"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots"

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.

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

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

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:

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)

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...si gh 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

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.