Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

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

Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:03 am Post subject: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

Don G et al, To some on you this may seem like separating the Firefly poop from the pepper, but all this talk of unregulated ultralights begs a response.

Don, I too go back to the days before the modern era of ultralights and I remember well the Feds rationale for establishing Part 103. It was that," these vehicles generally fly in remote areas and occupy the air for brief periods of time".  

I'm sure there was also the realization that requiring the newer motorized hang gliders to demonstrate a capability to be foot launched was darn dangerous, as well. Once landing gear were allowed to be the primary method of launching and landing and the good folks at Rotax began supplying fairly reliable engines, the cheating began. Then came the "trainers" and the first step was trod on the path to the brave new world of LSA. 

What are commonly referred to as the FAR's are in fact Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, of which Part 103 is a very small subset. For years it was a commonly held belief among many misinformed hang glider and ultralight pilots that, "the rules don't apply to us". As late as 2004 I saw one buffoon claim this on the nightly news in Seattle. It was his justification for conducting towing operations with a 3000 foot line on Lake Washington, well inside the veil and easily busting the floor of the SeaTac class B airspace as well as the class D and C airspace of Renton and Boeing Field. As I understand it, he found the Feds knocking on his door the following morning ready, willing and able to insure he understood his misunderstanding of the Part 103 regulations and the consequences thereof.  

At the trike party at X49 during Sun n Fun, at which most of the top FAA LSA contingent was present, I had the opportunity to ask the question, "what will you do about noncompliant ultralights". The answer was, "that depends". If you are like me, flying from a remote private airfield, virtually nothing, as long as a low profile is maintained. If, on the other hand, you operate from a field adjacent to controlled airspace and violations of the regulations have been frequent and flagrant that's another matter entirely.  

"WE HAVE A LIST OF THOSE PLACES AND WE WILL BE THERE THE MORNING OF FEBRUARY 1ST, 2008". 

So much for the theory of what will they do, show up with scales? They don't have to, they can simply seize suspected aircraft and it will be up to the owner to bring the scales and prove them wrong. Don't even bother if the aircraft has a second seat. 

My friend, Jeff, who never quite got the message that the 60's were over, learned this the hard way. He had a nice little business selling grow lights and materials to horticulturists of exotic plants. He got brazen enough to start placing ads in "High Times" magazine and one morning, as he was opening his shop, large trucks and a black van with the letters DEA  on the sides pulled up to the curb. As men with moving dollies began dismantling his displays, he protested that this wasn't legal. He was told, "you're right, but it will cost you a half million dollars in legal expenses to prove it". In a little less than two hours his entire inventory was loaded up and driven away. He had, as we hang glider pilots say, "pushed way out", and got bitten for it. Frankly, from my point of view as a parent, good riddance. 

As a pilot, I feel pretty much the same way about "fat" ultralights. Part 103 was manna from heaven and some gorged themselves without regard for the consequences. Now we've been handed a second gift from above and some still refuse to see it for what it is. It is not a trampling of our rights, there is no right to break the law. It's an amnesty with a relatively small dollar penalty and great benefits. 



Rick



do not archive



-- 

Rick Girard

"Ya'll drop on in"

takes on a whole new meaning

when you live at the airport.  [quote][b]

kenanddenice(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:54 am Post subject: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

If       Hope all have woke to smell the coffee fly now you might after waiking from the slumber party.... 

 Hope all have woke to smell the coffee, the time is right to get in line with the required laws.  Sit with that cup of coffee and review the requirements[url=#][/url], get some help from a friend or ask questions as soon as possible, time waits for no man and some may find themselves[url=#][/url] waking from the slumber party only to find a bitter cup awaits.

 

 The law is the law.  Don't expect it will make an exception or turn a blind eye, would you.....if it were your job and you were a just person.

 

 

 

 --

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:28 am Post subject: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 08:02:54 -0500

From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>

....................

"WE HAVE A LIST OF THOSE PLACES AND WE WILL BE THERE THE MORNING OF FEBRUARY 1ST, 2008". 

