matt_w45(at)hotmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: Kitfox-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 01/06/08 |
 |
|
I wish the system would kick this guys off until they can behave like adults
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 23:58:52 -0800
[quote] From: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
To: kitfox-list-digest(at)matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 01/06/08
*
=========================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=========================
Today's complete Kitfox-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Kitfox-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter=2008-01-06&Archive=Kitfox
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter=2008-01-06&Archive=Kitfox
=======================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
=======================
----------------------------------------------------------
Kitfox-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Sun 01/06/08: 16
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:05 AM - Re: This feud isn't pretty! (Michael Gibbs)
2. 01:50 AM - Re: Re: Short Changing Ourselves!! (Michel Verheughe)
3. 05:57 AM - Re: This feud isn't pretty! (fox5flyer)
4. 08:05 AM - This feud isn't pretty! It's over. (Rexster)
5. 08:18 AM - Re: Re: Short Changing Ourselves!! (Guy Buchanan)
6. 09:00 AM - Re: This feud isn't pretty! It's over. (Dan Billingsley)
7. 11:52 AM - Re: Re: Short Changing Ourselves!! (Michel Verheughe)
8. 01:06 PM - Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! (kitfoxmike)
9. 02:16 PM - Re: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! (Guy Buchanan)
10. 04:43 PM - KF-1 tail wheel and door frames (AKFLYERBOB)
11. 05:14 PM - Re: KF-1 tail wheel and door frames (Dee Young)
12. 05:33 PM - Vortex generators (Clint Bazzill)
13. 08:12 PM - Kitfox construction (Dee Young)
14. 10:17 PM - (Clint Bazzill)
15. 11:36 PM - Reality check, it is time (A Smith)
16. 11:47 PM - Re: Kitfox construction (A Smith)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 12:05:11 AM PST US
From: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: This feud isn't pretty!
Rick sez:
>...as a fellow aviator, I don't want to see our privileges (not
>rights) jeopardized...
Only government bureaucrats (and former bureaucrats) think they are
empowered to issue "privileges". 
Minor quibbles aside, there's a lot of wisdom in your post, Rick,
particularly with respect to the attitude an aviator should maintain
while interacting with FAA officials. I am continually amazed at the
number of pilots that are happy to participate in arguments with
controllers on the radio. The best that could possibly be achieved
is a stalemate and the worst would be some type of enforcement
action. Swallowing your pride might be all it takes to put an end to
the problem and yet many just can't seem to do it.
Maybe pilot training should include a short session on diplomacy.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 01:50:13 AM PST US
From: Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no>
Subject: Re: Re: Short Changing Ourselves!!
On Jan 6, 2008, at 6:21 AM, av8rps wrote:
> How many of the competitve airplanes have the ever so sweet and nimble
> handling the Kitfox has?
I don't know, Paul, I haven't been flying very much other planes than
my Kitfox. What I know, though, is that the market here is changing for
the carbon-fibre water-drop speed machines. My former instructor just
bought a WT-9 Dynamic. See the link:
http://web.lightsportaviation.se/index.php?
option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1&lang=en
Next summer, he intends to fly Norway-Spain non-stop in ten hours. He
flies about twice as fast as me in my Kitfox. Speed seems to be the
argument here. I have seen this in my long experience with sailing and
yachting in general: The search for the extra knot of speed. But why?
Either the pleasure is to get there (on the water or in the air) or to
be there. If the latter then why not fly an airliner? It's surely
faster!
I love my Kitfox because ... it feels safe, simple and .. it's mine. I
have seen women prettier than my wife but I won't change wife for that.
I am fortunate to be happy with what I have. There is nothing I am
missing with my Kitfox.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
do not archive
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 05:57:15 AM PST US
From: "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer(at)idealwifi.net>
Subject: Re: This feud isn't pretty!
Excellent post Rick. It's good to hear from someone who speaks with
experience from being close to the action.
