sport pilot airplane from pvt glider

[Andy[_1_]]

For some reason I can't reply to the old thread that discussed adding
new ratings to sport pilot without a flight test. The reply option is
not available. Anyway...

It seems FAA has had second thought on this and has issued an NPRM.
Some of it reads as follows:

"Currently, to obtain additional aircraft
category and class privileges at the sport
pilot level, the holder of a pilot
certificate must complete a proficiency
check administered by an authorized
instructor. Upon successful completion
of that proficiency check, that person
receives a logbook endorsement from
the instructor who administered the
proficiency check. That endorsement
permits the person completing the
proficiency check to exercise sport pilot
privileges in the category and class of
aircraft in which the proficiency check
was administered.
Consistent with the FAA’s system for
issuing all other pilot certificates and
ratings, the FAA is proposing to require
a person seeking privileges to operate an
additional category and class of lightsport
aircraft as a sport pilot to obtain
the appropriate category and class
rating. These ratings would be issued
after the completion of a practical test
typically administered by an FAAdesignated
pilot examiner (DPE). The
practice of obtaining privileges to
operate a light-sport aircraft after
completion of a proficiency check by an
authorized instructor would be
discontinued. Privileges to operate lightsport
aircraft would be indicated as
ratings on a person’s pilot certificate
rather than by an endorsement in a
person’s logbook."

Note the requirement for a flight test with an FAA designated
examiner. (DPE)

The full NPRM can be seen at
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-1127.pdf

Andy

[BT]

Andy.. that is standard for anyone moving from a glider rating to an
airplane rating.
They are finally covering their tracks for the Sport Pilot level.
BT

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
For some reason I can't reply to the old thread that discussed adding
new ratings to sport pilot without a flight test. The reply option is
not available. Anyway...

It seems FAA has had second thought on this and has issued an NPRM.
Some of it reads as follows:

"Currently, to obtain additional aircraft
category and class privileges at the sport
pilot level, the holder of a pilot
certificate must complete a proficiency
check administered by an authorized
instructor. Upon successful completion
of that proficiency check, that person
receives a logbook endorsement from
the instructor who administered the
proficiency check. That endorsement
permits the person completing the
proficiency check to exercise sport pilot
privileges in the category and class of
aircraft in which the proficiency check
was administered.
Consistent with the FAA’s system for
issuing all other pilot certificates and
ratings, the FAA is proposing to require
a person seeking privileges to operate an
additional category and class of lightsport
aircraft as a sport pilot to obtain
the appropriate category and class
rating. These ratings would be issued
after the completion of a practical test
typically administered by an FAAdesignated
pilot examiner (DPE). The
practice of obtaining privileges to
operate a light-sport aircraft after
completion of a proficiency check by an
authorized instructor would be
discontinued. Privileges to operate lightsport
aircraft would be indicated as
ratings on a person’s pilot certificate
rather than by an endorsement in a
person’s logbook."

Note the requirement for a flight test with an FAA designated
examiner. (DPE)

The full NPRM can be seen at
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-1127.pdf

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On May 14, 7:14*pm, "BT" > wrote:
> Andy.. that is standard for anyone moving from a glider rating to an
> airplane rating.
> They are finally covering their tracks for the Sport Pilot level.
> BT

The context of my post was perhaps not clear since I was unable to
continue the original thread. I should have prefaced it by quoting my
comment from the old thread:

"I am certainly confused and surprised that an SP gliderpilot can get
SP airplane without a knowledge or flight test since, as a pvt
gliderpilot, I had to take both the knowledge and flight test to get
private
ASEL on my certificate."

A search of this group for "sport airplane" will find the thread.


Andy

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Andy, the "Reply" button is now at the bottom of the page
instead of the top. It appears this might be a gentle nudge to post
replys below the message instead of at the top, as has been our standard
practice.

