"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots"

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

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

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

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.

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 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

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

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

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)