 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ChangDriver
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 266
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:18 am Post subject: Not the Kind of Press We Need |
 |
|
OK, I know nothing of the Dan DC-3 incident. But if you watch this video, the guy is not just a dork, but a super-dork.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-flyby8-2009nov08,0,7365252.story
http://www.latimes.com/videobeta/watch/?watch=410bd0e4-afa6-4cab-a045-b43903e33c5f&cat=empty&src=front
Happy watching as kids and adults scream and run from the L-39....
Craig
| | - 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 |
|
 |
N642K
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:43 pm Post subject: Re: Not the Kind of Press We Need |
|
|
Just one pass, then haul ass.
| | - 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 |
|
|
jonboede(at)hotmail.com
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frank(at)orionite.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:55 pm Post subject: Not the Kind of Press We Need |
|
|
Personally, I'm not too much worried about a publicity stunt gone awry.
I'm worried about our Governments response to it.
The usual response is to punish the entire class because one kid chewed
bubble gum.
In other words, why does our gov take the knee jerk reaction of punishing
everybody for the actions of a few?
That's the biggest tragedy of things like this (which I don't consider a big
deal by-the-way).
Frank
| | - 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 |
|
|
radiopicture
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: Not the Kind of Press We Need |
|
|
Frank, I share your distaste for political over-reaction without
knowing the big picture. Predictable, though.
Screaming in, unannounced on the Santa Monica Pier in an Albatross is
the height of stupidity and the "government" could hardly be expected
to ignored it. We as airshow types might have been thrilled, but this
(the pier) was not an actual airshow location, and It scared the hell
out of people. It might not be fair to punish everyone, but what do
you expect?
The reality is that the "entire class" that you refer to (meaning us)
is a niche group, and the outcry is by the greater community
(supposedly). Under those circumstances, you can expect politicians to
come down in deference to the majority every time, especially where
the behavior was apparently reckless. If we're to be allowed waivers
and other things we need, this can't be accepted by us, either. Having
said this, I would hope that any (government) sanction would be
directed only towards the offending pilot. Not always realistic,
unfortunately.
I only know what i read about it here, and in the articles attached,
and from the video clip. So, admittedly, I'm characterizing the
actions of the L-39 pilot with the caveat that we may not know all of
the details. For example, he may have thought he had permission from
someone who denied it later after the pubic reaction. Even if that
were the case, I think most airshow pilots have enough imagination to
realize such a stunt has a high disaster potential (and I mean that in
the P.R. sense).
Airshow performers are special individuals, and that's why people want
to watch them. But let's remember that arranging for airshow events,
practice boxes and all of the other things we love takes countless
hours of organization, red tape cutting and arse kissing by many
people. To undo all of that in one stroke is really bone-headed.
Finally, anyone who's been around this business knows that the
military is not set up to train pilots in planes that aren't currently
in the fleet. In most cases, civilian pilots are the only ones answer.
Try explaining that to the general public during the political s**t
storm that follows an unfortunate event like this. Better to not open
that can of worms in the first place, huh?
Incidentally, I love your links page, Frank... Top of my favorites list.
On Nov 15, 2009, at 7:54 PM, Frank wrote:
| Quote: |
Personally, I'm not too much worried about a publicity stunt gone
awry.
I'm worried about our Governments response to it.
The usual response is to punish the entire class because one kid
chewed bubble gum.
In other words, why does our gov take the knee jerk reaction of
punishing everybody for the actions of a few?
That's the biggest tragedy of things like this (which I don't
consider a big deal by-the-way).
Frank
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
KingCJ6(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: Not the Kind of Press We Need |
|
|
Here's the issue, the actions of this idiot may well impact all in the experimental community:
"The incident has prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to take a harder look at hundreds of experimental exhibition aircraft in its Western Pacific region: California, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii. There are about 5,600 planes with that designation in the United States, including aircraft like Riggs' 1973 Aero Vodochody L-39 Albatros, one of the most popular Soviet bloc trainers during the Cold War."