At 02:18 15 May 2008, Andy wrote:
>For some reason I can't reply to the old thread that discussed
adding
>new ratings to sport pilot without a flight test. The reply option is
>not available. Anyway...
>
>It seems FAA has had second thought on this and has issued an NPRM.
>Some of it reads as follows:
>
>"Currently, to obtain additional aircraft
>category and class privileges at the sport
>pilot level, the holder of a pilot
>certificate must complete a proficiency
>check administered by an authorized
>instructor. Upon successful completion
>of that proficiency check, that person
>receives a logbook endorsement from
>the instructor who administered the
>proficiency check. That endorsement
>permits the person completing the
>proficiency check to exercise sport pilot
>privileges in the category and class of
>aircraft in which the proficiency check
>was administered.
>Consistent with the FAA=92s system for
>issuing all other pilot certificates and
>ratings, the FAA is proposing to require
>a person seeking privileges to operate an
>additional category and class of lightsport
>aircraft as a sport pilot to obtain
>the appropriate category and class
>rating. These ratings would be issued
>after the completion of a practical test
>typically administered by an FAAdesignated
>pilot examiner (DPE). The
>practice of obtaining privileges to
>operate a light-sport aircraft after
>completion of a proficiency check by an
>authorized instructor would be
>discontinued. Privileges to operate lightsport
>aircraft would be indicated as
>ratings on a person=92s pilot certificate
>rather than by an endorsement in a
>person=92s logbook."
>
>Note the requirement for a flight test with an FAA designated
>examiner. (DPE)
>
>The full NPRM can be seen at
>http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-1127.pdf
>
>Andy
>
>

[Russ[_2_]]

Nyal-
Interesting that you should try to dictate convention when your posts
are coming through with quotes so butchered that they are illegible.
This is "Usenet", you are posting to, and has no reply buttons.
Any buttons you see come from the software which you personally are
using for posting and there are no rules as to where a person may put
their reply. Only, "your" personal taste as to where you would like to
see the reply.

Clean up your own act before dictating to others how they should post.

I am posting to the top in this instance, not to spite you, but so that
you may see an example, below, as to how your posts are coming through a
"normal" newsreader program for Usenet.

Nyal Williams wrote:
> Andy, the "Reply" button is now at the bottom of the page
> instead of the top. It appears this might be a gentle nudge to post
> replys below the message instead of at the top, as has been our standard
> practice.
>
> At 02:18 15 May 2008, Andy wrote:
> >For some reason I can't reply to the old thread that discussed
> adding
> >new ratings to sport pilot without a flight test. The reply option is
> >not available. Anyway...
> >
> >It seems FAA has had second thought on this and has issued an NPRM.
> >Some of it reads as follows:
> >
> >"Currently, to obtain additional aircraft
> >category and class privileges at the sport
> >pilot level, the holder of a pilot
> >certificate must complete a proficiency
> >check administered by an authorized
> >instructor. Upon successful completion
> >of that proficiency check, that person
> >receives a logbook endorsement from
> >the instructor who administered the
> >proficiency check. That endorsement
> >permits the person completing the
> >proficiency check to exercise sport pilot
> >privileges in the category and class of
> >aircraft in which the proficiency check
> >was administered.
> >Consistent with the FAA=92s system for
> >issuing all other pilot certificates and
> >ratings, the FAA is proposing to require
> >a person seeking privileges to operate an
> >additional category and class of lightsport
> >aircraft as a sport pilot to obtain
> >the appropriate category and class
> >rating. These ratings would be issued
> >after the completion of a practical test
> >typically administered by an FAAdesignated
> >pilot examiner (DPE). The
> >practice of obtaining privileges to
> >operate a light-sport aircraft after
> >completion of a proficiency check by an
> >authorized instructor would be
> >discontinued. Privileges to operate lightsport
> >aircraft would be indicated as
> >ratings on a person=92s pilot certificate
> >rather than by an endorsement in a
> >person=92s logbook."
> >
> >Note the requirement for a flight test with an FAA designated
> >examiner. (DPE)
> >
> >The full NPRM can be seen at
> >http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-1127.pdf
> >
> >Andy
> >
> >

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Nyal's Usenet reader is reading/posting in HTML format, he likely
doesn't see anything wrong, as the '>' sequences translate to '>' and
the '"' sequences translate to '"'. Nyal, check your settings and
change the posting format to text, which is the Usenet standard...