My purpose in writing this is to give a short blurb on my own thoughts
and experiences regarding the FAA, mostly from the air traffic control
side.
I first earned my private license in early 1970, then commercial
sometime in 1971, while holding down an air traffic control (ATC) job
that I retired from in 1988. I had plenty of interaction with FAA in
various assignments, including Seattle ARTCC. As a pilot or ATC at no
time was I ever unnecessarily hassled about anything. Every fed that I
came into contact with was courteous, knowledgeable, and helpful. I,
like a lot of others on this list, have spent my fair share of time
hanging around airports, whether it was flying, working on my airplane,
attending get-togethers, or just sitting around in the terminal having
coffee listening to and participating in the conversations. Lots of
camaraderie. However, one thing that always bothered me was the
occasional person who would take every opportunity to hammer the FAA
about something. Usually it was things like "I never talk to air
traffic control", then go on about some anecdotal story picked up about
somebody being vectored out of their way near a busy airport, or
something along that level. There are also those who vehemently make it
known how they refuse to use their radios or transponders around
congested areas, preferring to fly right through without talking to ATC.
Their reasons are usually something like "I don't need the hassle of
the feds", or something along that line. This always makes me cringe.
I could post a lot of the usual stories, but they never seem to change
much, and always come from the same types of people. It was difficult
for me to keep quiet while hearing this sort of talk (still is) because
I knew most of it was embellished BS (hangar talk). Unfortunately,
there are often very naive and inexperienced pilots around who are
listening and, like sponges, they soak it right up and it later becomes
very difficult to change their minds about it. "First learned is best
learned". Sure, like anything else, the FAA is not perfect.
Unfortunately, there are the occasional problems within the FAA like the
Bob Hoover debacle, but they are rare.
Everyone of us pays the taxes that puts ATC in place and pays the wages
of those guys and gals who are trying to do their job which is providing
a safe and orderly flow of traffic. They are highly trained and with
few exceptions, are very capable and willing to help. Personally, I use
ATC at every opportunity for flight following. I don't fly IMC and I
don't file IFR, but I definitely like to know that I am being seen on
radar by someone who has the ability to keep me safe from other pilots
out there who may not be able to see me. One big plus for flight
following that is very important to me is that if I have a problem that
may threaten continued flight, I already have instant contact with ATC
who knows exactly where I am and should I have to make an emergency
landing, rescue would be quick.
I'm sure there will be some "yeah, but..." replies and that is OK, but
if this helps to change the mindset of at least one person, I'm
satisfied.
Now, on a Kitfox note, I'll be bringing my airplane down to the shop
today to start the annual.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must first
be overcome".- Samuel Johnson
Guys/Gals,
Excuse the previous blank email, somehow my computer decided it was
time to send it out. I'm innocent. I didn't even touch a key, go
figure.
I did want to mention something that might be helpful to all of us. I
retired from the FAA in 1997 and I held a number of relatively high
positions on the engineering side of the Agency. I did work a lot with
flight standards folks, the regulators of aviation. I can say this
about them, they all (with very few exceptions) got into the FAA because
they loved aviation. Some were always GA and some a combination of
military and GA, but all like their jobs, be they pilots or mechanics.
The inspectors get very regimented training on the rules before they
interface with the public. They all are serious about safety and their
main mission is to protect the ' innocent public' and then the aviators.
Many of them would do anything to avoid citing a pilot or a
technicality because it means a lot of paperwork. Yes, there are some
that look forward to the opportunity to 'get someone', but the
management in HQ tries to not let that happen. For instance, at
AirVenture there can be 20 or 30 inspectors walking around and they are
trained to not hassle the pilots, but to work with the person if they
see a problem. You probably have never even noticed many of them when
they are working on the ramp, unless they're wearing an FAA name tag or
shirt.
Given all this, when someone brings a problem to their attention, they
cannot ignore it. They are obligated to follow through and research the
complaint. Actually, that's what we, as taxpayers, expect from our
government employees. That being said, when we want something from the
FAA don't we expect them to work hard and get an answer in a reasonable
time?
The real problem we face is how to interact with the inspector. If we
show a compliant attitude (do not read this as confessing to breaking a
rule - get an attorney before you even consider doing that) and strive
for a safety related outcome, it is possible to get off with just a
warning, either verbally or written. Once you do something that causes
the inspector to be concerned and he forwards his findings to the
attorneys at FAA, all bets are off. Attorneys work in a world of rules
and sanctions. Once they get the case they will do their attorney
thing. It then becomes difficult to get a compromise without
professional (your attorney) help.
If you have a problem with a fellow aviator, confront him or her
directly and try to work it out. If you are doing something
'unexpected' or just plain wrong and someone confronts you, explain it,
accept the responsibility, or if you choose to deny it, or do whatever
you think is appropriate, expect the FAA to come ask when the person you
blew off decides to call the feds. When you do that, at least you now
know the process you are about to enter. Remember, the rules will be
enforced, right or wrong (I mean whether the rule is right or wrong).
if you don't like the rules, petition the Agency to change it. The FAA
is obligated to address that request to. However,as we always say, the
rules have been written, for the most part, in the blood of the aviators
who have gone west before us. They aren't that onerous, they are our
government's best attempt to draw the limits on what is safe. Just
don't place yourself in a position that will allow the FAA inspector to
interpret the rules. English is a tough language and different words
can be interpreted in different ways. Enter the lawyers. This is where
they make their careers. Don't give these folks the opportunity to get
awards, for getting you.
I apologize for going on, but as a fellow aviator, I don't want to see
our privileges (not rights) jeopardized by some of us operating as
'cowboys' and stirring up the public (or other aviators) who then think
they have to save the world and go to the FAA.
Fly safe!
Rick Weiss
Kitfox Series V Speedster (soon to fly - I hope)
Daytona Beach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 08:05:35 AM PST US
From: "Rexster" <runwayrex(at)juno.com>
Subject: This feud isn't pretty! It's over.
Deke and Rick,
Both of you make some excellent points here and your positions are wel
l written. As a high school teacher for the past 33 years, I see all kin
ds of students and get to see some patterns. There are some great kids a
round who I can predict are on their ways to happy and successful career
s and lives. There are other kids who don't seem to understand that you
can have a good time on evenings and weekends without doing things that
are wrong. These are the kids who state that they "don't like cops" and
feel that cops are out to get them.Their stories indicate that they have
n't learned how to enjoy life without being on the edge of breaking the
law and then feel like the police are out to hassle them. My challange t
o them and all the students is to have a good time in life while always
making sure that their pleasure doesn't come at anyone else's expense.
All of this transfers right over to us as pilots. I fly a lot. I'm very
involved with my EAA Chapter here in southeast Michigan and we end up in
volved with many airports and sometimes the FAA for Young Eagle flights
and other activities. I'm thrilled that they are there and make sure tha
t they are happy we are there doing what we do. At no time have we ever
been hassled by the FAA, a controller, airport managers, the neighboring
public or anybody else. I think that anybody who feels they're not able
to enjoy life or aviation without being hassled by the cops or FAA simp
ly hasn't figured out how to have a good time without it being at other
people's expense. At school, we call it "people skills". It goes a long
way in life.
Enjoy,
Rex Phelps / Model 3 / 912UL / Warp / Michigan
-- "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer(at)idealwifi.net> wrote:
Excellent post Rick. It's good to hear from someone who speaks with exp
erience from being close to the action. My purpose in writing this is t
o give a short blurb on my own thoughts and experiences regarding the FA
A, mostly from the air traffic control side. I first earned my private
license in early 1970, then commercial sometime in 1971, while holding d
own an air traffic control (ATC) job that I retired from in 1988. I had
plenty of interaction with FAA in various assignments, including Seattl
e ARTCC. As a pilot or ATC at no time was I ever unnecessarily hassled
about anything. Every fed that I came into contact with was courteous,
knowledgeable, and helpful. I, like a lot of others on this list, have
spent my fair share of time hanging around airports, whether it was flyi
ng, working on my airplane, attending get-togethers, or just sitting ar
ound in the terminal having coffee listening to and participating in the
conversations. Lots of camaraderie. However, one thing that always bo
thered me was the occasional person who would take every opportunity to
hammer the FAA about something. Usually it was things like "I never tal
k to air traffic control", then go on about some anecdotal story picked
up about somebody being vectored out of their way near a busy airport, o
r something along that level. There are also those who vehemently make
it known how they refuse to use their radios or transponders around cong
ested areas, preferring to fly right through without talking to ATC. Th
eir reasons are usually something like "I don't need the hassle of the f
eds", or something along that line. This always makes me cringe. I cou
ld post a lot of the usual stories, but they never seem to change much,
and always come from the same types of people. It was difficult for me
to keep quiet while hearing this sort of talk (still is) because I knew
most of it was embellished BS (hangar talk). Unfortunately, there are
often very naive and inexperienced pilots around who are listening and,
like sponges, they soak it right up and it later becomes very difficult
to change their minds about it. "First learned is best learned". Sure
, like anything else, the FAA is not perfect. Unfortunately, there are
the occasional problems within the FAA like the Bob Hoover debacle, but
they are rare. Everyone of us pays the taxes that puts ATC in place an
d pays the wages of those guys and gals who are trying to do their job w
hich is providing a safe and orderly flow of traffic. They are highly t
rained and with few exceptions, are very capable and willing to help. P
ersonally, I use ATC at every opportunity for flight following. I don't
fly IMC and I don't file IFR, but I definitely like to know that I am b
eing seen on radar by someone who has the ability to keep me safe from o
ther pilots out there who may not be able to see me. One big plus for f
light following that is very important to me is that if I have a problem
that may threaten continued flight, I already have instant contact with
ATC who knows exactly where I am and should I have to make an emergency
landing, rescue would be quick.I'm sure there will be some "yeah, but..
." replies and that is OK, but if this helps to change the mindset of at
least one person, I'm satisfied.Now, on a Kitfox note, I'll be bringing
my airplane down to the shop today to start the annual.Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must first b
e overcome".- Samuel Johnson Guys/Gals, Excuse the previous blank email,
somehow my computer decided it was time to send it out. I'm innocent.
I didn't even touch a key, go figure. I did want to mention something t
hat might be helpful to all of us. I retired from the FAA in 1997 and I
held a number of relatively high positions on the engineering side of t
he Agency. I did work a lot with flight standards folks, the regulators
of aviation. I can say this about them, they all (with very few except
ions) got into the FAA because they loved aviation. Some were always GA
and some a combination of military and GA, but all like their jobs, be
they pilots or mechanics. The inspectors get very regimented training on
the rules before they interface with the public. They all are serious
about safety and their main mission is to protect the ' innocent public'
and then the aviators. Many of them would do anything to avoid citing
a pilot or a technicality because it means a lot of paperwork. Yes, the
re are some that look forward to the opportunity to 'get someone', but t
he management in HQ tries to not let that happen. For instance, at AirV
enture there can be 20 or 30 inspectors walking around and they are trai
ned to not hassle the pilots, but to work with the person if they see a
problem. You probably have never even noticed many of them when they ar
e working on the ramp, unless they're wearing an FAA name tag or shirt.
Given all this, when someone brings a problem to their attention, they c
annot ignore it. They are obligated to follow through and research the
complaint. Actually, that's what we, as taxpayers, expect from our gove
rnment employees. That being said, when we want something from the FAA
don't we expect them to work hard and get an answer in a reasonable time
? The real problem we face is how to interact with the inspector. If we
show a compliant attitude (do not read this as confessing to breaking a
rule - get an attorney before you even consider doing that) and strive
for a safety related outcome, it is possible to get off with just a warn
ing, either verbally or written. Once you do something that causes the
inspector to be concerned and he forwards his findings to the attorneys
at FAA, all bets are off. Attorneys work in a world of rules and sancti
ons. Once they get the case they will do their attorney thing. It then
becomes difficult to get a compromise without professional (your attorn
ey) help. If you have a problem with a fellow aviator, confront him or h
er directly and try to work it out. If you are doing something 'unexpec
ted' or just plain wrong and someone confronts you, explain it, accept t
he responsibility, or if you choose to deny it, or do whatever you think
is appropriate, expect the FAA to come ask when the person you blew off
decides to call the feds. When you do that, at least you now know the p
rocess you are about to enter. Remember, the rules will be enforced, ri
ght or wrong (I mean whether the rule is right or wrong). if you don't
like the rules, petition the Agency to change it. The FAA is obligated
to address that request to. However,as we always say, the rules have be
en written, for the most part, in the blood of the aviators who have gon
e west before us. They aren't that onerous, they are our government's b
est attempt to draw the limits on what is safe. Just don't place yourse
lf in a position that will allow the FAA inspector to interpret the rule
s. English is a tough language and different words can be interpreted i
n different ways. Enter the lawyers. This is where they make their car
eers. Don't give these folks the opportunity to get awards, for getting
you. I apologize for going on, but as a fellow aviator, I don't want
to see our privileges (not rights) jeopardized by some of us operating
as 'cowboys' and stirring up the public (or other aviators) who then thi
nk they have to save the world and go to the FAA. Fly safe! Rick WeissK
itfox Series V Speedster (soon to fly - I hope)Daytona Beach
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. hr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronh
ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.comhref="h
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=
_____________________________________________________________
Find custom shirts that suit you to a "t"! Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nPowfsSuVu1iD3UMXkotO
BGg0PJmUgfkmOurr25PlcLSNgf/
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 08:18:53 AM PST US
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Short Changing Ourselves!!
At 01:47 AM 1/6/2008, you wrote:
>Next summer, he intends to fly Norway-Spain non-stop in ten hours. He
>flies about twice as fast as me in my Kitfox. Speed seems to be the
>argument here.
Michel,
Interesting enough, speed is all the rage here amongst the
Kitfox community; lots of work on drag reduction and increased
horsepower. It's unfortunate since I'm guessing it's only a matter of
time before some start trading their Kitfoxes in for the fast-glass machines.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 09:00:21 AM PST US
From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
Subject: Re: This feud isn't pretty! It's over.
Rex,
Well said...From one high school teacher to another.
Dan B
Mesa, AZ
KF-IV, 912s, 314DW
Rexster <runwayrex(at)juno.com> wrote:
Deke and Rick,
Both of you make some excellent points here and your positions are well written.
As a high school teacher for the past 33 years, I see all kinds of students
and get to see some patterns. There are some great kids around who I can predict
are on their ways to happy and successful careers and lives. There are
other kids who don't seem to understand that you can have a good time on evenings
and weekends without doing things that are wrong. These are the kids who state
that they "don't like cops" and feel that cops are out to get them.Their
stories indicate that they haven't learned how to enjoy life without being on
the edge of breaking the law and then feel like the police are out to hassle them.
My challange to them and all the students is to have a good time in life
while always making sure that their pleasure doesn't come at anyone else's expense.
All of this transfers right over to us as pilots. I fly a lot. I'm very involved
with my EAA Chapter here in southeast Michigan and we end up involved with
many airports and sometimes the FAA for Young Eagle flights and other activities.
I'm thrilled that they are there and make sure that they are happy we are
there doing what we do. At no time have we ever been hassled by the FAA, a controller,
airport managers, the neighboring public or anybody else. I think that
anybody who feels they're not able to enjoy life or aviation without being
hassled by the cops or FAA simply hasn't figured out how to have a good time without
it being at other people's expense. At school, we call it "people skills".
It goes a long way in life.
Enjoy,
Rex Phelps / Model 3 / 912UL / Warp / Michigan
-- "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer(at)idealwifi.net> wrote:
Excellent post Rick. It's good to hear from someone who speaks with experience
from being close to the action.
My purpose in writing this is to give a short blurb on my own thoughts and experiences
regarding the FAA, mostly from the air traffic control side.
I first earned my private license in early 1970, then commercial sometime in
1971, while holding down an air traffic control (ATC) job that I retired from
in 1988. I had plenty of interaction with FAA in various assignments, including
Seattle ARTCC. As a pilot or ATC at no time was I ever unnecessarily hassled
about anything. Every fed that I came into contact with was courteous, knowledgeable,
and helpful. I, like a lot of others on this list, have spent my
fair share of time hanging around airports, whether it was flying, working on
my airplane, attending get-togethers, or just sitting around in the terminal
having coffee listening to and participating in the conversations. Lots of camaraderie.
However, one thing that always bothered me was the occasional person
who would take every opportunity to hammer the FAA about something. Usually
it was things like "I never talk to air traffic control", then go on about some
anecdotal story picked up about somebody being
vectored out of their way near a busy airport, or something along that level.
There are also those who vehemently make it known how they refuse to use their
radios or transponders around congested areas, preferring to fly right through
without talking to ATC. Their reasons are usually something like "I don't
need the hassle of the feds", or something along that line. This always makes
me cringe. I could post a lot of the usual stories, but they never seem to change
much, and always come from the same types of people. It was difficult for
me to keep quiet while hearing this sort of talk (still is) because I knew
most of it was embellished BS (hangar talk). Unfortunately, there are often
very naive and inexperienced pilots around who are listening and, like sponges,
they soak it right up and it later becomes very difficult to change their minds
about it. "First learned is best learned". Sure, like anything else, the
FAA is not perfect. Unfortunately, there are the
occasional problems within the FAA like the Bob Hoover debacle, but they are rare.
Everyone of us pays the taxes that puts ATC in place and pays the wages of those
guys and gals who are trying to do their job which is providing a safe and
orderly flow of traffic. They are highly trained and with few exceptions, are
very capable and willing to help. Personally, I use ATC at every opportunity
for flight following. I don't fly IMC and I don't file IFR, but I definitely
like to know that I am being seen on radar by someone who has the ability to
keep me safe from other pilots out there who may not be able to see me. One
big plus for flight following that is very important to me is that if I have a
problem that may threaten continued flight, I already have instant contact with
ATC who knows exactly where I am and should I have to make an emergency landing,
rescue would be quick.
I'm sure there will be some "yeah, but..." replies and that is OK, but if this
helps to change the mindset of at least one person, I'm satisfied.
Now, on a Kitfox note, I'll be bringing my airplane down to the shop today to
start the annual.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must first be overcome".-
Samuel Johnson
Guys/Gals,
Excuse the previous blank email, somehow my computer decided it was time to send
it out. I'm innocent. I didn't even touch a key, go figure.
I did want to mention something that might be helpful to all of us. I retired
from the FAA in 1997 and I held a number of relatively high positions on the
engineering side of the Agency. I did work a lot with flight standards folks,
the regulators of aviation. I can say this about them, they all (with very
few exceptions) got into the FAA because they loved aviation. Some were always
GA and some a combination of military and GA, but all like their jobs, be they
pilots or mechanics.
The inspectors get very regimented training on the rules before they interface
with the public. They all are serious about safety and their main mission is
to protect the ' innocent public' and then the aviators. Many of them would
do anything to avoid citing a pilot or a technicality because it means a lot
of paperwork. Yes, there are some that look forward to the opportunity to 'get
someone', but the management in HQ tries to not let that happen. For instance,
at AirVenture there can be 20 or 30 inspectors walking around and they are
trained to not hassle the pilots, but to work with the person if they see a problem.
You probably have never even noticed many of them when they are working
on the ramp, unless they're wearing an FAA name tag or shirt.
Given all this, when someone brings a problem to their attention, they cannot
ignore it. They are obligated to follow through and research the complaint.
Actually, that's what we, as taxpayers, expect from our government employees.
That being said, when we want something from the FAA don't we expect them to
work hard and get an answer in a reasonable time?
The real problem we face is how to interact with the inspector. If we show a
compliant attitude (do not read this as confessing to breaking a rule - get an
attorney before you even consider doing that) and strive for a safety related
outcome, it is possible to get off with just a warning, either verbally or written.
Once you do something that causes the inspector to be concerned and he
forwards his findings to the attorneys at FAA, all bets are off. Attorneys
work in a world of rules and sanctions. Once they get the case they will do their
attorney thing. It then becomes difficult to get a compromise without professional
(your attorney) help.
If you have a problem with a fellow aviator, confront him or her directly and
try to work it out. If you are doing something 'unexpected' or just plain wrong
and someone confronts you, explain it, accept the responsibility, or if you
choose to deny it, or do whatever you think is appropriate, expect the FAA to
come ask when the person you blew off decides to call the feds. When you do
that, at least you now know the process you are about to enter. Remember, the
rules will be enforced, right or wrong (I mean whether the rule is right or wrong).
if you don't like the rules, petition the Agency to change it. The FAA
is obligated to address that request to. However,as we always say, the rules
have been written, for the most part, in the blood of the aviators who have
gone west before us. They aren't that onerous, they are our government's best
attempt to draw the limits on what is safe. Just don't place yourself in a position
that will allow the FAA inspector to
interpret the rules. English is a tough language and different words can be interpreted
in different ways. Enter the lawyers. This is where they make their
careers. Don't give these folks the opportunity to get awards, for getting
you.
I apologize for going on, but as a fellow aviator, I don't want to see our privileges
(not rights) jeopardized by some of us operating as 'cowboys' and stirring
up the public (or other aviators) who then think they have to save the world
and go to the FAA.
Fly safe!
Rick Weiss
Kitfox Series V Speedster (soon to fly - I hope)
Daytona Beach
---------------------------------
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
==================================== ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List =========== tronics.com ==================================== www.matronics.com/contribution ====================================
_____________________________________________________________
Find custom shirts that suit you to a "t"! Click now!
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 11:52:50 AM PST US
From: Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no>
Subject: Re: Re: Short Changing Ourselves!!
On Jan 6, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Guy Buchanan wrote:
> Interesting enough, speed is all the rage here amongst the Kitfox
> community; lots of work on drag reduction and increased horsepower.
I understand, Guy. Indeed, it may sound silly to use extra fuel to push
a draggy object through the air.
When I decided to get a pilot license then buy an aircraft, I had no
prior knowledge of aviation apart from my father, the airman of my
childhood. To me, it made sense (and still does!) that a recreational
aircraft must be simple and reliable. We have a Rutan Defiant, here at
our airfield. Nice plane; but not my cup of tea. My Kitfox taildragger
with a air-cooled boxer Jabiru is ancient and well-proven technology.
For the pleasure of being up there, feeling free like a bird, I don't
need anything more.
I think there will always be a market for that kind of aircraft; just
as people will continue to sail, ski, horse ride or use
radio-telegraphy; anachronisms certainly, but enjoyable ones. It will
be a smaller market, though, but a nice one.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 01:06:25 PM PST US
Subject: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty!
From: "kitfoxmike" <customtrans(at)qwest.net>
Guy Buchanan wrote:
> At 07:13 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
>
> > 5 days later I get a letter from the airport manager stating that
> > there were multiple complaints about me doing erratic flying at
> > their airport and if it continues they will turn me into the
> > FSDO. I did nothing wrong, but somebody on the ground didn't like
> > my flying and got with his friends and they complained to the airport manager.