A note from the President of the T-34 Association on their problems:
"...On December 10, 2004, three days after the third crash, the FAA grounded the entire fleet. It took us six months to get them flying, with significant flight restrictions. We still have 2/3 of our fleet operating under those restrictions and they will all be grounded next May 15 if we don't get the next AMOC approved and a calendar extension to the AD. It has been and is a five year nightmare."
While this was a fatigue related issue with the T-34's, the FAA has no compelling reason to keep us flying and every reason to look for plausible reasons to mitigate any losses we, as a flying community, may present. The T-34's were at least allowed to taxi their aircraft for maintenance purposes during the grounding.
Dave
In a message dated 11/15/2009 6:29:10 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, eric(at)buffaloskyline.com writes:
| Quote: | --> Yak-List message posted by: Eric Wobschall <eric(at)buffaloskyline.com>
Frank, I share your distaste for political over-reaction without
knowing the big picture. Predictable, though.
Screaming in, unannounced on the Santa Monica Pier in an Albatross is
the height of stupidity and the "government" could hardly be expected
to ignored it. We as airshow types might have been thrilled, but this
(the pier) was not an actual airshow location, and It scared the hell
out of people. It might not be fair to punish everyone, but what do
you expect?
The reality is that the "entire class" that you refer to (meaning us)
is a niche group, and the outcry is by the greater community
(supposedly). Under those circumstances, you can expect politicians to
come down in deference to the majority every time, especially where
the behavior was apparently reckless. If we're to be allowed waivers
and other things we need, this can't be accepted by us, either. Having
said this, I would hope that any (government) sanction would be
directed only towards the offending pilot. Not always realistic,
unfortunately.
I only know what i read about it here, and in the articles attached,
and from the video clip. So, admittedly, I'm characterizing the
actions of the L-39 pilot with the caveat that we may not know all of
the details. For example, he may have thought he had permission from
someone who denied it later after the pubic reaction. Even if that
were the case, I think most airshow pilots have enough imagination to
realize such a stunt has a high disaster potential (and I mean that in
the P.R. sense).
Airshow performers are special individuals, and that's why people want
to watch them. But let's remember that arranging for airshow events,
practice boxes and all of the other things we love takes countless
hours of organization, red tape cutting and arse kissing by many
people. To undo all of that in one stroke is really bone-headed.
Finally, anyone who's been around this business knows that the
military is not set up to train pilots in planes that aren't currently
in the fleet. In most cases, civilian pilots are the only ones answer.
Try explaining that to the general public during the political s**t
storm that follows an unfortunate event like this. Better to not open
that can of worms in the first place, huh?
Incidentally, I love your links page, Frank... Top of my favorites list.
On Nov 15, 2009, at 7:54 PM, Frank wrote:
| Quote: | --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank" <frank(at)orionite.com>
Personally, I'm not too much worried about a publicity stunt gone
awry.
I'm worried about our Governments response to it.
The usual response is to punish the entire class because one kid
chewed bubble gum.
In other words, why does our gov take the knee jerk reaction of
punishing everybody for the actions of a few?
That's the biggest tragedy of things like this (which I don't
consider a big deal by-the-way).
Frank
|
|
[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 |
|
|
barryhancock
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 285
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:05 am Post subject: Re: Not the Kind of Press We Need |
|
|
Gang,
I'm intimately familiar with this incident and wanted to share my experience related to it. Being the prominent L-39 dealer on the west coast, it is not unusual to get a call from the FAA when an L-39 so much as overheats it's brakes or violates controlled airspace. When this incident broke I was almost immediately contacted by the FAA. I was also contacted by the reported and declined comment as I didn't have all the facts at the time. Now I do have all the facts as I've spent several hours discussing this with FAA investigators as we maintained the aircraft and they eventually went looking for maintenance records, etc....anything they could find to nail Riggs.
I have hopefully turned this negative into a positive as the writer has agreed to meet me for lunch to discuss a much more positive article (the "other" side of the story, if you will) on warbirds, the communities, and the passionate and responsible people who fly our birds. My point in sharing all of this is to demonstrate that it is only us whom can make a difference and help the media with more informed reporting...they simply don't know what they don't know and the only way that is going to change is if we take the time to educate them. It is only in our best interest.
Below is parts my communication with/response to the writer...
=========
Hi Barry, Thanks again for your e-mail. This has been a very good discussion. I have received more than 70 e-mails mostly from pilots, including military pilots. I have responded in some way to all of them. Some have supported the article, while others say it was unfair to many good operators of EE aircraft. As far as the FAA plan to review EE aircraft, there are few inspectors who specialize in these planes. The FAA may have a hard time carrying out all the work within the time frame. I don't know exactly how the agency plans to do it or what organizations the FAA plans to work with, if any.
I have several stories to get out of the way before I can think about doing the warbirds story we talked about. I also need approval from my editor. Let's keep in touch on this. Also, would it be alright for me to contact you if I have aviation related questions? You can speak on background if you want. That means we don't have to use your name.
Dan Weikel
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Hancock [mailto:bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:58 AM
To: Weikel, Dan
Subject: Re: More Riggs
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the reply. See below.....
>On Nov 10, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Weikel, Dan wrote:
>Hello Barry,
>You are right. The FAA periodically inspects experimental aircraft. But a >July FAA memorandum states, however, that the agency will step up its >inspections of such aircraft, including checks of maintenance records, >operating limitations and program letters. So, we are correct in saying >the FAA is taking a closer look at this category of aircraft. The plan is to >have all experimental exhibition aircraft in the Western Pacific Region >reviewed in two years. According to the FAA, that’s a lot more ambitious >than what they used to do. Are FAA officials and their memo wrong?
I have not seen that memo and take your word for it. I also agree that's an ambitious plan....in fact, if it is indeed for "all" EE aircraft, then there is no possible way they can do it in two years with the resources they have. Have they outlined a systematic approach for doing such a thing? Further, it would seem to me that if they were doing such a thing they might want to coordinate with the various associations to get cooperation in accomplishing their goal.
>Also, what court has ruled that Riggs has been complying with his >operating limitations? I have all the NTSB hearing records and the FAA >enforcement packages for Riggs. I don’t believe there are any federal, >state, or NTSB court decisions related to this.
It is my understanding that the FAA has tried to get Riggs for his "movie" business and that he has been allowed to continue to operate because it meets the standard for providing movie footage. Everyone knows that the ride is the primary thing the passenger wants. That being said, he has done it for years and the FAA knows about it. He did not have a commercial license, and that is another issue. Look, Riggs is a renegade and a threat to public safety and I would like to see him taken care of as bad as the next guy.
>The FAA cut short Sullivan’s and Erdel’s investigations into the >commercial use of Riggs’ planes and maintenance problems without >taking any action. On the record, the FAA says their investigations were >closed because they had already revoked his license and the agency >believes Riggs finally resolved the maintenance questions. Sullivan and >Erdel dispute this.
With all due respect, I know Sullivan and have worked with Erdel. Neither of these guys know Part 43 (which is the regulation the covers EE aircraft) very well and in many cases they are shooting in the dark. In fact, that can be said of most FAA inspectors. It makes sense...the EE category is small and they don't spend a lot of time there. I cannot tell you how many times I have had to explain these regulations to the FAA inspectors. These are bureaucrats in an underfunded and understaffed bureaucracy....but now I'm digressing into personal bias.
>Nevertheless, their enforcement packages raise substantial questions >about taking paying passengers for rides and making movies of the >flights. Have you seen these records? Also, a federal Freedom of >Information Act request I made shows that Riggs has no waivers for >anything and has never held a commercial license. FAA officials tell me >you cannot sell a ride to someone in an experimental exhibition aircraft >and film it unless you have a commercial license and FAA permission. >The ride is the primary thing the passenger wants, not the movie.
Agree.
>In the L-29 crash in Tehachapi, NTSB and FAA sources tell me that it >appears the planes in formation were flown in violation of their operating >limitations.
How so?
>The crash investigation is still open and no conclusions have been >reached yet. According to the NTSB hearing, somehow the check ride >document Gilliss prepared and signed ended up in the truck of the airport >manager who died in crash. Did Gilliss give it to him without doing the >check ride?
So did Gilliss' bag...which is where the certificate was.
>Gilliss has lost his first appeal, although he prevailed on the low altitude
>allegation. He has one more shot before the full NTSB board, then he can >sue in federal court if he wants. Gilliss sounds like a fine pilot. I have >talked to him several times. Perhaps he will prevail in the end. I don’t >know.
It would a tragic overreach if he did not. He is more than a fine pilot. He is a committed, generous check airman who is heavily involved in the jet warbird community. The FAA is shooting themselves in the foot because he is one of the designated examiners for jet warbirds....which are in short supply already.
>All airplane crashes are reported to the NTSB, but not all are >investigated by the NTSB so there are very likely to be more crashes >than those listed in the agency’s public database.
I'm continuing to have trouble with this statement. Perhaps we need to define "crash". Any accident that results in substantial damage, total aircraft loss, or death will get an NTSB report. I can tell you as a well connected entity of the community, that when a plane so much looses it's brakes and runs off the runway (it's happened twice to my knowledge...something germane to jet aircraft operations) we hear about it and get a call from the FAA asking us what we know. Further, as a
community there is value in incidents and accidents. We discuss these things amongst operators at venues like the Classic Jet Aircraft Association, Oshkosh, All Red Star and other venues to learn from them. I don't see GA organizations like the Cessna Pilots Association doing this.
Dan, a few years ago a pilot operating a Glasair III (experimental aircraft) was doing aerobatics over his buddies house (his buddy was riding with him in the airplane). They pilot botched a maneuver at low altitude and the plane crashed into a house. Did the FAA dispatch the "3rd Brigade" on all experimental home builts? No. One can easily demonstrate that the EE category aircraft are better built and safer than the Experimental Homebuilt category. EE aircraft are built in a factory (albeit foreign) and in the case of warbirds have seen a hundreds of thousands, if not millions of operational hours as a fleet. What this means is that the level of both operational knowledge and airframe integrity is MUCH higher than it is in the Homebuilt category. Further, as the builder of a homebuilt airplane, you can perform all your own maintenance on your aircraft. The EE category requires a licensed mechanic to perform maintenance on aircraft like the L-39. Warbirds are more visible and "sexy" than homebuilts. Because of this they get a higher level of scrutiny...it is not rational or "fair", but we all understand this and accept it as part of an "unwinnable" fight against bureaucracy. What we can do is continue to educate and inform people and the media.
>Also, several pilots, whom I talked to but didn’t want to be quoted, say >that some L-39 pilots as well as other owners of vintage jets have egos >larger than their abilities and that they don’t fly enough to be truly >proficient in their aircraft. They wrong? Based on my reporting, I >believe, and my editors agree, that we can say there are safety >concerns beyond David Riggs. You disagree. I respect that.
Well, actually, I don't disagree. There are always safety concerns. HOWEVER, it is true of ALL owner groups. Be it L-39's, P-51, Bonanzas, Cirrus', or corporate (especially corporate jet owners) there are egos that exceed ability. Proficiency is a concern for ALL of general aviation all the time, but especially in tough economic times. I hope you take this in the vain that it is intended, because I think this is a valuable discussion for both of us, but on this point I think you are making a hasty generalization and singling out one group when the evidence you provide is applicable to all pilot groups. Also, from a psychoanalytic standpoint, there is a fair amount of jealousy from a lot of pilots towards warbird operators.
