Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Airport Attitudes
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 09:46 PM 10/11/2008, Mike Welch wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		     Eventually, the FAA's position was IF the medical requirement is 

 dropped, then there WILL

be several flight restrictions, aircraft limitations, etc, etc..........



   That's just what I was under the impression of.  Again, I'm arguing 

 with you.  I just wonder

if you have a document or two to back up your consensus.


	


There were several petitions from various ultralight organizations and 

individuals to codify the rules on 2 seat "trainers", increase the 254# 

weight, etc.  The FAA had also stated that they intended to eliminate 

"rulemaking by exemption" as they called it.  At the same time, there was 

the push from the other direction to eliminate the medical (something that 

had been hoped for when the Rec pilot certificate had been proposed).  And, 

there was a real need to streamline the aircraft certification 

process.  All these things met in the middle and nobody got exactly what 

they wanted.

 From http://www.sportpilot.org/news/010223.html :

 	  Quote: 	
		  "Sport pilot began its travels through the rulemaking process several 

years ago when the United States Ultralight Association (USUA) asked the 

FAA to expand Part 103 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to include 

two-seat ultralight vehicles. By following the steps in FAR Part 11, 

anyone can petition the FAA to change a rule. To get the public's comments 

on the petition, the FAA publishes it in the Federal Register.



"After considering the comments received, if the administrator determines 

there are sufficient reasons to proceed, the FAA will begin the rulemaking 

process, and the USUA petition followed this route.



"When developing new rules, the FAA includes industry input from the start 

by creating an aviation rulemaking advisory committee (ARAC) whose members 

(including EAA) have expertise in the area being considered, light and 

ultralight aircraft in this case. After years of hard work, the ARAC 

decided to propose a new pilot certificate instead of changing Part 103. 

Calling the new certificate "sport pilot," the ARAC drafted the initial 

rule proposal and submitted it to the FAA."


	


-Dana

--

  How is it that 2 teenagers in the back of an original Volkswagen Beetle, 

in a crowded drive-in theater, can reproduce, yet it takes 2 spotted owls 

10,000 acres?

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 07:08 AM 10/12/2008, pj.ladd wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  I just love the different attitude about the law in the US and the UK that shows in the recent posts. 

  

 We seem to generally accept that the rules are there for everyones protection, and they were introduced for a good reason. That is not to say we are happy with everything or that there isn`t a little bending of the rules here and there.

  

 You on the other hand seem to take any rule as a direct challenge and set out to circumvent it in some way.. 	


 Yes, over here we tend to have an inherent distrust of the government.  It came to a head at least once around  1776...



  	  Quote: 	
		  I once explained to an American friend of mine the difference in our respective attitudes like this.  `We  move into Africa or India where the temperature is regularly in the high hundreds plus and we  ignore it and continue to dress for dinner. Americans emigrate into parts of the US continent that no sane person would wish to live in. Take a look at the temperature, wrestle it three falls and invent air conditioning`  	


 Good one!  Here's some interesting trivia, to relate it back to aviation:  



 During the American Civil War, one Thaddeus Lowe was instrumental in creating the Union Army Balloon Corps, flying observation balloons over Confederate positions.  Disputes with the Army (over pay and other things), however, resulted in him being forced out, and the Balloon Corps were abandoned not long after.  After the war, Lowe invented refrigeration (you wondered where this was coming from, right?), probably after observing that the hydrogen cylinders got cold while inflating his balloons, and made a fortune.  



 His granddaughter was none other than "Pancho" Barnes, early woman aviator and owner of the notorious Happy Bottom Riding Club adjacent to Edwards AFB during the grand days of test flying in the 1950's.  She, too, was hassled by the Air Force when they tried to take her land, but in the end she won a substantial lawsuit against the Air Force.



 -Dana

 --

  Son - you're going to have to make up your mind about growing up and becoming a pilot. You can't do both.    [quote][b]

George Alexander

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 245
Location: SW Florida

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: Re: Airport Attitudes

 	  Dana wrote: 	
		  At 09:46 PM 10/11/2008

-----SNIP-----

All these things met in the middle and nobody got exactly what they wanted.

-----SNIP-----



 

-Dana

	




Dana... I don't feel your statement above "nobody got exactly what they wanted" is entirely true....

I now fly out of a municipally owned airport in SW FL.  There are a couple of hundred airplanes birthed there.  The significant number of the fliers are of the "mature" variety.... retired military, retired commercial, retired people in general, etc....   The movement by a  large number of these people into aircraft that qualify as Light Sport is very noticeable.  The bulletin boards around the field have an increasing number of GA planes "For Sale" on them and the J3s, Ercoupes, T-Craft, Champs, Luscombes, etc... don't stay posted very long at all.