> >
> >
>
> Mike,
> Thank you, you have made my point. Whatever you were doing
> scared the groundlings enough to complain. Yes, there are the
> occasional nut-cases sitting at the ends of runways, but they are
> usually notorious and are ignored by airport managers and the local
> FAA. Yet you said you were doing something new and that there were
> multiple complaints. And interestingly enough these complaints were
> sufficient to make the airport manager threaten you, either because
> of their nature, or because the status of who made them. As a result
> you have jeopardized that airport's future, and put yet another nail
> in the coffin of general aviation. What happened? Let's address the
> possibilities:
>
> 1. You were doing something illegal and unsafe. Is any discussion necessary?
>
> 2. You were doing something legal and unsafe. Discussion?
>
> 3. You were doing something illegal and safe. The rules we fly by are
> designed, in large part, to keep everyone safe. You and I both know
> it is possible to fly outside the rules and be perfectly safe. What's
> the point? Some of the rules are designed to give the groundlings a
> perception of safety, to keep us out of the public eye. You and I
> both know we can fly within 50' of anything and anybody in perfect
> safety, yet it scares the crap out of the un-informed when we do it.
> Thus the rule that says stay 500' away from anything that might
> contain a human. (My paraphrase.) There are others. (Do we really
> need 1000' AGL pattern altitudes? What's wrong with flying under
> bridges? Why can't we land on public property in CA where there are
> huge dry lake beds? Why can't we land on roads?)
>
> 4. You were doing something legal and safe. If this is the case you
> should seriously consider a small educational effort wherein you get
> together with the complainants and explain what you were doing and
> why, why it was legal, and more importantly, why it was safe. (Maybe
> the airport manager should attend, too.) You will then have removed
> your's and maybe a few other's nails from the GA coffin. Yes I know
> it's an effort, but after all, it's your nail.
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> San Diego, CA
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
I didn't prove any of your points.
I must have done something unsafe. BS
I didn't do anything wrong, all I did was do touch and go's on all runways.
I asked another pilot about this and he immediately said, Oh you did touch and
go's on all runways, that's enough to piss people off at that airport.
I guess the point I'm trying to get out here is the fact that there are so called
pilots out there that want to see the classic flying of student pilots.
BY THE BOOK.
All I can say is let people go around turning pilots in, it will keep the airwaves
free, more spacing for me. I have a terrible time with pilots that are not
proficient. They constantly turn in front of me on final, turn into my flight
path on take off(parallel runways), pop out on the runway at the hold short
lines when I'm on final. If it will discourage pilots from flying, (fear of
being turned into the FAA). THen great, it will keep those idiots out of the
sky.
--------
kitfoxmike
model IV, 1200
speedster
912ul
building
RV7a
slowbuild wings, fuse, finish kit
"if you're not getting razzed from pilots or the FAA then you're not flying
enough"
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156404#156404
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 02:16:56 PM PST US
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty!
At 01:04 PM 1/6/2008, you wrote:
>I guess the point I'm trying to get out here is the fact that there
>are so called pilots out there that want to see the classic flying
>of student pilots.
>BY THE BOOK.
Mike,
What did you do that might not have been "BY THE BOOK".
Certainly not doing touch and goes on all runways; that's what
they're for. I think you're saying that what you did was both legal
and safe. If so, why don't you work with the airport manager to
explain that to the complainers? Then you'll be free to continue with
that activity.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________
Time: 04:43:00 PM PST US
Subject: KF-1 tail wheel and door frames
From: "AKFLYERBOB" <r.wolfejr(at)worldnet.att.net>
looking for a tailwheel assembly w/speing and
door frames or frame kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156451#156451
________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________
Time: 05:14:43 PM PST US
From: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: KF-1 tail wheel and door frames
Contact John or Debra McBean at Kitfox they can help I am sure.
Dee Young
Model II N345DY
Do not archive
---
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-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?Kitfox-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