>As far as a broader article on experimental exhibition aircraft, I think >there is a good story in the growing interest in collecting and flying war >birds. Where do you go to learn to fly a P-51, a B-17 or an F-86? That >kind of thing. Other pilots who own vintage aircraft or war birds have e->mailed me suggesting such a story. If you are willing, I would be glad to >meet with you in the months ahead. Hopefully, you
>won’t decline to comment.
Well, I would love that. My decision on declining to comment on the Riggs situation was strictly business. Many among us are former military test pilots, Top Gun instructors, airline check airman, etc. Many are long time general aviation pilots that have found new life in warbirds. It's a great mix. sI've been doing this for over 10 years (since the age of 30) and have taken a passion and a hobby into a prominent business as well as being a safety consultant and instructor pilot for the Red Star Pilots Association. We have a lot of great stories...so do the airplanes.
The vast majority of us work very hard to be as safe as we can be, and are passionate about maintaining a living history of military aviation. I would love to meet with you and share the insights of this fascinating community with you. I'm a former member of the press and think I can be helpful to you.
Respectfully,
Barry
From: Barry Hancock [mailto:bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:20 AM
To: Weikel, Dan
Subject: Re: Riggs article
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the reply regarding your recent Times article. I appreciate your input, yet the article does not raise the issues you site in your reply, why? I feel there are several things your statements below do not recognize.
Consider that the experimental exhibition category is a much broader stroke than the L-39, or even jet warbirds. In fact, the jet warbird community makes up just a small percentage of the experimental exhibition category. Further, the FAA has not "launched" any program of ramp checks, this has been going on for as long as the category has existed. The FAA was pissed, and rightfully so, at Riggs. They did everything in their power to prosecute him (I know, I spoke at length with investigators who contacted me looking for anything to hang Riggs on), which included a review of the aircraft airworthiness (i.e. maintenance records, etc.). I am glad that they did so. However, that this incident or the behavior and character of Mr. Riggs is somehow reflected in the community at large is a stretch of Herculean proportions. As a member of the community for over 10 years and one of the most prominent
operators and dealers of these airplanes in the country, I speak from a sound foundation when I say that the vast majority of EE aircraft, pilots, and operators maintain their planes to the highest standards, and just as importantly, fly more regularly than the average General Aviation pilot.
As to your comment that there are "indications that some of these planes are being flown outside of their operating limitations...." Mr. Riggs was found in the court of law to be within the bounds of his Operating Limitations. Although admittedly a loophole, because he was a legitimate movie maker he could reasonably claim the money was collected as a result of providing the footage. I want to make it clear that I do not support Mr. Riggs or his activities. However, we need to be careful to be accurate in the stories we portray to a very impressionable general public.
Outside of this loophole that Riggs has exploited, I do not know of another entity operating outside of their Ops Limits for commercial purposes. Do you?
I'm fully aware of the Tehachapi incident. I know the pilot who has had his license revoked. Are you aware of the circumstances around that? Are you aware that Gilliss is one of the most active, honest, and helpful check airman in the US with a spotless safety record? Are you aware that the FAA was looking for someone to blame and found evidence that they thought supported their claims that Gilliss falsified documents....what Gilliss did was print and sign the form at his home prior to leaving for Tehachapi for the check ride to cut down on his administrative time on
site...something he does all the time as a courtesy and in no way presented even an intent to falsify documents. My point here is that any crash gets the attention of the FAA and the NTSB. In this case they have misunderstood the facts, and the judge misunderstood the evidence. I'm confident that the appeals process will reverse the ruling and reinstate one of the most valuable assets the jet warbird community has had over the years.
