]

Interesting. Can you give any cites?
Brad


Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Bruce Greef" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> Juan Jimenez wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> >>> news:BI5ah.13303$_x3.11069@trndny02...
> >>>
> >>>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
> >>>> ect certification of an individual aircraft.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Ron Wanttaja
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch
> >>>>>> of self righteous bureaucrats!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What else do they call themselves?
> >>>>
> >>>> The ones I've worked with called themselves things like "Bob",
> >>>> "Charlie", and "Sue", while they went out of their way to certify my
> >>>> glider, set up our wave windows, and get me the waiver I requested.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Lucky you, you ran into the minority...
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not luck when it happens repeatedly over a 30 year period at
> >> multiple FSDOs, towers, and elsewhere. I do know people that always seem
> >> to get the obnoxious ones, and it's not luck then, either.
> >>
> > Touche Eric, I was wondering if there was a good way to say that.
>
> I wouldn't be so much in agreement if I were you.
>
> Ever hear of an outfit the FAA calls the "Charter Quest Team"? It's a little
> group the FAA has put together to blast the livelihood from under part 135
> operators on the basis of murky interpretations of "operational control".
> They don't talk to the FSDO's that have authority over the operators, the
> FAA won't tell you who they are or where they work out of, and if you ask
> them what rules the team is working under, the request is refused and you
> are pointed to FOIA procedures. These are people who have already been at
> work destroying companies who have done nothing wrong other than try to live
> to up to the spirit of regulations and "do the right thing." You think luck
> is involved in any way in this? Even the NTSB has blasted this hit man team
> the FAA has put together. You had better hope your luck holds out if you run
> into them.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

Of course. NTSB dockets SE-17831 and SE-17832 from Administrative Law Judge
William R. Mullins. The final decision on appeal should have been issued
already, but the Oral Decision and Order issues October 17, 2006 speaks for
itself.

"A couple other comments on the Charter Quest Team, Mr. Riley talked about
the fact that they have their own rules. They don't have to follow that
handbook on operational control and I certainly believe him but that in and
of itself is kind of a scary approach in my opinion. We have a federal
government agency that's trying to regulate in an area and their regulatory
team doesn't even have rules that are published so that somebody can see
what they are coming out to look at or how they are going to go about it.
And then, Mr. Weitzenhoffer suggested to counsel that if he wanted this
secret document, he could issue FOIA request for it. The concern that I have
is that if a document is only to be obtained by a FOIA request, either by an
airman, a certificate holder, or the National Transportation Safety Board,
then it's not entitled to any deference by the National Transportation
Safety Board."

Pretty strong words from an NTSB judge, if I may say so. I tried to get the
FAA to give me more info on this. They went so far as to acknowledge the
team's existence, and that's it. No names, no location, no rules or
authority except by FOIA request. In the meanwhile, in this example over 100
people had to be laid off, just a couple months before Xmas, and the
consequences are all piling up.

I called AOPA and no one knew about the "team". Neither does NBAA, or anyone
else I talked to. And yet, they have authority to issue emergency orders of
revocations of certificates.

"Brad" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Interesting. Can you give any cites?
> Brad
>
>
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> "Bruce Greef" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> >> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>> >>> news:BI5ah.13303$_x3.11069@trndny02...
>> >>>
>> >>>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> >>>> ect certification of an individual aircraft.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> Ron Wanttaja
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious
>> >>>>>> bunch
>> >>>>>> of self righteous bureaucrats!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What else do they call themselves?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The ones I've worked with called themselves things like "Bob",
>> >>>> "Charlie", and "Sue", while they went out of their way to certify my
>> >>>> glider, set up our wave windows, and get me the waiver I requested.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Lucky you, you ran into the minority...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's not luck when it happens repeatedly over a 30 year period at
>> >> multiple FSDOs, towers, and elsewhere. I do know people that always
>> >> seem
>> >> to get the obnoxious ones, and it's not luck then, either.
>> >>
>> > Touche Eric, I was wondering if there was a good way to say that.
>>
>> I wouldn't be so much in agreement if I were you.
>>
>> Ever hear of an outfit the FAA calls the "Charter Quest Team"? It's a
>> little
>> group the FAA has put together to blast the livelihood from under part
>> 135
>> operators on the basis of murky interpretations of "operational control".
>> They don't talk to the FSDO's that have authority over the operators, the
>> FAA won't tell you who they are or where they work out of, and if you ask
>> them what rules the team is working under, the request is refused and you
>> are pointed to FOIA procedures. These are people who have already been at
>> work destroying companies who have done nothing wrong other than try to
>> live
>> to up to the spirit of regulations and "do the right thing." You think
>> luck
>> is involved in any way in this? Even the NTSB has blasted this hit man
>> team
>> the FAA has put together. You had better hope your luck holds out if you
>> run
>> into them.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Bruce Greef]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Bruce Greef" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>>>>news:BI5ah.13303$_x3.11069@trndny02...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>>>ect certification of an individual aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ron Wanttaja
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>C'mon Ron. You make it sound like the FAA guys are an officious bunch
>>>>>>>of self righteous bureaucrats!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What else do they call themselves?
>>>>>
>>>>>The ones I've worked with called themselves things like "Bob",
>>>>>"Charlie", and "Sue", while they went out of their way to certify my
>>>>>glider, set up our wave windows, and get me the waiver I requested.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Lucky you, you ran into the minority...
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not luck when it happens repeatedly over a 30 year period at
>>>multiple FSDOs, towers, and elsewhere. I do know people that always seem
>>>to get the obnoxious ones, and it's not luck then, either.
>>>
>>
>>Touche Eric, I was wondering if there was a good way to say that.
>
>
> I wouldn't be so much in agreement if I were you.
>
> Ever hear of an outfit the FAA calls the "Charter Quest Team"? It's a little
> group the FAA has put together to blast the livelihood from under part 135
> operators on the basis of murky interpretations of "operational control".
> They don't talk to the FSDO's that have authority over the operators, the
> FAA won't tell you who they are or where they work out of, and if you ask
> them what rules the team is working under, the request is refused and you
> are pointed to FOIA procedures. These are people who have already been at
> work destroying companies who have done nothing wrong other than try to live
> to up to the spirit of regulations and "do the right thing." You think luck
> is involved in any way in this? Even the NTSB has blasted this hit man team
> the FAA has put together. You had better hope your luck holds out if you run
> into them.
>
>
>
Juan