Marc

Russ wrote:
> Nyal-
> Interesting that you should try to dictate convention when your posts
> are coming through with quotes so butchered that they are illegible.
> This is "Usenet", you are posting to, and has no reply buttons.
> Any buttons you see come from the software which you personally are
> using for posting and there are no rules as to where a person may put
> their reply. Only, "your" personal taste as to where you would like to
> see the reply.
>
> Clean up your own act before dictating to others how they should post.
>
> I am posting to the top in this instance, not to spite you, but so that
> you may see an example, below, as to how your posts are coming through a
> "normal" newsreader program for Usenet.
>
> Nyal Williams wrote:
>> Andy, the "Reply" button is now at the bottom of the page
>> instead of the top. It appears this might be a gentle nudge to post
>> replys below the message instead of at the top, as has been our standard
>> practice.
>>
>> At 02:18 15 May 2008, Andy wrote:
>> >For some reason I can't reply to the old thread that discussed
>> adding
>> >new ratings to sport pilot without a flight test. The reply option is
>> >not available. Anyway...
>> >
>> >It seems FAA has had second thought on this and has issued an NPRM.
>> >Some of it reads as follows:
>> >

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Russ, and others,

I have no interest in dictating convention; I merely observed what was the
usual practice, recalled that there had been been some discussion and
criticism of posting at top or bottom (probably two years ago) and
surmised that moving the button to the bottom might have been a nudge.
There are arguments for posting at top and at bottom and I take no
position on this. I only wanted to point out that someone who needed a
button for reply had overlooked it.

Now, turns out that my reader needs adjusting and that not everyone sees
what I see. I'm not all that savvy about internet communications. I'm
using Thunderbird at someone else's suggestion and I'm not sure what to
do to it.

It was not my intent to influence practices or to ruffle feathers.
Thanks, Marc Russ's post did not even show up on my list of downloaded
messages.



At 16:09 18 May 2008, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Nyal's Usenet reader is reading/posting in HTML format, he likely
>doesn't see anything wrong, as the '>' sequences translate to
'>' and
>the '"' sequences translate to '"'. Nyal, check your
settings and
>change the posting format to text, which is the Usenet standard...
>
>Marc
>
>Russ wrote:
>> Nyal-
>> Interesting that you should try to dictate convention when your
posts
>> are coming through with quotes so butchered that they are
illegible.
>> This is "Usenet", you are posting to, and has no
reply buttons.
>> Any buttons you see come from the software which you personally
are
>> using for posting and there are no rules as to where a person may
put
>> their reply. Only, "your" personal taste as to where
you would like to
>> see the reply.
>>
>> Clean up your own act before dictating to others how they should
post.
>>
>> I am posting to the top in this instance, not to spite you, but
so that
>> you may see an example, below, as to how your posts are coming
through a
>> "normal" newsreader program for Usenet.
>>
>> Nyal Williams wrote:
>>> Andy, the "Reply" button is now at the bottom of
the page
>>> instead of the top. It appears this might be a gentle nudge
to post
>>> replys below the message instead of at the top, as has been
our standard
>>> practice.
>>>
>>> At 02:18 15 May 2008, Andy wrote:
>>> >For some reason I can't reply to the old thread that
discussed
>>> adding
>>> >new ratings to sport pilot without a flight test. The
reply option is
>>> >not available. Anyway...
>>> >
>>> >It seems FAA has had second thought on this and has
issued an NPRM.
>>> >Some of it reads as follows:
>>> >
>

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Ah, here's your post.

Russ, I tried to answer you privately by email but you have obscured your
address.

This came to me completely clean, unbutchered, uncluttered, and clear as a
bell.

I don't know what the problem is. Sorry!

