Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Airport Attitudes
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:06 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

No pilot or aircraft certification, no inspections, no minimum

altitude... and no passengers and limited performance>>



Hi Dana,

It looks as though what we lose on the swings we gain on the roundabouts (or 

carousel).



Although we usually  have to comply with general aviation rules we do have 

wider scope for doing our own maintenance and a cut price medical 

certificate. Required paperwork is genearally based un weight so we score 

there.

On the plus side we can fly a passenger, fuel (I think) is unlimited 

provided you stay within the MAUW which is now getting close to 1000lbs. The 

main catch all is the low stall speed, introduced so that a low time pilot 

with only limited experience couldn`t get into a hot ship ( several are now 

cruising at 100+) and find himself with a landinng speed which he couldn`t 

handle.



This points up the importance of VG`s on the Mark3Extra. Without them we 

couldn`t get the stalling speed low enough to remain in the microlight 

category.



There is a lot of work beig done in the EU to standardise the rules which 

specify what a microlight is and the rules under which they operate. Some 

countries you couldn`t fly higher tha certain height, in others you couldn`t 

fly below a certain height. Everyone had different allowable noise levels.

As always when bureaucracy iontervenes the paperwork , and the costs 

increase.It does mean however that all manufacturers can build to a common 

standard knowing that the plane will be accepted Europe wide.  We  are also 

adopting, with some changes, your Sports Pilot cat. and I suspect that there 

may be further merging to include microlights.



Cheers



Pat

Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:37 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

Pat L. asks: << They may have the right to fly there but why should they

want to? Why anyone with a parachute needs to practice landings at an

airfield is beyond me. Cheers - Pat >>



Pat - My powered parachute friend was not practicing landings.  He flew

over our airport just to wave at me, as he knew I had just landed.  I

thought that was a pretty good reason for him to do a low approach,

don't you?  (But obviously, our airport manager did not think so.)



As I mentioned, there was no traffic (in the air) at the airport, but

nonetheless, he still announced his intentions over the radio.  Legal,

and he did nothing unsafe.  



And best of all, we both went home with smiles.  (But not the airport

manager.)



You have my sympathy that the flying constraints in the UK sometimes

prevent you from having as much freedom and fun as you could in sport

aviation.  But I'm sure there must be a positive side to that tradeoff -

I just don't know what it is yet.



Dennis Kirby,

(Presently out of currency, and waiting to take my BFR before I can fly

again.)

Do not archive

Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

<< ... in Part 91 which governs nearly all other aircraft, nowhere is a

distance of 750'; it's 500' (1000' over congested areas). -Dana >>



The 500 feet rule pertains to flight over sparsely-populated areas.  And

to add to that, Part-91 further states that, absent any man-made

structures where you're flying, you may fly at ANY altitude that will

enable you to execute a safe emergency landing if your engine stops.

That means you are free to fly as low as you wish.



Dennis Kirby

Cedar Crest, NM

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 10:06 AM 10/8/2008, pj.ladd wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  As always when bureaucracy iontervenes the paperwork , and the costs 

increase.It does mean however that all manufacturers can build to a common 

standard knowing that the plane will be accepted Europe wide.  We  are 

also adopting, with some changes, your Sports Pilot cat. and I suspect 

that there may be further merging to include microlights.


	


Ain't that the truth!  The whole Sport Pilot thing with all its new rules 

here grew out of what was originally a request to simply increase the 

weight and fuel limitations for ultralights... and all the owners of "fat" 

ultralights that had to be converted are now having to deal with it.



Interestingly, the "training" exemptions which went away have ben reissued 

for hang gliders, paragliders, and powered paragliders... but for foot 

launch only (no trikes), which looks a lot like your foot launch exemption.



At the same time, though, I think we're starting to see a resurgence of 

interest in "true" (i.e. legal) ultralights, which is a good thing.



-Dana



do not archive

--

  Do not remove this tag under penalty of law

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 11:54 AM 10/8/2008, Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  The 500 feet rule pertains to flight over sparsely-populated areas.  And

to add to that, Part-91 further states that, absent any man-made

structures where you're flying, you may fly at ANY altitude that will

enable you to execute a safe emergency landing if your engine stops.