As to another pilot loosing his license, can you please explain to me why someone should loose their license over the mistake of a dead person? BTW, Bob Chamberlain, a long time USAF test pilot was the one who screwed up and crashed the plane, not the guy who supposedly got a pencil whipped checkride by Gilliss. Additionally, are you aware that if there is a "crash" the NTSB will have record of it, period. How can the FAA possibly state that there are more crashes than the NTSB reports indicate? It is impossible. If there is a crash, the FAA knows about it. You don't have "fender benders" in the air that don't get reported. If there is a crash that results in major damage or destruction of the aircraft, the NTSB is involved. Further, they say "that the number may be as high as 10%..." Let's stick to the facts as reported, not the speculative musings of inspectors with an agenda. During the period in which the 16 incidents with L-39's have been reported, how many vintage fighter (P-51, P-47, etc.) accidents have their been? How many vintage trainer (T-6, T-28, T-34, etc.) accidents have their been? How many airshow crashes have their been? My point here is that the L-39 is no more prone to accidents than any other high performance experimental exhibition category aircraft....and none of those approach 10%. Further, the L-39 is new to US operators...look at the trend instead of just raw numbers. The loss rate has steadily been declining. One point on "experimental exhibition". You are correct that the planes were not built in the US and thus put in this category by the FAA. Consider in the case of the L-39 that it is the single most successful military jet trainer in aviation history with over 4,000,000 operational hours and counting. There is nothing "experimental" about it - it simply wasn't built with FAA inspectors standing around. They are about as experimental as a T-38 or T-45 that the US Military flies.
Then you need to ask yourself, if there truly is a problem with EE type aircraft, then why is it only the Western Region that is ostensibly upping the scrutiny? I'll tell you why, and I've seen it over and over again. This is sexy stuff and the motivation goes beyond the rational. I spent a lot of time, along with a close friend of mine, discussing this case with 2 of the investigators...now both no longer working for the FAA. You can't make a career out of one case, which is what at least one of the two was trying to do. These distinctions are important, Dan. There is simply no evidence that the issues created by Mr. Riggs irresponsible and reckless behavior, while real, are an indicator of some larger problem that the FAA or the general public ought to be concerned with. The sub-title skews the article to a particular bent that is, I feel, inappropriate. Several thousand people safely operate Experimental aircraft and maintain them to very high standards. I would be happy to have you do an article that looks at the
other side of your story...namely the passion of responsible people that keeps the heritage of military flight alive, and the dedication of those who flight foreign military aircraft safely and honorably in the US.
Respectfully,
Barry Hancock
| | - 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 |
|
_________________
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
k7wx(at)earthlink.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:41 am Post subject: Not the Kind of Press We Need |
|
|
Barry,
I can conform this. When my recently purchased CJ-6A was inspected by our local FSDO in order to generate a more up-to-date set of operating limitations, the examiner told me the same thing: That it was their plan to inspect all EE aircraft in our area over the next two years. He also mentioned that he had no idea how they were going to find the personnel to carry this out. My impression is that a memo / order / plan is one thing, but the implementation is something else altogether. The form that this is probably going to take is that if someone with a warbird wants an update of their operating limitations, or ownership changes hands, the FSDO will be inclined to schedule an inspection. Anything beyond that would outstrip the resources of an already understaffed government agency.
Warren Hill
Mesa, AZ
On Nov 17, 2009, at 11:06 AM, barryhancock wrote:
| Quote: | > You are right. The FAA periodically inspects experimental aircraft. But a >July FAA memorandum states, however, that the agency will step up its >inspections of such aircraft, including checks of maintenance records, >operating limitations and program letters. So, we are correct in saying >the FAA is taking a closer look at this category of aircraft. The plan is to >have all experimental exhibition aircraft in the Western Pacific Region >reviewed in two years. According to the FAA, that’s a lot more ambitious >than what they used to do. Are FAA officials and their memo wrong?
I have not seen that memo and take your word for it. I also agree that's an ambitious plan....in fact, if it is indeed for "all" EE aircraft, then there is no possible way they can do it in two years with the resources they have. Have they outlined a systematic approach for doing such a thing? Further, it would seem to me that if they were doing such a thing they might want to coordinate with the various associations to get cooperation in accomplishing their goal.
|
| | - 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