At 11:01 18 May 2008, Russ wrote:
>Nyal-
>Interesting that you should try to dictate convention when your posts

>are coming through with quotes so butchered that they are illegible.
>This is "Usenet", you are posting to, and has no reply
buttons.
>Any buttons you see come from the software which you personally are
>using for posting and there are no rules as to where a person may put

>their reply. Only, "your" personal taste as to where you
would like to
>see the reply.
>
>Clean up your own act before dictating to others how they should
post.
>
>I am posting to the top in this instance, not to spite you, but so
that
>you may see an example, below, as to how your posts are coming through
a
>"normal" newsreader program for Usenet.
>
>Nyal Williams wrote:
>> Andy, the "Reply" button is now at the bottom of the
page
>> instead of the top. It appears this might be a gentle nudge to
post
>> replys below the message instead of at the top, as has been our
standard
>> practice.
>>
>> At 02:18 15 May 2008, Andy wrote:
>> >For some reason I can't reply to the old thread that
discussed
>> adding
>> >new ratings to sport pilot without a flight test. The reply
option is
>> >not available. Anyway...
>> >
>> >It seems FAA has had second thought on this and has issued an
NPRM.
>> >Some of it reads as follows:
>> >
>> >"Currently, to obtain additional aircraft
>> >category and class privileges at the sport
>> >pilot level, the holder of a pilot
>> >certificate must complete a proficiency
>> >check administered by an authorized
>> >instructor. Upon successful completion
>> >of that proficiency check, that person
>> >receives a logbook endorsement from
>> >the instructor who administered the
>> >proficiency check. That endorsement
>> >permits the person completing the
>> >proficiency check to exercise sport pilot
>> >privileges in the category and class of
>> >aircraft in which the proficiency check
>> >was administered.
>> >Consistent with the FAA=92s system for
>> >issuing all other pilot certificates and
>> >ratings, the FAA is proposing to require
>> >a person seeking privileges to operate an
>> >additional category and class of lightsport
>> >aircraft as a sport pilot to obtain
>> >the appropriate category and class
>> >rating. These ratings would be issued
>> >after the completion of a practical test
>> >typically administered by an FAAdesignated
>> >pilot examiner (DPE). The
>> >practice of obtaining privileges to
>> >operate a light-sport aircraft after
>> >completion of a proficiency check by an
>> >authorized instructor would be
>> >discontinued. Privileges to operate lightsport
>> >aircraft would be indicated as
>> >ratings on a person=92s pilot certificate
>> >rather than by an endorsement in a
>> >person=92s logbook."
>> >
>> >Note the requirement for a flight test with an FAA
designated
>> >examiner. (DPE)
>> >
>> >The full NPRM can be seen at
>> >http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-1127.pdf
>> >
>> >Andy
>> >
>> >
>

[Jim Logajan]

Nyal Williams > wrote:
> Now, turns out that my reader needs adjusting and that not everyone
> sees what I see. I'm not all that savvy about internet
> communications. I'm using Thunderbird at someone else's suggestion
> and I'm not sure what to do to it.

It looks like you may be posting via this web site:

http://www.gliderpilot.net/

You might try contacting the webmaster for that site via the info in that
site's contact page and point out the problem. Alternatively you could try
posting via Google Groups:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/topics?lnk=sg

[Russ[_2_]]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> This came to me completely clean, unbutchered, uncluttered, and
clear as a
> bell.
>
> I don't know what the problem is. Sorry!

Nyal,
Sorry about that, I realized after I posted the quote that your
newsreader probably would clean the quote up the same as it munged it.

I suspect, now, that it is a combination of html text and
Gilderpilot.net, and Google news that your messages go through. It was
a disastrous combination of the internet providers and some texting
characters that prevent the message from being translated to plain text
for a Usenet newsreader.
http://tinyurl.com/5vlay4
This shortened link should take you to a Google Groups version of your
Spoilers or Airbrakes message, which first set me off. It might give you
a view of the munging of the text that made it unreadable. Your
messages are fine as long as nothing is quoted.
After trying to read the above message I falsely perceived, in your next
message in the "Sport pilot from pvt glider" thread, that you were then
directing Andy to follow a convention that was not followed in the
spoiler/airbrake correction attempt.

I am blaming my short fuse for it all, on the rainy weekend, here.