You have my sympathy. Having met some of the bureaucracy the USA seems to
specialise in I try to avoid the place completely. But I must agree that , when
dealing with bureaucrats there is a lot more to be gained from a little courtesy
and and a lot of preparation. Frequently the person you are dealing with falls
into one of two categories.
1] He/she is completely clueless and will only do what is in their procedures
and guidelines. Heaven help you if you meet one of ours who is functionally
illiterate, and so only knows a small fraction of the rules, but applies those
with vigour.
2] Alternatively it might be someone who is knowledgeable about your sport, and
probably does not agree with many of the painful regulations they are paid to
enforce.

Whatever, in general the person you are dealing with has limited ability to
accommodate you. It can take some time , and requires willing on their part to
find ways around 'problems'. If you retain your manners and make it easy for
them to help you, it is amazing how much better the experience gets. (Again a
generalisation, you are always going to get some jerks in any population.)

On the subject of the "Charter Quest Team" - this sounds like another of the
little holy wars American officialdom seems to specialise in. Some genius
somewhere formed a plan to raise their profile... Eventually after the damage
they are doing becomes apparent, someone works out it was a lousy idea.

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Bruce Greef" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> You have my sympathy. Having met some of the bureaucracy the USA seems to
> specialise in I try to avoid the place completely. But I must agree that ,
> when dealing with bureaucrats there is a lot more to be gained from a
> little courtesy and and a lot of preparation. Frequently the person you
> are dealing with falls into one of two categories.
> 1] He/she is completely clueless and will only do what is in their
> procedures and guidelines. Heaven help you if you meet one of ours who is
> functionally illiterate, and so only knows a small fraction of the rules,
> but applies those with vigour.
> 2] Alternatively it might be someone who is knowledgeable about your
> sport, and probably does not agree with many of the painful regulations
> they are paid to enforce.

The problems I've run into fall into three categories.

One is the bureaucrat who is hellbent on controlling people's lives in some
way and finds whatever excuse he thinks he can justify to exercise that
control, in this case over someone's interest in aviation. This type of
person relies on the fact that the system makes it hard (read espen$ive) for
individuals to push back.

The second one I've run into is the kind who thinks they are doing you a
favor by doing their job, for which our taxes pay their salaries. After
exhausting all possible avenues and exercising patience over a period as
long as two years, in some cases I've been forced to notify the FAA my next
stop will be a federal district attorney to file charges and start throwing
people in jail (it was that bad). In one case, a documented I needed to have
reviewed and approved was sat on for 2 years. When I did this, it was
approved within a week.

The third is the schmuck who will throw obstacles in your way unless you pay
homage to him in some fashion.

All three are examples of what happens when there is little or no oversight
over the activities of these federal employees.

> Whatever, in general the person you are dealing with has limited ability
> to accommodate you. It can take some time , and requires willing on their
> part to find ways around 'problems'. If you retain your manners and make
> it easy for them to help you, it is amazing how much better the experience
> gets. (Again a generalisation, you are always going to get some jerks in
> any population.)

Of course, but there is a limit in which retaining manners just doesn't
work, and you have to forcefully remind them that you are not asking for
favors. For example, responses to request for services that state that what
I am asking for is "not a priority of this office" are unacceptable, period.
If it's part of their job, they have to take care of the issue within a
reasonable amount of time. If I have to do legwork and paperwork in order to
accelerate things, fine, but telling me "No." will not be tolerated.

> On the subject of the "Charter Quest Team" - this sounds like another of
> the little holy wars American officialdom seems to specialise in. Some
> genius somewhere formed a plan to raise their profile... Eventually after
> the damage they are doing becomes apparent, someone works out it was a
> lousy idea.

And in the meanwhile, people lose their jobs, entrepeneurs who worked their
asses off to build a business see it crumble because of some dip****
bureaucrat, and nothing truly positive is accomplished.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Montblack]

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
> Beyond that, I can't tell you the operating limitations.
>
> The planes aren't just built to factory plans, they are considered factory
> aircraft. Daimler Benz Aerospace assigned them the next five serial
> numbers on from the wartime records.


I would hope one of the operating limitations would be: No crossing state
borders in support of ground forces.


Montblack
Now, if we can also limit the number of Minnesota bound U-boats heading up
the Mississippi River...

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:58:31 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
>> Beyond that, I can't tell you the operating limitations.
>>
>> The planes aren't just built to factory plans, they are considered factory
>> aircraft. Daimler Benz Aerospace assigned them the next five serial
>> numbers on from the wartime records.
>
>
>I would hope one of the operating limitations would be: No crossing state
>borders in support of ground forces.
>
>
>Montblack
>Now, if we can also limit the number of Minnesota bound U-boats heading up
>the Mississippi River...
>
Don't worry you're safe now that your coast guard has promised live
ammo practice on the great lakes. If that doesn't scare them away, are
depth charges part of their arsenal?