My own view (for what it's worth) is that the manufacturers selling more/new aircraft and providing a way for older pilots to continue to fly were the two biggest drivers behind Sport.  Those who had that as their objective came close to getting exactly what they wanted.  Almost as a tag-along, offering the opportunity for those who were so inclined to get out of the "fat ultralight" situation satisfied (albeit at a price) a number of us.

Granted us ULers didn't get "OK, increase your weight, add fuel, add a second seat and continue to fly under (a modified) Part 103."  But that was never going to happen anyway.



My $.02 worth.



DO NOT ARCHIVE



PS: Lose the Pit Bull signature file.  Not funny.

_________________
George Alexander
FS II R503
E-LSA N709FS
http://www.oh2fly.net

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 11:14 AM 10/12/2008, George Alexander wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  Dana... I don't feel your statement above "nobody got exactly what they 

wanted" is entirely true....

providing a way for older pilots to continue to fly were the two biggest 

drivers behind Sport.  Those who had that as their objective came close to 

getting exactly what they wanted.  Almost as a tag-along, offering the 

opportunity for those who were so inclined to get out of the "fat 

ultralight" situation satisfied (albeit at a price) a number of us.

Granted us ULers didn't get "OK, increase your weight, add fuel and add a 

second seat and continue to fly under (a modified) Part 103."  But that 

was never going to happen anyway...


	


Well, the people who let their medical lapse got what they wanted, but 

those who'd lost the medical didn't.  The people who wanted to fly a 2 seat 

UL got what they wanted, but only if they wanted to jump through all the 

licensing hoops, AND if they managed to get the paperwork done before the 

deadline.  UL's were the big losers... no good way to get training now, and 

we're still saddled with the 254# / 5 gallon limitations which _decrease_ 

safety.



Oh yeah, Cesna and a bunch of European manufacturers definitely got what 

they wanted... for those few of us who can afford the price tag...



-Dana



do not archive



--

  If people behaved like governments, you'd call the cops.

slyck(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

Makes sense George.  Just step back from it for a minute and think  

about the inherent

conflict in the term "two place ultralight"   nahhhhh.  If a guy  

wants to jeopardize himself

  in a contraption, that's his option.  But letting him expose an  

unwitting passenger

to same is not right.

Even then, I would not like to be in the CFI's shoes who is obligated  

to pass a check ride

on a pilot who, technically did everything right, but in your bones  

you know the guy is not

going to be a good pilot.  I've ridden with a couple of these chaps  

and the experience was

uncomfortable.

BB

On 12, Oct 2008, at 11:14 AM, George Alexander wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 <gtalexander(at)att.net>

 Dana wrote:

> At 09:46 PM 10/11/2008

> -----SNIP-----

> All these things met in the middle and nobody got exactly what  

> they wanted.

> -----SNIP-----

> -Dana

>

 Dana... I don't feel your statement above "nobody got exactly what  

 they wanted" is entirely true....

 I now fly out of a municipally owned airport in SW FL.  There are a  

 couple of hundred airplanes birthed there.  The significant number  

 of the fliers are of the "mature" variety.... retired military,  

 retired commercial, retired people in general, etc....   The  

 movement by a  large number of these people into aircraft that  

 qualify as Light Sport is very noticeable.  The bulletin boards  

 around the field have an increasing number of GA planes "For Sale"  

 on them and the J3s, Ercoupes, T-Craft, Champs, Luscombes, etc...  

 don't stay posted very long at all.

 My own view (for what it's worth) is that the manufacturers selling  

 more/new aircraft and providing a way for older pilots to continue  

 to fly were the two biggest drivers behind Sport.  Those who had  

 that as their objective came close to getting exactly what they  

 wanted.  Almost as a tag-along, offering the opportunity for those  

 who were so inclined to get out of the "fat ultralight" situation  

 satisfied (albeit at a price) a number of us.

 Granted us ULers didn't get "OK, increase your weight, add fuel and  

 add a second seat and continue to fly under (a modified) Part  

 103."  But that was never going to happen anyway.

 My $.02 worth.

 DO NOT ARCHIVE

 PS: Lose the Pit Bull signature file.  Not funny.

 --------

 George Alexander

 FS II R503  N709FS

 http://gtalexander.home.att.net

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8370#208370

Jim Baker

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Sayre, PA

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%: 

 	  Quote: 	
		   We seem to generally accept that the rules are there for everyones

 protection, and they were introduced for a good reason. That is

 not to say we are happy with everything or that there isn`t a

 little bending of the rules here and there. 

 

 You on the other hand seem to take any rule as a direct challenge and set out to circumvent it in some way..


	


Those who might seem to have your best interests at heart often have 

another agenda. An example of "protection" if I might....



The FAA issued, despite public comment to the contrary, an 

Airworthiness Directive aimed at Bellanca Aircraft's Viking series of 

craft. There are several models within that series that have 

different engines, differently speced electrical systems and wholly 

different layouts of exhaust systems, some with running changes in 

the middle of a prioduction run. There are 17-30, 17-30a, 17-31, and 

17-31tc models. Seems there had been a weld failure in the back of 

the muffler and would aim exhaust gasses back toward the firewall and 

the Cannon plug though which the P-leads passed, grounding the p-

leads and killing the engine.



How many documented times had this happened in the entire life of the 

aircraft? Three times that I can find. No fatalities, no injuries. 

Are the 17-31 and 17-31tc aircraft even suseptible to this event? No 

way in hell. But, the wise Ones at the FAA shotgunned the whole deal 

and made it apply to everyone that oned a Bellanca Viking. Just 

exactly whom were the FAA looking out for? Themselves.



Stamp Act, Tea Tax, Townshend Acts, Prohibition.......all implemented 

for "everyones protection".

Jim Baker

580.788.2779

Elmore City, OK

Jim Baker

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Sayre, PA

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:55 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%: 



I have never been ramp checked.  

 	  Quote: 	
		   I believe the primary reason, is that there is an agreement that the 

 FAA will not ramp check because it would greatly reduce the number of  ga 

 and experimental aircraft and utralight vehicles that would attend. 


	


I'm a contractor to the FAA thru Lockheed Martin. Most of the folks I 

work with fly and don't want their own organization to come down on 

them, either. My FS II is overweight and carries 10 gal in the 

"passengers" location. FAA guy at a fly-in says:



"Ten gallons, huh?" 

"Yup" 

"Single seat, too?" 

"Yup"  

"Good." 



..and that was it.



Jim Baker

580.788.2779

Elmore City, OK

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

Just exactly whom were the FAA looking out for? Themselves.>>



Hi Jim,

An interesting take on attitudes. I wouldn`t for a moment suggest that 

organisations, FAA, CAA, or any other regulatory body is always right but I 

must ask `In what way did the Viking saga benefit the FAA` Ensured more work 

for themselves? Hardly necessary. Extra income? possibly but unlikely.



It is all very well making statements like yours but to make it worthwhile 

somebody must end up better off. I don`t see how.



Tea tax and Prohibition were introduced as `protection`?.  Never heard that 

before. I thought they were introduced to raise money in one case,  and to 

promote Temperance in the other. And to raise money of course.



I would certainly agree that `hidden agendas` do exist, just look at the 

curtailment of civil liberties which has taken place under the `War on 

Terror` but that is just the usual tendency of governments to govern, and to 

govern is to control.



Cheers



Pat

Jim Baker

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Sayre, PA

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: Airport Attitudes

X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%: 



 	  Quote: 	
		   It is all very well making statements like yours but to make it worthwhile 

 somebody must end up better off. I don`t see how.


	


Did I, or the other Viking owners, end up being better off? No. Did 

the FAA, as an organization, end up being better off? No. Did the 

public benefit? No. Did one or two folks in the FAA's aircraft 

directorate make a name for themselves? Just look at how many lives 

we saved today.......



 	  Quote: 	
		   Tea tax and Prohibition were introduced as `protection`?.  Never heard that 

 before. I thought they were introduced to raise money in one case


	


Protection of the British East India Tea company....



 	  Quote: 	
		   promote Temperance in the other. And to raise money of course.


	


Wilson and other politicians chose to save their political hides by 

eventually siding with the dry faction of the populace after 

election, even tho the Temperance folks were a small majority. Less 

to do with morality than with expediency.

 

 	  Quote: 	
		   I would certainly agree that `hidden agendas` do exist, just look at the 

 curtailment of civil liberties which has taken place under the `War on 

 Terror` but that is just the usual tendency of governments to govern, and to 

 govern is to control.


	


Not one of my civil liberties has been curtailed...none. Not even 

privacy. 

Jim Baker

580.788.2779

Elmore City, OK

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:07 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

Not one of my civil liberties has been curtailed...none. Not even

privacy. >>



Hi Jim,

mine has.  I  lost 2 perfectly good Swiss Army pocket knives because I had 

forgotten to pack them in my luggage and carried them in my pocket. Which I 

have done for 70 years..



You don`t think that the government being able to pin point where you made 

a cell phone call from and who you spoke to is an invasion pf privacy.?. 

You dont think that the fact that there is CCTV footage of you carrying on 

your lawful business in the hands of all sorts of agencies is an invasion of 

privacy?  I do.



1984?  You `aint seen nothin` yet. (but its all for your protection)



Cheers



Pat

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: Airport Attitudes

She, too, was hassled 

by the Air Force when  they tried to take her land, but in the end she won a 

substantial lawsuit  against the Air Force.>>

  

 I have  heard of Pancho Barnes and her part i  the Space  programme. Good for her..  I am not suggesting for a moment  that the government won`t shaft us but I don`t think they actually set out with  that in mind.It sort of happens.

  

 Re land tussles. We had a classic case here   soon after the war. During the war the Army took over a large estate called  Crichel Down with the promise that it would be returned after the war when the  army had no use for it. The Army eventually finished with it but the Ministry  promptly offered it to another branch of the Services.

 The owner, who happened to have a lot of  money,said, `That wasn`t the agreement` and  took the government to court,  and won. It took a long time and a lot of money but as a result several highly  placed Civil Servants were bowler hatted.

  

 Cheers

  

 Pat

 



   [quote][b]

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 04:16 PM 10/15/2008, pj.ladd wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  ...I am not suggesting for a moment that the government won`t shaft us but I don`t think they actually set out with that in mind.It sort of happens... 	


 I forget who it was that said, "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence."  But any organization, and especially governments, are always controlled by Pournelle's Law:



 "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."  



 Also stated as: 



 "In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions."



 -Dana



 do not archive

 --

  Canadian DOS prompt: EH?\>    [quote][b]

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:46 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

"Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by  incompetence."  >>

  

 Hi Dana,

 I have never heard that but I suppose it about sums  up my general attitude.

  

 Pournelles Law. Something else of which I have  never heard. Would that be Jerry Pournelle SF writer by any chance.

  

 I wouldn`t disagree with the `bureaucracy wins`  theory.. I just hope, probably against the evidence that my  optimism will  win through.

  

 Cheers

  

 Pat

   [quote][b]

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:11 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

At 06:45 AM 10/16/2008, pj.ladd wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   

 Pournelles Law. Something else of which I have never heard. Would that be Jerry Pournelle SF writer by any chance. 	


 Yes, the same... one of my favorite writers.  He's one of the first bloggers, though he disdains that word, writing daily on subjects from science to computers to politics and everything in between, nearly always interesting: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/currentview.html 



 -Dana



 definitely do not archive this off topic stuff!

 --

  When Marriage is Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Inlaws.    [quote][b]

russ(at)rkiphoto.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:15 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

PatI googled Pournelle -- here 'tis



Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.



 [quote][b]

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:15 am Post subject: Airport Attitudes

Yes, the same... one of my favorite writers.  >>

  

 Thanks Dana. I like his books. Having been a SF  reader since 1947 I have been through all the changes of Astounding to Analog  and all the changes of format.  Not too many good writers in the field now  Ian Banks would be one and Baxter, an English writer whom you may have come  across.

 He did some astronaut training I believe and he  writes science articles as well as SF.

 Very little `hard` sf, about now ,it seems to be  mainly fantasy and Dungeons and Dragons.

  

 Cheers

  

 Pat

   [quote][b]

ces308

Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 317
Location: houghton lake ,mi

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: Re: Airport Attitudes

Hi Guys,

Well....being an Airport manager at a small sod strip in in upper , lower Michigan (5Y2, Houghton Lake State Airport),I can understand why some managers get upset with some of the pilots that fly the lite aircraft.I have only had 1 time where the pilot of a powered parachute new nothing about patterns at an airport,landed on the runway and parked it there while he packed it up...However,I spoke with the gentlemen and told him of airport procedures and he apologized and agreed follow them next time.Since then I try to have a talk with the people wanting to use the  airport and make sure the understand the rules. Some already knew them others did not...the point is if you go to another place to fly that you have not been before, talk to the manager and let him know your intentions and ask if there is anything else that should be noticed at there airport. There is no reason why we can't all  get along and play together.I enjoy anything that flies , all we have to do is keep it safe. I am just getting into a Kolb Mark III Xtra  ( down sizing from a Skyhawk...I have a nice one for sale if anyone is interested) and would like to see all you guys and gals come up to our airport some time in the future! 



So before you get mad at the manager,remember all the dumb stuff other people have done to make him that way and show him you are not that way! 



chris ambrose

houghton lake ,mi



ces308(at)ldaco.com

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

Jump to:

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