Russ

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Google Groups drops a significant number of the messages that appear on
gliderpilot.net - at least what I see, and have compared.

At 00:11 19 May 2008, Jim Logajan wrote:
>Nyal Williams wrote:
>> Now, turns out that my reader needs adjusting and that not
everyone
>> sees what I see. I'm not all that savvy about internet
>> communications. I'm using Thunderbird at someone else's
suggestion
>> and I'm not sure what to do to it.
>
>It looks like you may be posting via this web site:
>
>http://www.gliderpilot.net/
>
>You might try contacting the webmaster for that site via the info in
that
>site's contact page and point out the problem. Alternatively you
could try
>posting via Google Groups:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/topics?lnk=sg
>

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

What a horrible mess! Discourages me from posting. Unfortunately for me,
a lot of the messages that appear on gliderpilot.net do not show up at all
on google groups as I receive it , and the ones that do are often a couple
of days late.

At 01:21 19 May 2008, Russ wrote:
>Nyal Williams wrote:
> > This came to me completely clean, unbutchered, uncluttered, and

>clear as a
>> bell.
>>
>> I don't know what the problem is. Sorry!
>
>Nyal,
>Sorry about that, I realized after I posted the quote that your
>newsreader probably would clean the quote up the same as it munged
it.
>
>I suspect, now, that it is a combination of html text and
>Gilderpilot.net, and Google news that your messages go through. It
was
> a disastrous combination of the internet providers and some texting

>characters that prevent the message from being translated to plain
text
>for a Usenet newsreader.
>http://tinyurl.com/5vlay4
>This shortened link should take you to a Google Groups version of your

>Spoilers or Airbrakes message, which first set me off. It might give
you
>a view of the munging of the text that made it unreadable. Your
>messages are fine as long as nothing is quoted.
>After trying to read the above message I falsely perceived, in your
next
>message in the "Sport pilot from pvt glider" thread, that
you were then
>directing Andy to follow a convention that was not followed in the
>spoiler/airbrake correction attempt.
>
>I am blaming my short fuse for it all, on the rainy weekend, here.
>
>Russ
>

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> What a horrible mess! Discourages me from posting. Unfortunately for me,
> a lot of the messages that appear on gliderpilot.net do not show up at all
> on google groups as I receive it , and the ones that do are often a couple
> of days late.

This is pretty likely a bug in the new version of the gliderpilot.net
software. Posts I've made from there in the past have not had this
problem, sometimes debugging software is a total pain in the...

Marc

[Andy[_1_]]

On May 18, 3:40*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> *I only wanted to point out that someone who needed a
> button for reply had overlooked it.

I know where the reply button normally is and use it quite often.
There was no reply button for the thread I wished to respond to, only
a reply to author button.

Perhaps Google groups retires a thread after a certain period but I
have not noticed that before.

Andy

[Andy Kirkland[_2_]]

At 22:55 18 May 2008, Nyal Williams wrote:
>Ah, here's your post.
>
>Russ, I tried to answer you privately by email but you have obscured
your
>address.
>
>This came to me completely clean, unbutchered, uncluttered, and clear as
a
>bell.
>
>I don't know what the problem is. Sorry!

Apologies people - the HTML quoting is my fault. Nyal is posting via
gliderpilot.net and after the re-write there are still the odd one or two
bugs. Looking into it ASAP.

Thanks,

Andy
--
Andy Kirkland
Glider Pilot Network

[Martin Gregorie[_3_]]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 01:40:08 +0000, Nyal Williams wrote:

> Unfortunately for me, a lot of the messages that appear on
> gliderpilot.net do not show up at all on google groups as I receive it ,
> and the ones that do are often a couple of days late.
>
This is a well-known failing of GoogleGroups. You're MUCH better off using
a proper newsreader and dealing with USENET directly, rather than through
the googleplex proxy.

Suitable (and free!) software is Forte Free Agent (Windows) or Pan (Linux).
I have no Mac recommendation. Free Agent is IMO Best of Breed and
Pan is OK - its certainly better than Thunderbird, but not nearly as good
as Free Agent.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot