 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lacloudchaser(at)yahoo.co
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: RPA, Parachutes, flight suits and Formation |
 |
|
What? I thought I would get my yak list summation and it would be full formation training posts - not flight suits again!
So here it is folks; What really was the idea behind all this and why...
Btw, a yak post someone sent yesterday gives a clue to it all
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"">Do I have to wear a parachute when flying at RPA events?
RPA Policy: Only if you are conducting formation training with a backseat
instructor (or occupant), in this case you must have a parachute for
both seats with current repack as directed by Federal Aviation
Regulations concerning aerobatics.
That is exactly what the FARS specify. I want to make clear that this
is a change. Before now, if you were receiving instruction of any type,
... Say I was flying wingman with another aircraft, RPA rules were that
I MUST be wearing a parachute, regardless if I was by myself in a two
seat aircraft, or by myself in a ONE seat aircraft. So this then is new
official policy then correct? GREAT! ""
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, new as of 2002/3, read on...
When we started in 2001/2, the org (then called YPA) had a long list of [implied] mandatory gear for flying formation, nomex flight suits & gloves, boots, helmet, parachutes, ability of the backseat to transmit and crew intercom (front and back seat communication), all working instruments in both cockpits. Ugg, I could just see being on the phone with a dead pilots wife, screaming at me why "your policy was for parachutes and you didn't stop my husband from flying without a parachute" and then filing a lawsuit against the org and the poor event organizer. Then asking the organizer of the event, how did this guy strap in without a parachute!?!, Didn't the lead or someone police them strapping in (see the insane logic here?)
I heard all the arguments and found, in my opinion, that the org was taking too much responsibility for the individual safety of the pilot as "policy". We were taking on the concept of "policing" so much gear, while having a policy that implied we, the org, were going to somehow insure your personal and individual safety!!?! So after the first year of "RPA", the policy was changed, after taking it to the board of directors for debate, to this:
All safety equipment optional, but recommended, except:
- Parachutes would follow the then current FAA FAR 91 regulations concerning aerobatics and dual seat aircraft. This was due to the practice of flying extended trail that met aerobatic flight parameters.
- Shoes that enclosed the foot (more for you stubbing your toe at the crud game )
- Aircraft must have cockpit to cockpit communication capability and backseat must have transmit/recieve capability
The following year, the backseat instrumentation policy, another one that caused issues for members (it's not uncommon that if you had a light or instrument go out in the front cockpit, until you could get a replacement, you would swap it for its identical instrument in the back, sincet he aircraft was "PIC from the front" , it may thus be legal to fly in such a condition), was changed to "line up" with the FAA Regs, the idea being, if your aircraft POH, or other procedural guide (emergency checklist), or regulatory guidance required an instrument in the backseat, then it needed to be there or appropriately removed/marked inoperative IAW FAA guidelines (btw, when I was pitching this change to the board of directors, Mike Filucci provided me the FAA wording on "marking inoperative instruments" which I then included in the written guidance and you can still find the FAA policy there I believe).
However, and this was, in my opinion, critical to the policy change: in all cases, the policy highly recommended you keep your aircraft in excellent working order including all instruments, and left the RPA backseat instructor as the final say on whether he or she would fly in your aircraft - they are the "boots on the ground" and the ones hangin their butts out, if they say no cause your backseat generator light is out, RPA policy supported them 100%, on the other hand, if they were willing to fly in the back pit with an inoperative rear CHT and ask you to call it out when you should be checking it anyways (hint: teaching good formation habits), the policy supported that decision as well..., and we provided some guidance on what instruments should definetly be working in that backseat to facilitate instruction and safety, such as altitude, airspeed, oil temp, etc.
..all this was on the website and communicated through ecoms over the years. I just put this policy information on the new "wingmans course page" which is the master formation link on the home page, so its easy to find (same place as the manual). The new folks will update it as needed.
Get it? In all cases your individual safety became more your responsibility and decision, and less the orgs,but the policy shifted to meeting whatever laws/regulations we fell under as a group while promoting good judgment and safe operating practices and equipment. I still believe this is the best approach for the org...as I will say in this post, you can write admin(at)flyredstar.org (admin(at)flyredstar.org) to get to Darrell and the org to voice your opinion directly!
Why flight suits were retained in the RPA, but nomex gloves were not?....
While most indivudual safety gear was moved to "highly recommended". the wear of a flight suit was retained because in all honesty, I felt (and the then BoD approved the decision) that that one piece of equipment served multiple purposes and was in the best interest of the organization as a whole, and thus would serve the membership / aircraft owners individually (although you may not see the value). Oh, this is going to spin a few people up. Wearing of nomex as some of you have recounted, can save skin in a mishap - With that concept aside, the flight suit itself (generally green, but humans love free will and some showed up as desert warriors and a few blacks and blues along the way, and yes, some were none nomex knock offs) also was one small part (among many) that helped alter the perception of "those pilots flying that chinese and russian imported crap" by those who observed this growing organization, which helps everyone from aircraft/parts sales to owners and airshow formation flyers. I once went in to the Long Beach FSDO to hack it out with the FAA Officer in 2001 who was rewriting all regional ops limits and making them unfairly restrictive, including mine! (he later kicked off my mechanics L-29s from my airport), he said, "I saw you guys a few years ago on the ramp, leaking oil - I don't want those aircraft dropping their parts over populated areas of this city (greater LA)". I heard this kind of perception from other members around the country. Btw, RPA member Ron Lee, now treasurer, finally won the day with this FSDO by working with EAA legal. In the warbird community we also in 2002 were just emerging from the small kid onthe block/ugly step child. So from the website (virtual face of the org) to new patches, new logo, regionalized events, flying a four foot RPA flag 30 ft over oshkosh and SnF (high on top of Dave McGirts RV) to a uniform that expressed professionalism as well as provided some safety to our members, the over all goal was to increase the qualitative perception of chinese and eastern european/russian imported equipment and the north american pilots who flew them. I also strongly felt, and many agreed, that pilots in flight suits who assembled for the brief had their game face on and thus "head in the game" - the very perception of the commonly clad aviator promoted the teamwork that is vital to this organization and its prinicipal activities. Civil formation all too commonly had/has this air of "lets just go out and wing it", the T-34 manual, quoted for so long as the mother manual of civil formation, propagated this concept in a way, as it purposely provided scant detail, leaving the majority of formation knowledge to word of mouth and the luck of finding a knowledgable and experienced formation instructor. We still want you to have that opportunity, but the new manual puts the knowledge in your hands first and foremost, before you fly with that instructor (novel concept: read it before you fly and come prepared).
So now, if your reading this, if the flight suit issue kept you from participating in your regional organizational formation clinics/fly-ins over the years, please email the organization at admin(at)fflyredstar.org (admin(at)fflyredstar.org) , no need to go in to a long argument, the organization knows all sides, simply state: "the mandatory wear of a flight suit keeps me from flying in RPA event - Iam/am not a member"
The old YPA org policy and later RPA policy was published in the formation manual itself (and online), the new manual is geared for your everday flying, so it no longer is an org policy statement, here it is from the new manual -notice the word "recommended",
1.5.1.1 Safety Equipment:
The list below is the recommended equipment for conducting
formation flight. Although these items are mentioned
for your safety, those marked with * are required items to
receive in-flight instruction.
Nomex/fi re retardant fl ight suit
Protective footwear
Protective gloves
Current parachute
Helmet
Intercom system for two seat aircraft*
Instructor able to transmit outside the aircraft*
Here is the current "BoD Approved" policy statment from the "FAST HQ" page online at flyredstar:
"A Flight Suit will be worn by the pilots flying in a training/display formation sortie at RPA events/clinics. Flight Leads will enforce this policy with their Wingmen"
While other online statments push "nomex flight suits" the wording specifically did not. Another intersting note: At ARS in 2006 I asked a group of members/attendees if they objected or would like the policy changed, it was an open forum, they bitched about other issues raised, but for the flight suit policy, it was very clear; they wanted it retained and believed it was the right thing for the org.
Hope this helps, again, to reach Darrell and the Org, write directly to admin(at)flyredstar.org (admin(at)flyredstar.org)
Drew
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: RPA, Parachutes, flight suits and Formation |
|
|
Very well written history review Drew. Even though I am participating
in this discussion, I have made a lot of effort to avoid opening
Pandora's Box all the way, or at least I have tried to. Many people are
fed up hearing about this subject and would rather discuss things that
are of direct interest to themselves rather than what is worn when
flying an airplane. I tend to agree with them to a point. And as you
well know, you and I have been through this publicly and privately
before. I ask them to just be patient for a tad longer, sometimes the
flotsam comes with the jetsam.
The bottom line is this (quote):
"A Flight Suit will be worn by the pilots flying in a training/display
formation sortie at RPA events/clinics. Flight Leads will enforce this
policy with their Wingmen"
Craig Winkelmann, CFI [capav8r(at)gmail.com]did not quote it quite as
accurately as you did here. What he clearly said and understood
centered on RPA EVENTS. With all the slashes in that one sentence, it
can have a number of meanings. When you put in a "/", that means that
EITHER word can be used in the sentence or BOTH. The words in question
are: "training/display" and "events/clinics". Thus a legitimate
meaning from your policy statement could be this:
"A Flight Suit will be worn by the pilots flying in a training formation
sortie at RPA clinics. Flight Leads will enforce this policy with their
Wingmen."
That means that if I show up at an RPA sponsored FAST Clinic that it is
mandatory that before I fly formation with another aircraft, the suit is
required. Even with everything you have said, this still represents an
unacceptable situation to me, and clearly is against some of the very
points you made about "enforcing safety". I sincerely doubt that this
EXACT circumstance is what all your members voted FOR. As I said, the
way it is written, there are at least FOUR ways to interpret what it
means. I suggest that you take out two words and have it read like
this:
"A Flight Suit will be worn by the pilots flying in a display formation
sortie at RPA events. Flight Leads will enforce this policy with their
Wingmen"
Is that so bad? In fact it might even pass muster taking out just ONE
word as in:
"A Flight Suit will be worn by the pilots flying in a display formation
sortie at RPA events/clinics. Flight Leads will enforce this policy with
their Wingmen"
So that's what it all comes down to Drew. One.. Maybe two... WORDS.
Before I write to: <mailto:admin(at)flyredstar.org> I will wait for your
reply, because heaven only knows, it could all easily just be one big
misunderstanding!
Mark Bitterlich
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