So much for the theory of what will they do, show up with scales? They don't have to, they can simply seize suspected aircraft and it will be up to the owner to bring the scales and prove them wrong. Don't even bother if the aircraft has a second seat. 

....................

Rick and FireFlyers,

The following document has been declared as sufficient proof that your FireFly is an ultra light vehicle:

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

I carry a copy to all fly-ins.  The front page was signed by an A&E and each page carries his initials.

Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

flymichigan(at)comcast.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

flymichigan(at)comcast.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

I totally agree that the attitude and greed of many pilots is what brought about 

the end of the two place exemption.  The orgs were "selling" BFI exemptions as 

fast as they could without regard to the legitimacy of any training activities.  

How many two place pilots in your area actually trained anyone?  I know a guy 

here in Michigan who actually advertised his float flying business as "beach 

flights".  The literature did not even make mention of any training.  He was 

using a Rans s12 on floats with a 2 seat exemption. no license, no insurance, no 

air worthiness certification, no inspections.  This clearly put the uninformed 

public at risk.



However the comparison of flying a 265lb Firefly to advertising and selling 

equipment for the production of illegal drugs is a little extreme.  I think a 

better analogy is a guy that drives 60mph in a 55mph zone.  Sure he could get  

ticket, but he is unlikely to be pulled over unless he does something else to 

attract the attention of the authorities.



Sport Pilot was a solution to solve the 2 seat exemption problem that put the public at risk.  A 

single seat ultralight with a five gallon tank is not going to be a priority to 

the FAA.  They really don't care if you kill yourself in an airplane as long as 

you don't take any other tax payers with you.



That said, a few high profile ramp checks and fines may go a long way to scare 

people into submission.  



Bryan Dever



do not archive

Eugene Zimmerman

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 392

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

On Jul 5, 2007, at 7:56 PM, flymichigan(at)comcast.net wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  




	


Hey,

No one can disagree with you on that.  :^)




do not archive

R. Hankins

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 185
Location: Grants Pass, Oregon

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:57 pm Post subject: Re: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

 	  Quote: 	
		  Sport Pilot was a solution to solve the 2 seat exemption problem that put the public at risk. 	




Let me put that in perspective. A quick review of the NTSB website shows  11 accidents by unregistered aircraft in 2006.  Five of those were fatal accidents with eight people deceased.  That means (according to the NTSB) three passengers of unregistered aircraft died.  During the same period.......



"Each year, 800,000 Americans seek medical attention for dog bites; half of these are children. Of those injured, 386,000 require treatment in an emergency department and about a dozen die." (I pulled this data from the Centers for Disease Control website)



I believe that Sport Pilot was more a response to EAA pressure to allow thousands of aging pilots to fly without a medical, than an effort at public protection.  Of course the government will always trot out these kinds of safety slogans to ease the pain when it tightens its grip.  It is the nature of any bureaucracy.  With any luck they will have pilots and airport operators clamouring for their cell phones to turn in those dangerous unregistered aircraft.



 How many people have I harmed by flying my unregistered aircraft for 428hrs over the last seven years?  The same amount as have been harmed by my driving 77mph when I'm late for work - exactly none.  I know its against the law, but the odds of getting caught are pretty slim if one keeps ones eyes open.



That being said, I have applied for ELSA status on my single seat Firestar.  I look at it as insurance.  The odds are better that I will be able to freely continue to do what I love to do if I comply with the new (and old) law.  If and when the spot light of enforcement shines my direction, I don't want to have to shrink into the shadows.  Maybe I'm getting old, but the idea of being a rebel just for rebellion's sake doesn't seem as much fun anymore.  I'm going to jump through the hoops and quit looking over my shoulder.



I hope the "public" feels safer.  Ok, I'm off my soapbox now...



Do Not Archive

_________________
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

One other very good reason, post 9/11, is that in the view of homeland security types, there are an estimated 30,000 unregistered aircraft to be accounted for.



