 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Frank
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 69
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
 |
|
Cy
I sent my apologies your way off list. I think I was a little misinterpreted
and by looking back on what I wrote I can see how that could happen. I
really did mean what I wrote in a good natured way.
Frank
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cgalley(at)qcbc.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
|
|
I guess I wrote you back off list. I should not have been to quick to
respond. It is very difficult to write something so it conveys the real
intent of the writer. I've been trying for about 70 years with more than
occasional lapses. It takes a big man to make an apology. My hat is off to
you!
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
---
| | - 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 |
|
|
Frank
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
|
|
Yakkers
I think Scott's analysis of the situation is spot on!
Let me relate some observations and facts. What I do for a living is to
measure the strength of materials, vibrate mechanical assemblies, put them
to temperature extremes or test them in in a thousand different ways to make
sure they will stand up to the rigors of the environment they will be
operating under. It is these kinds of data that the FAA uses to "certify" a
product. It is their holy grail. I'm the kind of guy who gives them that
data so I know a little about the business.
It's good to test a product in the laboratory but that isn't the only way a
product can be tested. It's possible to test a product in real world
situations and thus derive valid scientific data from that product (read
that to mean real world performance of ANY subsystem, component or even
whole aircraft). It is scientifically sound to determine the airworthiness
of a product by real world flight experience and is, in fact, the preferred
method for determining the airworthiness of a product.
Real world testing of aircraft and their systems goes on all the time at
testing centers like Edwards AFB. The military will not accept an aircraft
for production until it has undergone an extreme level of testing in real
world conditions......no matter what the laboratory test results have
revealed! It would be foolish to accept laboratory test results as the only
method towards aircraft airworthiness standards. You got to fly the aircraft
and test its systems in the real world!
This then leads me to aircraft being imported from the eastern block.......
These aircraft are not built to any known US specifications so the FAA says
they have to operate under special flight rules (Experimental Exhibition).
Like many scientists and engineers will tell you...... It's the real world
operational experience that is the most valuable! Just like the USAF, who
test an aircraft to the extremes, the civilian owners of eastern block
aircraft are doing the same thing in their day to day flying. In a sense
it's a repeat of what the Soviets or the Chinese have already done in
testing their aircraft. Their engineers have bought off on the airworthiness
of these aircraft. They have used their laboratory and real world
experiences to develop the aircraft, aircraft subsystems, maintenance
manuals, operating procedures and thus concluded that a particular aircraft
is airworthy. According to the FAA bureaucracy, all this doesn't mean
squat.....and that is a mistake!
The FAA mandate towards airworthiness certification is flawed in that it
refuses to accept experience gained in real world operations from processes
other than its own "APPROVED" processes...... Consider that our own military
DEMANDS real world testing of it's aircraft and it isn't an approved FAA
process either! Why can't the FAA accept real world experiences and
processes from other sources? The FAA's airworthiness requirements are
scientifically sound given the path to certification they have chosen. But
that process isn't the only way to certify an aircraft as airworthy. Real
world operational experience is another way to certify airworthiness of a
product and, if money was no object, would in fact be the preferred method
of validating an aircraft or it's subsystems. I'm forced to conclude the FAA
is entrenched in a given process of airworthiness certification and makes no
exceptions to other processes that are scientifically sound because of their
own, internal bureaucratic inertia (no one is willing to take a stand). I
suspect they also use these rules to serve a political agenda. The FAA
chooses to ignore the operational experiences of the Russians, Chinese and
the operational experiences of US citizens who own and operate these
aircraft because it isn't THEIR process. Don't forget, real world
operational experiences are the most valuable of all the processes used to
determine the airworthiness of an aircraft....... we do it every day as we
fly our aircraft. Why can't the FAA accept this?
This is where Scott nailed it. It's because US aircraft manufacturers are
engaged in protectionist practices. I think US aircraft manufacturers almost
succeeded in getting our aircraft banned from the US. Thank God for the EAA.
Just think for a moment what your life would be like if they had succeeded.
None of us would be owning the aircraft we do. None of us would have met the
friends made possible by our involvement in these aircraft. Many of us (like
myself) would still be on the ground looking skyward dreaming of one day
owning an aircraft. A dream never to be realized because American, factory
built aircraft are just too expensive. In short, our lives would have been
diminished had the FAA succeeded in banning these aircraft. I'm a working
guy and if I didn't have the chance to buy a relatively inexpensive 52 I
would be building a kit....not buying and overpriced piece of American crap
spam can that I couldn't ever afford! The Russian and Chinese airplanes
filled a niche that American aircraft manufacturers couldn't.
Frank
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
netmaster15(at)juno.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
|
|
FRANK,
The unequal application of the law you speak of is ocurring because of a
constitutional protection which is being taken advantage of by those who
got into the system early with their airplane. It is called the ex post
facto provision. The beneficiaries are relying on the provision which
says "Conress shall make no law applicable ex post facto....." or
applicable to a time earlier than the date of passage of the subject
enactment. This is not regarded as an "unequal protection of the law"or
an unconstitutional deprevation of a right. It is simply a protection
which the early birds are taking advantage of and of which we "late
risers" cannot avail ourselves because we acquired our airplanes AFTER
the passage of the law . As for we RPA members using "our clout", What
clout? Congress has the clout, the FAA has the clout; the rest of us
have shit for clout, we cannot give ourselves a raise at the tax payer's
expense; we cannot raise our health and retirement benefits at taxpayer's
expense. Now THAT is clout. You and I don't have it. Don't get bent out
of shape, fly your airplane where you want to and if you get caught
beyond 300 miles tell them you are looking for a "suitable" airport , ie,
one with known "appropriate" maintenance facilities for your foreign
airplane.
In the meantime , enjoy life .
Regards,
Cliff Umscheid, YAK 50
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:08:46 -0600 "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver(at)earthlink.net> writes:
| Quote: |
<yak52driver(at)earthlink.net>
Yakkers;
I'm asking WHY should some of us be "Grandfathered" into no flight
restrictions for Experimental Exhibition registered aircraft
(pre-moratorium) and others with the exact same plane be limited
with FAA
restrictions like the no flight past a 300 mile limit rule? What the
hell
were these pointy headed FAA bureaucrats thinking? Where do they get
off
letting some have all the freedoms they want while restricting
others? It
seems like an unacceptable and unequal application of the law. I
seem to
remember somewhere that all laws have to be equally administered or
they are
unconstitutional. And why put that restriction on us anyways? What
pointy
headed bureaucrat thought of that one and why? I suggest we, as RPA
members,
use our clout to get rid of this unconstitutional and bullshit set
of
regulations!
Frank
"All proficiency/practice flights shall be conducted within the
geographical
area described in the applicant's program letter and any amendments
to that
letter, but that area will not exceed 300 nautical miles of the
aircraft's
home base airport. An exception is permitted for proficiency flying
outside
of the area stated above for organized formation flying, training,
or
checkout in conjunction with a specific event listed in the
applicant's
program letter (or amendments). The program letter should indicate
the
location and dates for this proficiency flying."
OOOHHHH............But if you're "grandfathered" and one of the
"special
ones" you don't have to do this even though you own the exact same
airplane.
What a crock of shit these bureaucrats have done to us! What the
hell gives
them the right to unilaterally declare the exact same planes
different? F'in
bastards!
===========================================
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
L39parts(at)hotmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: POINTY HEADED FAA ADMINISTRATORS |
|
|
You just can't let go of "the order" can you?
---
| | - 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
