 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bwade154(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: EAA FAA |
 |
|
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating limitations for Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last year about removing the densely populated restriction and the 300 kt proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
[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 |
|
 |
steve.fox(at)mac.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:46 am Post subject: EAA FAA |
|
|
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA Warbirds director. Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
[quote]Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating limitations for Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last year about removing the densely populated restriction and the 300 kt proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
[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 |
|
|
viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:05 am Post subject: EAA FAA |
|
|
Bill,
Did you mean 250 knots below 10000 and 600 nm for the heavy iron and 300 nm for us light weight trainers?
Have heard the restrictions were going to go away but have not seen anything to that effect written anywhere.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:46 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: EAA FAA
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA Warbirds director. Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating limitations for Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last year about removing the densely populated restriction and the 300 kt proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
| Quote: | | http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
01234
[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 |
|
|
dsavarese(at)elmore.rr.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: EAA FAA |
|
|
The FAA has said they intend to remove the proficiency area restrictions. That mean for us Yak and CJ guys (under 800 horsepower), 300 NM from our home base area as stated in our OL's and 600 NM for the over-800 horsepower guys. There has never been any mention of the 250 knot limitation below 10000' because pertains to all aircraft and not only the experimental exhibition aircraft. FAR 91.117 covers this rule.
Dennis
[quote] ---
| | - 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 |
|
|
rvfltd(at)televar.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject: EAA FAA |
|
|
Dennis,
Does this mean that we have to reapply for new OL's?? If yes, I'm not really eager to jump through those hoops again as I have a great OL now and I have seen a few of the current ones coming out of our FSDO. Things like NO night VFR, and other nasties are finding their way into the new wording. Having to go do it again with a different guy who knows nothing about the aircraft or the process does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.
Always Yakin,
Doug
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
[quote] (at)font-face { font-family: Helvetica; } (at)font-face { font-family: Cambria Math; } (at)font-face { font-family: Calibri; } (at)font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } (at)font-face { font-family: Consolas; } (at)page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } PRE { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted Char" } SPAN.apple-style-span { mso-style-name: apple-style-span } SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar { FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted"; mso-style-name: "HTML Preformatted Char" } SPAN.EmailStyle20 { COLOR: black; mso-style-type: personal-reply } .MsoChpDefault { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } <![endif]--> <![endif]--> The FAA has said they intend to remove the proficiency area restrictions. That mean for us Yak and CJ guys (under 800 horsepower), 300 NM from our home base area as stated in our OL's and 600 NM for the over-800 horsepower guys. There has never been any mention of the 250 knot limitation below 10000' because pertains to all aircraft and not only the experimental exhibition aircraft. FAR 91.117 covers this rule.
Dennis
6 [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 |
|
|
dsavarese(at)elmore.rr.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: EAA FAA |
|
|
I seriously doubt the FSDO's will be willing and able to re-write all of the existing OL's. My guess is that portion of our OL's will no longer be applicable. I'm sure the FAA will publish some type of document which states how the revised FAA Order 8130.2x will be applied to existing OL's. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it because I doubt the FAA whats all that paperwork. The inspectors will be screaming!
As for no night VFR, IAW 8130.2F Chg 2 (incorporated and effective 7/10/2006), page 178 unless the aircraft is equiped for night operations, the aircraft is limited to day VFR only. Here's the paragraph that is applicable to ALL experimental aircraft.
(39) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with § 91.205, this aircraft is only to be operated under day VFR. (Applicability: All)
Dennis
[quote] From: Doug Sapp (rvfltd(at)televar.com)
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: EAA FAA
Dennis,
Does this mean that we have to reapply for new OL's?? If yes, I'm not really eager to jump through those hoops again as I have a great OL now and I have seen a few of the current ones coming out of our FSDO. Things like NO night VFR, and other nasties are finding their way into the new wording. Having to go do it again with a different guy who knows nothing about the aircraft or the process does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.
Always Yakin,
Doug
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
| Quote: | (at)font-face { font-family: Helvetica; } (at)font-face { font-family: Cambria Math; } (at)font-face { font-family: Calibri; } (at)font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } (at)font-face { font-family: Consolas; } (at)page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } PRE { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted Char" } SPAN.apple-style-span { mso-style-name: apple-style-span } SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar { FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted"; mso-style-name: "HTML Preformatted Char" } SPAN.EmailStyle20 { COLOR: black; mso-style-type: personal-reply } .MsoChpDefault { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } <![endif]--> <![endif]--> The FAA has said they intend to remove the proficiency area restrictions. That mean for us Yak and CJ guys (under 800 horsepower), 300 NM from our home base area as stated in our OL's and 600 NM for the over-800 horsepower guys. There has never been any mention of the 250 knot limitation below 10000' because pertains to all aircraft and not only the experimental exhibition aircraft. FAR 91.117 covers this rule.
Dennis
6 |
7[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 |
|
|
bwade154(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject: EAA FAA |
|
|
Doc I think Dennis answered your question about speed restrictions, Here in Albany we have we have an FAA guy that doesn't feel warbirds are safe and both of my airplanes are Day VFR only period. He actually called me in after receiving my IAR from GESOCO and rewrote the operating limitations removing the if aircraft is equipped night and IFR ops are permitted. Does anyone know the FAA definition of densely populated? I've been told its two guys standing next to a shit house. I know this because I got violated for flying low over the Adirondack Mountains six years ago doing a flyby for a funeral I was thinking 500' sparsly populated and treetop unpopulated (wrong), well flyby's and acro near Speculator. My advise read the regs before talking to the Fed's then answer with I'll have to see if the airplane flew that day and if so who was flying it. GOOD LUCK
Bill Wade
Roger Kemp <viperdoc(at)mindspring.com> wrote:
[quote] Bill,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Did you mean 250 knots below 10000 and 600 nm for the heavy iron and 300 nm for us light weight trainers?
Have heard the restrictions were going to go away but have not seen anything to that effect written anywhere.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:46 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: EAA FAA
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA Warbirds director. Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating limitations for Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last year about removing the densely populated restriction and the 300 kt proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
[quote] [b]Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
[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 |
|
|
discrab(at)earthlink.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: EAA FAA |
|
|
There was an attorney a while back on this list I believe. - I saved the e-mail ...somewhere. he stated his client spend 10s of thousands (as i remember it) and the fed came up with "the yellow depicted area on a sectional". When the FAA decided to talk to me about my Unlimited practice here north of DEN I brought up the "yellow area" and they totally backed off never to be heard from again, and that was two or three years ago. The people complaining about me were/are on 10-35 acre ranchettes. For what it is worth...I'll look for the copy I downloaded.
Respectfully, Rick b
[quote] ---
| | - 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 |
|
|
dave(at)davelaird.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: EAA FAA |
|
|
| Quote: |
Rick, is this the one you were talking about?
|
You posted it 3 years ago... like July 20th, 2004
Dave Laird
N63536 1983 CJ6A "Betty"
Dallas ADS (surrounded by yellow....)
| Quote: |
I represented a pilot who was facing a 180 day suspension of his
license for overflying a "densely populated" area. The FAA lawyer
assigned to the case argued that a cluster of 3 or more houses was
a "densely populated area." We argued that it was the yellow areas
depicted on the sectional. $20,000 of my time later we were
successful.
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
dsavarese(at)elmore.rr.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:14 am Post subject: EAA FAA |
|
|
Bill,
Arbitrary and personal interpretation of 8130.2F is fairly common on the part of some FSDO inspectors. However, if you were to seriously challenge them, they most likely would have to default to the actual FAA Order written word. The only reason an inspector is suppose to change the wording in 8130.2F to be inserted into the OL's is specifically for reasons of safety. NOT because he doesn't "like" or "feel" an experimental airplane is safe. Changing the wording is usually done to satisfy unique situations such as routes of flight into and out of your home base airport because of proximity to Class B airspace. Or something like that. Limiting an aircraft that has been issued an experimental airworthiness certificate (that means the airplane is safe for flight in U.S. airspace IAW the Regulations) to day VFR even if the airplane is appropriately equipped for day or night VFR is ridiculous.
There is a program that is very active within the FAA and FSDO's. It puts the onus on each and every FSDO to properly justify (if necessary) their decisions when challenged by us civilians. The program is called "CSI" or Customer Service Initiative. Here's a link to it in case anyone is interested in reading it.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/cust_service/
As everyone knows, the FAA and FSDO's primary function in life is aviation safety. If a ludicrous decision such as the one described in the email saying the Inspector "thinks" Warbirds are unsafe, that Inspector is WAY outside the bounds of the regulations and the Order governing the operation of Warbirds. Just because he thinks they are unsafe is not justification to limit the operations to day VFR only. There must be facts to back up his decision. And if there were facts, the Order would be rewritten to cover it. The issue is, he has the power and he thinks that just because he makes that decision, since he has the power, the decision will stand unchallenged. Most of us do not want to upset the apple cart for fear of reprisal. But these overzealous people are not immune to being challenged. Most of us know the Order better than some of the FSDO inspectors do. I would also suggest asking a D.A.R. (Designated Airworthiness Inspector who is a civilian licensed by the FAA to issue airworthiness certificates) who issues the Special Airworthiness Certificates for Experimental Exhibition aircraft (the DAR must be certified for that category) if he would put day VFR in the OL's for no specific reason.
The EAA's Warbirds of America government relations people are VERY good at quoting chapter and verse to these inspectors through their contacts in Washington. I would not hesitate a minute to call either the EAA or Warbirds of America and ask for their assistance with ridiculous and unjustified restrictions to OL's. Also, do not hesitate to use the FAA's own CSI initiative. It forces the inspector, his manager and the FAA to justify decisions which in all cases must be in accordance with existing regulations.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Whenever one of these issues comes up on the list, I get really ticked off because it always comes back to "he who has the power, makes the decisions". But what many inspectors fail to remember is, you have the right to challenge their decision by using the FAA's own policy; the CSI initiative.
Dennis
[quote] ---
| | - 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 |
|
|
bwade154(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:43 am Post subject: EAA FAA |
|
|
Thank You So Much Dennis
"A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese(at)elmore.rr.com> wrote: [quote] Bill,
Arbitrary and personal interpretation of 8130.2F is fairly common on the part of some FSDO inspectors. However, if you were to seriously challenge them, they most likely would have to default to the actual FAA Order written word. The only reason an inspector is suppose to change the wording in 8130.2F to be inserted into the OL's is specifically for reasons of safety. NOT because he doesn't "like" or "feel" an experimental airplane is safe. Changing the wording is usually done to satisfy unique situations such as routes of flight into and out of your home base airport because of proximity to Class B airspace. Or something like that. Limiting an aircraft that has been issued an experimental airworthiness certificate (that means the airplane is safe for flight in U.S. airspace IAW the Regulations) to day VFR even if the airplane is appropriately equipped for day or night VFR is ridiculous.
There is a program that is very active within the FAA and FSDO's. It puts the onus on each and every FSDO to properly justify (if necessary) their decisions when challenged by us civilians. The program is called "CSI" or Customer Service Initiative. Here's a link to it in case anyone is interested in reading it.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/cust_service/
As everyone knows, the FAA and FSDO's primary function in life is aviation safety. If a ludicrous decision such as the one described in the email saying the Inspector "thinks" Warbirds are unsafe, that Inspector is WAY outside the bounds of the regulations and the Order governing the operation of Warbirds. Just because he thinks they are unsafe is not justification to limit the operations to day VFR only. There must be facts to back up his decision. And if there were facts, the Order would be rewritten to cover it. The issue is, he has the power and he thinks that just because he makes that decision, since he has the power, the decision will stand unchallenged. Most of us do not want to upset the apple cart for fear of reprisal. But these overzealous people are not immune to being challenged. Most of us know the Order better than some of the FSDO inspectors do. I would also suggest asking a D.A.R. (Designated Airworthiness Inspector who is a civilian licensed by the FAA to issue airworthiness certificates) who issues the Special Airworthiness Certificates for Experimental Exhibition aircraft (the DAR must be certified for that category) if he would put day VFR in the OL's for no specific reason.
The EAA's Warbirds of America government relations people are VERY good at quoting chapter and verse to these inspectors through their contacts in Washington. I would not hesitate a minute to call either the EAA or Warbirds of America and ask for their assistance with ridiculous and unjustified restrictions to OL's. Also, do not hesitate to use the FAA's own CSI initiative. It forces the inspector, his manager and the FAA to justify decisions which in all cases must be in accordance with existing regulations.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Whenever one of these issues comes up on the list, I get really ticked off because it always comes back to "he who has the power, makes the decisions". But what many inspectors fail to remember is, you have the right to challenge their decision by using the FAA's own policy; the CSI initiative.
Dennis
[quote] ---
| | - 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
