 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:38 am Post subject: IMC Approval? |
 |
|
11/23/2013
Hello Bill, You wrote (see copied below): “Why a chill?”
A chill because there is no such thing as applying for IFR or IMC approval for experimental amateur built aircraft in the USA.**
Any attempt to obtain such approval from the FAA by some individual builder can only lead to confusion and intrusion into an aspect of amateur building that could do significant harm to our community.
Can we obtain further information on the provenance of the airplane that you were asking about?
Thanks,
OC
**PS: Here is how the IFR capability of an experimental amateur built aircraft built and certificated in the USA is resolved: Per FAA Order 8130.2G the Operating Limitations, which are part of the Special Airworthiness Certificate of that aircraft, will state:
“( After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under
VFR, day only.
(9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 14 CFR § 91.205 must
be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and
maintenance records.”
Note that:
A) Passing an inspection or obtaining approval for the appropriate equipment referred to above in the Operating Limitations is not a required part of the initial airworthiness inspection of the experimental amateur built aircraft.
B) The builder / operator / pilot is the one who determines whether or not the aircraft is appropriately equipped after referring to the appropriate requirements of 14 CFR Part 91. There are some caveats to this statement. Please see the attachment for further explanation and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
========================================
From: Bill Allen (billallensworld(at)gmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Owen Baker (bakerocb(at)cox.net)
Subject: Re: IMC Approval?
Hi OC,
you wrote; << This question sent a chill up my spine > Why a chill?
<<Are you asking about an experimental amateur built airplane that is being built in the United States of America?>> I had presumed, perhaps erroneously, that this was a UK aircraft
Bill
=================================
On 23 November 2013 14:05, Owen Baker <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | 11/23/2013
Hello Bill Allen, You wrote: “Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?”
This question sent a chill up my spine. Are you asking about an experimental amateur built airplane that is being built in the United States of America?
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and understand information."
=================================
Time: 04:19:26 PM PST US
Subject: Re: panel colour?
From: Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com (billallensworld(at)gmail.com)>
Yes, this is the shade I'll go with too.
Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
ABEA_Minimum_Inst_Requirements_10.doc |
| Filesize: |
35.5 KB |
| Downloaded: |
213 Time(s) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:16 am Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
Well Put OC,
But I expect that from you! <G>
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 11/23/2013 11:40:04 A.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
| Quote: | 11/23/2013
Hello Bill, You wrote (see copied below): “Why a chill?”
A chill because there is no such thing as applying for IFR or IMC approval for experimental amateur built aircraft in the USA.**
Any attempt to obtain such approval from the FAA by some individual builder can only lead to confusion and intrusion into an aspect of amateur building that could do significant harm to our community.
Can we obtain further information on the provenance of the airplane that you were asking about?
Thanks,
OC
**PS: Here is how the IFR capability of an experimental amateur built aircraft built and certificated in the USA is resolved: Per FAA Order 8130.2G the Operating Limitations, which are part of the Special Airworthiness Certificate of that aircraft, will state:
“( After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under
VFR, day only.
(9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 14 CFR § 91.205 must
be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and
maintenance records.”
Note that:
A) Passing an inspection or obtaining approval for the appropriate equipment referred to above in the Operating Limitations is not a required part of the initial airworthiness inspection of the experimental amateur built aircraft.
B) The builder / operator / pilot is the one who determines whether or not the aircraft is appropriately equipped after referring to the appropriate requirements of 14 CFR Part 91. There are some caveats to this statement. Please see the attachment for further explanation and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
===============
From: Bill Allen (billallensworld(at)gmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Owen Baker (bakerocb(at)cox.net)
Subject: Re: IMC Approval?
Hi OC,
you wrote; << This question sent a chill up my spine > Why a chill?
<<Are you asking about an experimental amateur built airplane that is being built in the United States of America?>> I had presumed, perhaps erroneously, that this was a UK aircraft
Bill
========
On 23 November 2013 14:05, Owen Baker <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | 11/23/2013
Hello Bill Allen, You wrote: “Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?”
This question sent a chill up my spine. Are you asking about an experimental amateur built airplane that is being built in the United States of America?
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and understand information."
========
Time: 04:19:26 PM PST US
Subject: Re: panel colour?
From: Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com (billallensworld(at)gmail.com)>
Yes, this is the shade I'll go with too.
Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?
|
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rd2(at)dejazzd.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:42 am Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
What is more, OC , and all, (please correct, if wrong) it does not appear, nor am I aware of any IFR “approval” or “certification” even for certified AC. Certified AC do not (have to) come IFR “capable”. IFR flights and/or IFR filing for any AC are legal as long as the AC meets the IFR required equipment requirements and testing (monthly VOR test, current GPS data bases, 24 months pitot-static and transponder, etc.). The IFR required equipment may have been installed initially or much later and is not part of the AW cert. I wasn’t aware that this needs to be applied for for OBAM, if true.
Rumen
---- Owen Baker <bakerocb(at)cox.net> wrote:
=============
11/23/2013
Hello Bill, You wrote (see copied below): “Why a chill?”
A chill because there is no such thing as applying for IFR or IMC approval for experimental amateur built aircraft in the USA.**
Any attempt to obtain such approval from the FAA by some individual builder can only lead to confusion and intrusion into an aspect of amateur building that could do significant harm to our community.
Can we obtain further information on the provenance of the airplane that you were asking about?
Thanks,
OC
**PS: Here is how the IFR capability of an experimental amateur built aircraft built and certificated in the USA is resolved: Per FAA Order 8130.2G the Operating Limitations, which are part of the Special Airworthiness Certificate of that aircraft, will state:
“( After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under
VFR, day only.
(9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 14 CFR § 91.205 must
be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and
maintenance records.”
Note that:
A) Passing an inspection or obtaining approval for the appropriate equipment referred to above in the Operating Limitations is not a required part of the initial airworthiness inspection of the experimental amateur built aircraft.
B) The builder / operator / pilot is the one who determines whether or not the aircraft is appropriately equipped after referring to the appropriate requirements of 14 CFR Part 91. There are some caveats to this statement. Please see the attachment for further explanation and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
===============
From: Bill Allen
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Owen Baker
Subject: Re: IMC Approval?
Hi OC,
you wrote; << This question sent a chill up my spine > Why a chill?
<<Are you asking about an experimental amateur built airplane that is being built in the United States of America?>> I had presumed, perhaps erroneously, that this was a UK aircraft
Bill
========
On 23 November 2013 14:05, Owen Baker <bakerocb(at)cox.net> wrote:
11/23/2013
Hello Bill Allen, You wrote: “Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?”
This question sent a chill up my spine. Are you asking about an experimental amateur built airplane that is being built in the United States of America?
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and understand information."
========
Time: 04:19:26 PM PST US
Subject: Re: panel colour?
From: Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com>
Yes, this is the shade I'll go with too.
Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:24 pm Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
Good Afternoon Owen,
One small potential clarification, though it may not be needed. You mention the necessity for "current GPS databases". May just be semantics, but the entire database is not required to be current, just the data being used.
If you are flying with an out dated card, but find that the data in the card you have is current for the function you wish to use, you can fly IFR with an out of date data card. That can be handy when you are away from home and the new datacard is not available. That provision can also be utilized to fly IFR with some older GPS sets where the new databases are no longer available. Pretty limiting most of the time, but the basis for using current data that is on an outdated datacard was clarified in the AIM in 2010.
As Always, It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park
Downers Grove, IL
In a message dated 11/23/2013 1:43:56 P.M. Central Standard Time, rd2(at)dejazzd.com writes:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rd2(at)dejazzd.com>
What is more, OC , and all, (please correct, if wrong) it does not appear, nor am I aware of any IFR “approval” or “certification” even for certified AC. Certified AC do not (have to) come IFR “capable”. IFR flights and/or IFR filing for any AC are legal as long as the AC meets the IFR required equipment requirements and testing (monthly VOR test, current GPS data bases, 24 months pitot-static and transponder, etc.). The IFR required equipment may have been installed initially or much later and is not part of the AW cert. I wasn’t aware that this needs to be applied for for OBAM, if true.
Rumen
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peter(at)sportingaero.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:12 am Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
Owen,
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various installed components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
Do not archive
On 23/11/2013 17:37, Owen Baker wrote:
[quote] 11/23/2013
Hello Bill, You wrote (see copied below): “Why a chill?”
A chill because there is no such thing as applying for IFR or IMC approval for experimental amateur built aircraft in the USA.**
Any attempt to obtain such approval from the FAA by some individual builder can only lead to confusion and intrusion into an aspect of amateur building that could do significant harm to our community.
Can we obtain further information on the provenance of the airplane that you were asking about?
Thanks,
OC
**PS: Here is how the IFR capability of an experimental amateur built aircraft built and certificated in the USA is resolved: Per FAA Order 8130.2G the Operating Limitations, which are part of the Special Airworthiness Certificate of that aircraft, will state:
“( After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under
VFR, day only.
(9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 14 CFR § 91.205 must
be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and
maintenance records.”
Note that:
A) Passing an inspection or obtaining approval for the appropriate equipment referred to above in the Operating Limitations is not a required part of the initial airworthiness inspection of the experimental amateur built aircraft.
B) The builder / operator / pilot is the one who determines whether or not the aircraft is appropriately equipped after referring to the appropriate requirements of 14 CFR Part 91. There are some caveats to this statement. Please see the attachment for further explanation and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
========================================
From: Bill Allen (billallensworld(at)gmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Owen Baker (bakerocb(at)cox.net)
Subject: Re: IMC Approval?
Hi OC,
you wrote; << This question sent a chill up my spine > Why a chill?
<<Are you asking about an experimental amateur built airplane that is being built in the United States of America?>> I had presumed, perhaps erroneously, that this was a UK aircraft
Bill
=================================
On 23 November 2013 14:05, Owen Baker <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | 11/23/2013
Hello Bill Allen, You wrote: “Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?”
This question sent a chill up my spine. Are you asking about an experimental amateur built airplane that is being built in the United States of America?
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and understand information."
=================================
Time: 04:19:26 PM PST US
Subject: Re: panel colour?
From: Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com (billallensworld(at)gmail.com)>
Yes, this is the shade I'll go with too.
Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:19 am Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various installed components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . . [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Allen
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 42
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:55 am Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
Hi All,
As it was my email that generated the response from Owen, I replied to him and copied in the list. However, it didn't get appear, so here it is again in case he thought I was ignoring him;
Hi Owen,
I think the confusion has arisen because my original email was for input on panel colors. I received much useful advice, including pictures. Panels don't always give any clue as to the provenance of the aircraft, but the picture alluded to in the email which "sent a chill" was from a fellow Brit.
I'm based in the UK and the USA.
In the USA I have a LongEz which I built & flew over, and migrated it from the UK to the US register, so I am intimately acquainted with the process - (or was in 2005 :^))
The above fellow Brit is part of a group negotiating with our CAA to remove the burdensome "Day VFR only" restriction on homebuilts which operate in a category known here as "Permit to Fly" - so my question to him was asking if this was the panel he was taking forward in his negotiations (in the UK)
So no problem will be created with the FAA, and even if someone did approach that request in such a naive manner, I'm sure that they would soon realise that "permission" is not needed under US Experimental categories, and even if they didn't, it would not negate the existing legal pathway.
It's a complex system over in Europe, with every country having varying rules and regulations. You guys in the USA enjoy aviation freedoms which I hope you all appreciate and protect.
best,
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
LongEz Diesel G-LEZE EGBJ
www.longezediesel.com
PS: maybe it was the way I spelt "color" that made you think I was in the US :^)
On 24 November 2013 19:18, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:
[quote] The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various installed components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . . | Quote: |
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
ank">www.mrrace.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:30 am Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
Just a quick note, Bob, that the extortion pushing aviation prices up is not just because of the government, or I should say directly the government.
Take for example, a bolt. If one buys a bolt commercially and doesn't tell the vendor it is for an airplane, you get the commercial price. If you tell him it's for an airplane application, you get the aviation price.
Another good example is a well known automotive painter in our area. He like every good businessman has to keep his prices in check, because after all it is the buyer who sets the price. If he sets the price too high, he'll have very few customers. I have gone to this guy to get aircraft parts painted, but he automatically increases prices if the article is aviation related. There is an inherent belief in our country, and possibly the world, that aircraft owners are extremely rich and can afford the padded prices. Perhaps we can trace this belief back to the government, who by increasing the regulation with reams of paper and bureaucrats, sets the example for others to follow.
Henador Titzoff
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/24/13, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: Re: IMC Approval?
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Sunday, November 24, 2013, 9:18 AM
The USA is fortunate that the national
regulator allows
amateur built aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of
design and
build standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the
World has
regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur
built
aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since
for around 70
years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6
years to change
that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess
the outcome. A
comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made
for a the
ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur
builts to be able
to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for
IMC/IFR &
night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most
certainly
approved for these conditions by showing compliance with
various articles
of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating
reliability of
various installed components and systems - I can provide
chapter &
verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental
component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . .
hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a
free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . .
.
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are
perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following
observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having
brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe
that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery
by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I
humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the
protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m.j.gregory(at)talk21.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:53 am Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
Bob,
I appreciate your general point about those in authority tending to tighten the screw more and more to restrict our freedoms, but you will be glad to hear that there is a glimmer of hope on this side of the Atlantic. The UK Civil Aviation Authority has recently proposed amending the rule which currently deregulates single seat microlight aircraft that are under 115 kg ready to fly less fuel and pilot and have a wing loading no more than 10 kg/m˛, so that they do not have to meet any design or inspection code, with the intention of allowing any single seat microlight under 300 kg (660 lbs) to be deregulated, with no restriction on wing loading – although to comply with the UK definition of microlight they would need to have a minimum flight speed of 35 knots or less.
This may not appear as a great advance, but it is very encouraging that the officials involved have taken a positive and common sense approach to the regulation, and we hope that it will not be too long before further changes may increase our freedoms, perhaps allowing IMC and night flying for permit aircraft – as Peter has mentioned below.
Regards,
Mike
Dr Mike Gregory
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: 24 November 2013 17:18
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Re: IMC Approval?
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various installed components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raymondj(at)frontiernet.n
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 11:17 am Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
Bob,
It's your list.
I hope we can keep politics off it. Every one has a different opinion about what's important and how to achieve it. Adding politics moves this forum away from one which is focused on answers to problems and moves it to one of one opinion vs. another, where no real answers can be proven.
Please take the time to set up the list you were discussing earlier this year and keep this forum for solutions based on verifiable science.
| Quote: | Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine |
On 11/24/2013 11:18 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
[quote] The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various installed components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . . [b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bbradburry(at)bellsouth.n
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:26 pm Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
Interesting you would say that, Raymond. Especially with that John Prine quote below your signature.
Bob mostly speaks in realities, not in politics.
Bill
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rayj
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 2:17 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IMC Approval?
Bob,
It's your list.
I hope we can keep politics off it. Every one has a different opinion about what's important and how to achieve it. Adding politics moves this forum away from one which is focused on answers to problems and moves it to one of one opinion vs. another, where no real answers can be proven.
Please take the time to set up the list you were discussing earlier this year and keep this forum for solutions based on verifiable science.
| Quote: | | Raymond JulianKettle River, MN. "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine |
On 11/24/2013 11:18 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
| Quote: |
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various installed components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . . |
01234567890123456789 | Quote: | | "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, |
0 | Quote: | | "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, |
1 | Quote: | | "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, |
2 | Quote: | | "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, |
3 | Quote: | | "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, |
4 | Quote: | | "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, |
5 | Quote: | | "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, |
6 | Quote: | | "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, |
7
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:32 pm Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
At 01:17 PM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
| Quote: | Bob,
It's your list.
I hope we can keep politics off it. Every one has a different opinion about what's important and how to achieve it. Adding politics moves this forum away from one which is focused on answers to problems and moves it to one of one opinion vs. another, where no real answers can be proven.
Please take the time to set up the list you were discussing earlier this year and keep this forum for solutions based on verifiable science. |
I have suggested that the phenomenon I
explored is just as firmly grounded in
the simple-ideas of irrefutable fact
as any discussion of physics. This is
not about opinion but observable, repeatable,
cause and effect . . . i.e. historical fact.
We've had discussions on the List about
the behaviors of several suppliers to
the OBAM aviation community wherein
'customers' offered value-y in
agreement to accept value-x from
a 'supplier'. Cases were value-x was
never delivered . . . or failed to
meet expectations but without warranty.
How is that different than an individual
seeking value-votes from their 'customers'
in exchange for a return of value-liberty . . .
and then at best failing to deliver or even
worse becoming antagonistic to their oath
of office?
The fact that Case I is a matter of consumer
fraud not specifically related to government
and the Case II relate to behaviors
of government does not make the behaviors
of citizens in government any less egregious.
The ever increasing effects of some
behaviors will not go away by labeling them
'political' and banning it from consideration
in favor of more pleasant thoughts and
goals. It's like standing in front of your home
watering the flowers with a hose while the
burning house behind you would benefit greatly by
an application of water from that same hose.
Allowing things to continue on their present
course has an obvious conclusion. This was
never a matter of debatable opinions but
a pattern of cause and effects that have
repeated countless times throughout recorded
history. Volumes of study have been published
but alas . . . seldom taught in contemporary
systems of education.
Thanks for the reminder, I will talk to Matt
about the second website.
Bob . . . [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:35 pm Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
At 12:52 PM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
| Quote: | Bob,
I appreciate your general point about those in
authority tending to tighten the screw more and
more to restrict our freedoms, but you will be
glad to hear that there is a glimmer of hope on
this side of the Atlantic. The UK Civil Aviation
Authority has recently proposed amending the
rule which currently deregulates single seat
microlight aircraft that are under 115 kg ready
to fly less fuel and pilot and have a wing
loading no more than 10 kg/m˛, so that they do
not have to meet any design or inspection code,
with the intention of allowing any single seat
microlight under 300 kg (660 lbs) to be
deregulated, with no restriction on wing loading
– although to comply with the UK definition of
microlight they would need to have a minimum flight speed of 35 knots or less.
This may not appear as a great advance, but it
is very encouraging that the officials involved
have taken a positive and common sense approach
to the regulation, and we hope that it will not
be too long before further changes may increase
our freedoms, perhaps allowing IMC and night
flying for permit aircraft – as Peter has mentioned below.
|
Cool. There was a similar move on this side of the
pond for a new class of light aircraft including
a 'sport pilot' certification to fly them. To be
sure these are welcomed expansions of freedoms.
We need to take care lest the small victories be
celebrated so loudly that the underlying growth
of bureaucracy and rule making goes unnoticed.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uuccio(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:02 pm Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
Bob, this one is a keeper! Much more eloquently said than I ever could…
From someone who lives in a country where OBAM aircraft are supposed to fly not above 500ft AGL on weekdays and 1000ft AGL on weekends (yup! You read that right… the country is Italy in case you’re wondering).
sacha
Do not archive
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List[/url][/b] [/quote]0
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:45 pm Post subject: IMC Approval? |
|
|
At 12:29 PM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
<henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Just a quick note, Bob, that the extortion pushing aviation prices up
is not just because of the government, or I should say directly the government.
Take for example, a bolt. If one buys a bolt commercially and
doesn't tell the vendor it is for an airplane, you get the commercial
price. If you tell him it's for an airplane application, you get the
aviation price.
But only if it's 'certified' to service in the aviation
markets. There is little difference in the price of materials
and processes over the range of 'carriage bolts' to Grade-8.
A local (30 miles!) supplier of hardware to the farming
community sells all their bin-bulked hardware by the pound.
I can buy grade-8 bolts for about 3.50 a POUND. Carriage bolts
are about $2.50 a pound. A bolt with the same capabilities
through TC parts distribution are $3.50 EACH.
But if you read the materials and processes specification
for super-bolts, you would think that there's some magic
happening that makes these bolts superior to the stuff
I can buy on the street. The magic is nothing more than
words on paper . . . mere certification.
When in fact, 'certification' guarantees nothing. Behavior
is the benchmark of success for minimizing risk, increasing
value and improving performance. Interestingly enough, you
are more likely to be sold a bogus bolt through TC distribution
than out of the farmer's bin-bolts. There's no money to be
made in faking a farmer's bolt even when it's the same
bolt.
Another good example is a well known automotive painter in our
area. He like every good businessman has to keep his prices in
check, because after all it is the buyer who sets the price. If he
sets the price too high, he'll have very few customers. I have gone
to this guy to get aircraft parts painted, but he automatically
increases prices if the article is aviation related. There is an
inherent belief in our country, and possibly the world, that aircraft
owners are extremely rich and can afford the padded prices.
Your supposition has interesting merit . . . but as
you and I know, perceptions of wealth are driven by
a constellation of forces. We both know folks who
live rather low on the hog so that they can support
their aviation hobby. OBAM aviation is a demonstrable
argument against the public perception given that
airplanes we build can be secured for 1/3 or less
of the going market for a production equivalent.
Unfortunately, folks take notice of John Travolta's bevy of
luxury aircraft while remaining ignorant of the fact
that for every John Travolta, there are dozens
of John Q Pulic pilots who probably spend no more
on their airplanes than their neighbors spend on
their own choice of hobby.
Perhaps we can trace this belief back to the government, who by
increasing the regulation with reams of paper and bureaucrats, sets
the example for others to follow.
Exactly. Compliance costs for regulation in virtually
every commercial endeavor has become a significant
cost of doing business. You cannot walk into your
kitchen or bathroom and put your hands on a piece
of merchandise that has not become more expensive
to produce . . .assuming that it is even allowed to
be produced any more all by virtue of regulation.
Somebody once suggested that I seek PMA on some of
my products for use on TC aircraft. The burden of
no-value-added time on my cost of doing business
was a huge turn off. My stuff does go on TC aircraft
after the owner assumes that burden by getting his
337 signed off.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-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