Rick



On 7/5/07,  R. Hankins <rphanks(at)grantspass.com (rphanks(at)grantspass.com)> wrote:[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com (rphanks(at)grantspass.com)>

 	  Quote: 	
		   Sport Pilot was a solution to solve the 2 seat exemption problem that put the public at risk. 


	




Let me put that in perspective. A quick review of the NTSB website shows  11 accidents by unregistered aircraft in 2006.  Five of those were fatal accidents with eight people deceased.  That means (according to the NTSB) three passengers of unregistered aircraft died.  During the same period....... 



"Each year, 800,000 Americans seek medical attention for dog bites; half of these are children. Of those injured, 386,000 require treatment in an emergency department and about a dozen die." (I pulled this data from the Centers for Disease Control website) 



I believe that Sport Pilot was more a response to EAA pressure to allow thousands of aging pilots to fly without a medical, than an effort at public protection.  Of course the government will always trot out these kinds of safety slogans to ease the pain when it tightens its grip.  It is the nature of any bureaucracy.  With any luck they will have pilots and airport operators clamouring for their cell phones to turn in those dangerous unregistered aircraft. 



 How many people have I harmed by flying my unregistered aircraft for 428hrs over the last seven years?  The same amount as have been harmed by my driving 77mph when I'm late for work - exactly none.  I know its against the law, but the odds of getting caught are pretty slim if one keeps ones eyes open. 



That being said, I have applied for ELSA status on my single seat Firestar.  I look at it as insurance.  The odds are better that I will be able to freely continue to do what I love to do if I comply with the new (and old) law.  If and when the spot light of enforcement shines my direction, I don't want to have to shrink into the shadows.  Maybe I'm getting old, but the idea of being a rebel just for rebellion's sake doesn't seem as much fun anymore.  I'm going to jump through the hoops and quit looking over my shoulder. 



I hope the "public" feels safer.  Ok, I'm off my soapbox now...



Do Not Archive



--------

Roger in Oregon

1992 KXP 503





Read this topic online here:



 

"Ya'll drop on in"

takes on a whole new meaning

when you live at the airport.  [quote][b]

d-m-hague(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:12 am Post subject: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

At 10:57 PM 7/5/2007, R. Hankins wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  I believe that Sport Pilot was more a response to EAA pressure to allow 

thousands of aging pilots to fly without a medical, than an effort at 

public protection...


	


There was also pressure on FAA to end "rulemaking by exemption", which was 

what the BFI program was.



                                 -Dana



--

--

The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber.

slyck(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:06 am Post subject: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

re: homeland security.......   I don't see how being registered makes  

an aircraft less of a security threat

(note,  I'm not personally very concerned about "terrerists")

Any gravity flow fuel aircraft like a skyhawk can be ferried away  

with a couple of snips with sidecutters.

No electric necessary.

BB  DEFINITELY do not archive

George Alexander

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 245
Location: SW Florida

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: Re: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly

Having followed and been significantly affected by, "Sport" issues, the most gifted presenter in the world would have a hard time convincing me that the real truth was anything other than the medical AND carrying a passenger.



Issues like ".... public protection...."  and  "....rule making by exemption...." were positions that could be put out for public consumption, but not, IMO, sound arguments for the way it all came down.



DL as a validation of the medical requirements to operate anything?????????  For those of you who don't know...... I live in Florida!



My 2 cents worth!  (Which is about all that was left after I jumped through the hoops!)



George Alexander

Sport Pilot

N709FS



 	  d-m-hague(at)comcast.net wrote: 	
		  At 10:57 PM 7/5/2007, R. Hankins wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  I believe that Sport Pilot was more a response to EAA pressure to allow 

thousands of aging pilots to fly without a medical, than an effort at 

public protection...



	


There was also pressure on FAA to end "rulemaking by exemption", which was 

what the BFI program was.



                                 -Dana



--

--

The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber.

_________________
George Alexander
FS II R503
E-LSA N709FS
http://www.oh2fly.net

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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