That means you are free to fly as low as you wish.


	


Yes, it's 500' AWAY from any person, vessel, or structure on the surface, 

not necessarily OVER.  But it still doesn't apply to ultralights, which 

have no minimum distance or altitude.



-Dana

--

  Do not remove this tag under penalty of law

NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

Dana/All



The Sport Pilot rule came about because the rules were SOOOOOO badly abused. 

The FAA did a unusually kind thing by allowing Ultralight pilots to be 

trained free of their usual regulations. The Ultralight community literally 

shot themselves in the foot by flying the so called fat Ultralights as 

tongue in cheek trainers. The only surprise was the FAA let it go on for so 

long.



Your right, there is no specific rule about 500' separation in part 103. 

That doesn't mean it is OK. I don't fly under part 103 anymore (it has been 

25 years) but I have stepped down from Private Pilot to Sport Pilot and it 

is wonderful. If people do stupid things and start killing people there 

surely will be those rules and many more. I think that a airport manager's 

concerns if real and not just prejudice should be taken very seriously. 

These people can get the ear of the FAA. The FAA isn't likely to be as nice 

as they were. Also sometimes a manager's prejudice as been taught by seeing 

people do dumb things. I'm not saying your friend was unsafe but how does 

that manager know that he might not do the same thing or worse when there is 

alot of traffic? The damage is done but sometimes a discussion with a 

manager ahead of time fixes everything.



 	  Quote: 	
		  From another perspective.


	


Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW powered MKIIIC

---

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 09:54 AM 10/8/08 -0600, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 

<< ... in Part 91 which governs nearly all other aircraft, nowhere is a

distance of 750'; it's 500' (1000' over congested areas). -Dana >>



The 500 feet rule pertains to flight over sparsely-populated areas.  And

to add to that, Part-91 further states that, absent any man-made

structures where you're flying, you may fly at ANY altitude that will

enable you to execute a safe emergency landing if your engine stops.

That means you are free to fly as low as you wish.




	


Dennis & Kolbers



Sec. 91.119



Minimum safe altitudes: General.



Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an 

aircraft below the following altitudes:



(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency 

landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.



(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or 

settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 

feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of 

the aircraft.



(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the 

surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, 

the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, 

vehicle, or structure.



(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums 

prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is 

conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, 

each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes 

specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.



FYI



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

russ(at)rkiphoto.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

As I've always understood it; you may fly at 500' or more over  

unpopulated areas, provided you fly no closer than 500' to any  

'person, vehicle or structure' on the surface. This includes boats on  

the water, swimmers, skiers etc. Except in  the process  of landing   

or taking off.

So a pass down the runway (since you're not landing)  may not be  

technically legal, but is permitted all the time and taught in pilot  

training. Remember those 'go-arounds'?

Deliberately turning over the hangar at a low altitude is what will  

get the manager going.

I wonder if your local friendly FSDO office wouldn't call the airport  

mgr when he's definitely threatening to do something illegal like  

keep all light aircraft off his field? It is against the FAR's, and  

ought have more impact coming from  the FAA. And avoids your getting  

into a face-to-face with someone you'll have to deal with in the future.

Many people don't realize that on a remote country road with no  

signs, telephone poles, fenceposts, structures of any kind within  

500' -- you can  legally go down and spin a wheel on the road. Long  

as it's not considered 'hazardous flying'

Russ

On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL wrotew

:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>





 << ... in Part 91 which governs nearly all other aircraft, nowhere  

 is a

 distance of 750'; it's 500' (1000' over congested areas). -Dana >>



 The 500 feet rule pertains to flight over sparsely-populated  

 areas.  And

 to add to that, Part-91 further states that, absent any man-made

 structures where you're flying, you may fly at ANY altitude that will

 enable you to execute a safe emergency landing if your engine stops.

 That means you are free to fly as low as you wish.



 Dennis Kirby

 Cedar Crest, NM

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 11:50 AM 10/9/2008, russ kinne wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  So a pass down the runway (since you're not landing)  may not be

technically legal, but is permitted all the time and taught in pilot

training. Remember those 'go-arounds'?


	


Correct; if there's anything within 500' of the runway a low pass isn't 

legal.  Obviously it's ignored in the event of a go-around, and usually 

it's ignored, period... but I did see a report of an enforcement action 

against (IIRC) a twin Beech pilot who did a low pass down a runway with no 

intention to land (as determined from the speed he was flying).



-Dana



do not archive

--

  Blow your mind, smoke gunpowder.

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:47 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

My powered parachute friend was not practicing landings.  He flew

over our airport just to wave at me, as he knew I had just landed.  I

thought that was a pretty good reason for him to do a low approach,

don't you?  (But obviously, our airport manager did not think so.)>>



Hi Dennis,

I don`t want to get into a slanging match over something which IN THIS 

INSTANCE was safe but if he wasn`t practicing landing then he had even less 

reason be be where he was.



The odds may be good but you never know.  For instance, last night for the 

first time in  about 1000 hours of flying my engine died on me  on the 

approach. The last thing I needed at that point was somebody dangling in 

front of me traipsing down the runway  at 5 mph.at 50 feet. The fact that he 

had announce his intention on the radio would have been no help to me and 

very little comfort to him when I smacked him between the shoulder blades at 

50 mph.



I dont think this is in any way analagous to a `touch and go` that is at 

least carried out at a speed similar to anyone else in the pattern and 

therefore occupies the runway for a fairly short period.

Unless you have business there it is not sensible to be even messing about 

in the immedate vicinity of an airfield let alone flying down the runway.



By the way I made it onto the field but the landing wasn`t very polished.



Cheers



Pat

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:41 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 05:46 AM 10/10/2008, pj.ladd wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  ...somebody dangling in front of me traipsing down the runway  at 5 mph.at 

50 feet...


	


Actually they fly at about 30 mph.



Glad your landing turned out OK.  Any idea why the engine quit?



-Dana



--

  Have you any idea how successful censorship is on TV?  Don't know the 

answer?  Hm.  Successful.  Isn't it?

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

Hi Dana



<<Actually they fly at about 30 mph.>>



Thats good. That means I would only have hit him at 30 mph.



<<Glad your landing turned out OK.  Any idea why the engine quit?>>



Well, I know what caused it.  It is just coming on winter here. Air is damp 

and it was early evening. Consequently as I dropped down from about 1800ft I 

thought it might be a good idea to use the carb. heat, just in case. Never 

used it before.



I was a bit high on the approach so I throttled back to idle. The engine 

coughed and died. Luckily  I was still high enough to get in dead stick..

Tried it aagain on the ground and sure enough with the carb heat on at idle 

the engine ran very rough although it didn`t actually stop..



We live and learn. Provided we live!



Actually I had quite an interesting flight. .With 2800rpm, 1500 ft, 70mph on 

the ASI, 90 on the GPS I wandered into the bottom of a wave(I think)  Steady 

200ftm up showing on the vario. This persisted for about 5 miles. I lost it 

once but just slid sideways until I picked it up again. Very nice.



Cheers



Pat

capedavis(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

Jack , I Know you have been paying attention . I have been to your web site and know how you Love to explain things.Maybe I could pick your brain a little . Have you ever had a ramp check? and lf so was it before or after the "sport pilot ".If so what was the attitude of the FAA?And what was the education of the agent mean does  he know  a Firefly from a Kolb mkIII?  

    Next I understand that you are  using an engine other than the 447   with an electric starter and only one cylinder.How  do you like it does it instill confidence like the 503 or 447 I flew 10 years in front of a 503 with know fear of my engine quiting. If you have already discussed this on your website you can just tell to go there or you can answer here. The reason I want tknow about the engine is being disabled I'm not sure I can deal with a pull-starter I remember that before I put the electric start on my 503 it was a job sometimes to start .  

     Jack I was interrupted by my grandchildren when I was on your website, I know how thorough you were on your site!I will go back there but as I remember it was along time ago that you put that engine on you firefly so maybe you could give us an update.   Thank you   Chris

 

 ---

lcottrell

Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1494
Location: Jordan Valley, Or

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

Maybe you could get a equilivent "Disabled parking  permit".  If it was me I wouldn't worry about it, and if checked and the  over weight was only due to the addition of a starter, I would think that  you would have a very good case to defend.

  

 For what its worth

 Larry CO, Oregon

 [quote]   ---

_________________
do not archive

capedavis(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject: Airport Attitudes

Larry , thanks for the responce .Sounds like a plan. Are you a lawyer? What are you flying? Thanks again ,Chris



 

 ---

lucien

Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 721
Location: santa fe, NM

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:37 pm Post subject: Re: Airport Attitudes

 	  NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net wrote: 	
		  Dana/All



The Sport Pilot rule came about because the rules were SOOOOOO badly abused. 	




Wrong.

Believe it or not, the rate of abuse of the exemptions was not terribly higher than the rate of abuse of any other of FnAA's rule sets. You'd be amazed at what's flying around up there among the big iron, pilots with no medicals, some with no certificates, planes out of annual for years and years and CFI's who don't teach.



Also, the BFI program brought about one of the largest increases in safety in all of aviation. Inexpensive and proximal training UL's and fat UL's was all over the place. It did more than any program to eliminate the self-taught syndrome with all the attendent bent metal and broken bones.



Abuse of the rules had nothing to do with it, as anyone who followed the development of SP rule knows.

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  

The FAA did a unusually kind thing by allowing Ultralight pilots to be 

trained free of their usual regulations. The Ultralight community literally 

shot themselves in the foot by flying the so called fat Ultralights as 

tongue in cheek trainers. The only surprise was the FAA let it go on for so 

long.

	




Wrong again. 

FnAA never likes ruling by exemption. They, as much as anyone else, wanted an appropriate rule set to cover fat UL's - they knew part 103 was too restrictive and Experimental was too difficult for many fat UL's, particularly those that were pretty close to 103 compliant.



SP was the intended solution, but of course it got completely sidetracked by special interest effort. 



The UL community did very little to bring this on - it was a foregone conclusion all on its own.



 	  Quote: 	
		  

Your right, there is no specific rule about 500' separation in part 103. 

That doesn't mean it is OK. I don't fly under part 103 anymore (it has been 

25 years) but I have stepped down from Private Pilot to Sport Pilot and it 

is wonderful. If people do stupid things and start killing people there 

surely will be those rules and many more. I think that a airport manager's 

concerns if real and not just prejudice should be taken very seriously. 

	




Maybe I should look back in the thread again but I don't see how overflying a runway at 50' is irresponsible? Airplanes do that all the time and it's perfectly fine....



LS

_________________
LS
Titan II SS

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 05:37 PM 10/11/2008, lucien wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  Abuse of the rules had nothing to do with it, as anyone who followed the 

development of SP rule knows.


	


The _origin_ of the SP rule came about because of the abuses and the 

clamoring for an increased UL weight.  Then it was hijacked by the aircraft 

manufacturers who saw a cheap way to get planes into production and became 

something entirely different, so the final rule looked nothing like what we 

all wanted.



-Dana

--

  What has four legs and an arm? A happy pit bull.

mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.co
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: Airport Attitudes

 	  Quote: 	
		   The _origin_ of the SP rule came about because of the abuses and the

 clamoring for an increased UL weight. Then it was hijacked by the aircraft

 manufacturers who saw a cheap way to get planes into production and became

 something entirely different, so the final rule looked nothing like what we

 all wanted.



 -Dana


	




Dana,



  Is this your knowledgeable of experience, or are you just stating a WAG (wild ass guess)??

I'm not arguing your point, but it was always "MY" understanding that rather than the UL

problems being the reason Sport Pilot was suggested, I thought it was the countless

thousands of (much) older regular pilots (VariEZ, LongEZ, GlasAirs, Lancairs, etc., no disrespect 

intended to the UL crowd) that lobbied the EAA to push the FAA into doing away with the 

"Medical".

  Eventually, the FAA's position was IF the medical requirement is dropped, then there WILL

be several flight restrictions, aircraft limitations, etc, etc..........



  That's just what I was under the impression of.  Again, I'm arguing with you.  I just wonder 

if you have a document or two to back up your consensus.



Any truth to this basis??



Mike Welch

MkIII CX

_________________________________________________________________

See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go.

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: Airport Attitudes

From: chris davis <capedavis(at)yahoo.com>

 	  Quote: 	
		  

Jack , I Know you have been paying attention . I have been to your web site and know how you Love to explain things.Maybe I could pick your brain a little . Have you ever had a ramp check? and lf so was it before or after the "sport pilot ".If so what was the attitude of the FAA?And what was the education of the agent mean does  he know  a Firefly from a Kolb mkIII? 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  


	


Chris,



If you fly into an airport that is hosting an "Air Show" there is a good 

chance that an FAA representative will be there.  I have attended three or 

four of these at Cape Girardeau, Missouri.  I have never been ramp checked.  

I believe the primary reason, is that there is an agreement that the 

FAA will not ramp check because it would greatly reduce the number of  ga 

and experimental aircraft and utralight vehicles that would attend.  I 

believe what is true of Cape Girardeau, is true for many rural areas of the 

country, in that, there are many ga and experimental aircraft flying that 

are flown by people with out current medicals, and with out current paper 

work.  These are old guys like me who love to fly, have little money with 

which to fly, and they do the best they can with what they have.  Most of 

them seem to be responsible pilots, because they know if they mess up it 

will effect all the rest of us.



When I go to a flyin or air show, I do carry "sufficient proof" that my 

FireFly is legal, and that document can be seen at:



http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/fireflylegal.html



 	  Quote: 	
		  

Next I understand that you are  using an engine other than the 447 with an electric starter and only one cylinder. How  do you like it does it instill confidence like the 503 or 447 I flew 10 years in front of a 503 with know fear of my engine quiting. If you have already discussed this on your website you can just tell to go there or you can answer here. The reason I want tknow about the engine is being disabled I'm not sure I can deal with a pull-starter I remember that before I put the electric start on my 503 it was a job sometimes to start . 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  

The Simonini Victor 1+ engine is a very good engine.  Since I have mounted 
	


an in the cockpit air/fuel mixture control, I like it even better.  I 

mounted a weed wacker carburetor push bulb on the Bing float bowl as a 

primer.  Two squirts and two pulls over compression to move the fuel into 

the case and the cylinder, and it will start every time on the next pass of 

the piston, cold or hot.  I would not go back to a 447.



I hope this helps.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:09 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

the over weight was only due to the addition of a  starter, I would think that you would have a very good case to  defend.>>

  

 Hi all,

  

 I just love the different attitude about the law in  the US and the UK that shows in the recent posts. 

  

 We seem to generally accept that the rules are  there for everyones protection, and they were introduced for a good reason. That  is not to say we are happy with everything or that there isn`t a little bending  of the rules here and there.

  

 You on the other hand seem to take any rule as a  direct challenge and set out to circumvent it in some way..

  

 I don`t think anyone here would think for a moment  that `only fitting a starter` would be a `good case to argue`..There is no case  to argue. You are overweight and that is that. You may as well argue that `I  only fitted a 50 gallon tank for extra safety`

 I don`t think that there are any `spot ramp checks`  here. I have never heard of such a thing. On the other hand all UL must be  weighed every 5 years when the have their annual C of A renewal. There is  certainly a lot of unscrewing of extra`s to make sure that the weight is correct  as the C of A date approaches.  

  

 I once explained to an American friend of mine the  difference in our respective attitudes like this.  `We  move into  Africa or India where the temperature is regularly in the high hundreds plus and  we  ignore it and continue to dress for dinner. Americans emigrate into  parts of the US continent that no sane person would wish to live in. Take a look  at the temperature, wrestle it three falls and invent air conditioning`   

 He laughed. Hope you find it as funny.

  

 Vive le difference

  

 Pat

 



   [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum