For everyone that likes FaceBook we have our group on there as well.
Light Sport Aircraft FaceBook group
__._,_.___
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group our FaceBook group
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Logging taxi time?
circicirci wrote:
> The Kitfox has a reputation as a well behaved aircraft.
Which Kitfox? Series 5 and Series 7 fill very solid and stable in the air.
Kitfox I, II and to a lesser degree III have a reputation for being
difficult to handle, neutral yaw stability, etc. (specially with the
original narrow landing gear.)
Kitfox IV, the one I have, while being an improvement on previous models
(better airfoil, larger rudder, higher load carrying capabilities) still
is considered "difficult" as the rest of the family. Not in requiring
exceptional piloting skills, but requiring your full attention to a
larger degree than other similar planes.
> Why not find a Kitfox pilot (or an experienced pilot or CFI with
similar type experience) to go up with you and get some experience of
the feel of the controls in the _air_, and of course on takeoff and
landing approach?
Done - The flying part is covered.
The Aerotrek is an Avid-Flyer/Kitfox clone. The only minus is that the
one I flew has a tricycle gear, while my Kitfox is a taildragger.
I found another instructor with a Kitfox II taildragger, but it is more
than two hours away. Planning to take a few lessons with him when my
Kitfox is ready to fly.
The taxiing experiments (and full power engine runups, which I did not
mention,) are to gain confidence on the engine (which did not run for a
long time, more below) and to acquaint myself with the ground handling
of *this* Kitfox, (which is different from Cubs, Champs, the Aerotrek
and other Kitfoxes.)
> The behavior of the plane and controls at taxiing speeds and
configuration will be significantly different than in landing
configuration and speeds
Agreed.
> Roberto, I`m curious: IS there any reason you took your lessons in
the Cubs, Champs and a Kitfox-like Aerotek rather than IN the KitFox?
> (You didn`t say so, but I assumed you own the KitFox or have access
to it)?
Yes, I bought it two and 1/2 years ago, in flying condition, and then,
due to life happening several times, sat untouched until now.
The lessons (and BFR in a Cub) are/were done in parallel with bringing
the Kitfox back into service, replacing potentially unsafe fuel lines,
switching from Mogaz to 100LL and seeing how the engine takes it,
finding an experimental friendly A&P for an annual inspection, etc.
I am still working on some problems. (Vibration, engine not reaching
full power RPMs)
> As a final thought:
> Doing hours of taxiing, especially if you are thinking of doing it
at increasingly higher speeds with any crosswinds around, can be
risky.... Ironically, IMO, possibly more risky than the same number of
hours of flying.
I have been warned *not* to do high speed taxi runs. It is low speed or
flying, with very little gray area between.
> The Kitfox is light with large wing area and if you get a gust under
the wing is as many LSAs needing to be handled carefully in crosswinds
to not get tipped and put that downwing wingtip on the runway or worse.
Caveats noted.
> In normal takeoffs (in contrast to the hours you are proposing
rolling around on the ground) a Kitfox is only in that very vulnerable
position (of being moving fast with the potential for massive lift under
one wing AND still close enough to the ground where the downwind wing
could hit the ground if the plane rolled even a modest 35 degrees) for a
VERY short time.
> That is because in normal takeoffs it is likely airborn within 6
seconds of applying takeoff power.
In a paved runway, solo, I am expecting no more than 4 seconds from full
power to wheels off. 6 seconds on grass...
> Once it is even 20 feet off the runway even if a gust gets under the
wing it and unexpectedly rolls you uncorrected that wingtip isn`t going
to hit the ground.
> In short, in 10 minutes of high speed ground taxiing with any
significant crosswind seems to me you are exposed to roughly the
flip-over risk you would incurr in 100 cross-wind takeoffs.
>
> Disclaimer: I`m niether a Kitfox pilot or a CFI.
>
> My two cents.
> Alex
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and sorry for my delay answering.
I did not see this message before, but for some reason it was marked "read"
Roberto.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> The Kitfox has a reputation as a well behaved aircraft.
Which Kitfox? Series 5 and Series 7 fill very solid and stable in the air.
Kitfox I, II and to a lesser degree III have a reputation for being
difficult to handle, neutral yaw stability, etc. (specially with the
original narrow landing gear.)
Kitfox IV, the one I have, while being an improvement on previous models
(better airfoil, larger rudder, higher load carrying capabilities) still
is considered "difficult" as the rest of the family. Not in requiring
exceptional piloting skills, but requiring your full attention to a
larger degree than other similar planes.
> Why not find a Kitfox pilot (or an experienced pilot or CFI with
similar type experience) to go up with you and get some experience of
the feel of the controls in the _air_, and of course on takeoff and
landing approach?
Done - The flying part is covered.
The Aerotrek is an Avid-Flyer/Kitfox clone. The only minus is that the
one I flew has a tricycle gear, while my Kitfox is a taildragger.
I found another instructor with a Kitfox II taildragger, but it is more
than two hours away. Planning to take a few lessons with him when my
Kitfox is ready to fly.
The taxiing experiments (and full power engine runups, which I did not
mention,) are to gain confidence on the engine (which did not run for a
long time, more below) and to acquaint myself with the ground handling
of *this* Kitfox, (which is different from Cubs, Champs, the Aerotrek
and other Kitfoxes.)
> The behavior of the plane and controls at taxiing speeds and
configuration will be significantly different than in landing
configuration and speeds
Agreed.
> Roberto, I`m curious: IS there any reason you took your lessons in
the Cubs, Champs and a Kitfox-like Aerotek rather than IN the KitFox?
> (You didn`t say so, but I assumed you own the KitFox or have access
to it)?
Yes, I bought it two and 1/2 years ago, in flying condition, and then,
due to life happening several times, sat untouched until now.
The lessons (and BFR in a Cub) are/were done in parallel with bringing
the Kitfox back into service, replacing potentially unsafe fuel lines,
switching from Mogaz to 100LL and seeing how the engine takes it,
finding an experimental friendly A&P for an annual inspection, etc.
I am still working on some problems. (Vibration, engine not reaching
full power RPMs)
> As a final thought:
> Doing hours of taxiing, especially if you are thinking of doing it
at increasingly higher speeds with any crosswinds around, can be
risky.... Ironically, IMO, possibly more risky than the same number of
hours of flying.
I have been warned *not* to do high speed taxi runs. It is low speed or
flying, with very little gray area between.
> The Kitfox is light with large wing area and if you get a gust under
the wing is as many LSAs needing to be handled carefully in crosswinds
to not get tipped and put that downwing wingtip on the runway or worse.
Caveats noted.
> In normal takeoffs (in contrast to the hours you are proposing
rolling around on the ground) a Kitfox is only in that very vulnerable
position (of being moving fast with the potential for massive lift under
one wing AND still close enough to the ground where the downwind wing
could hit the ground if the plane rolled even a modest 35 degrees) for a
VERY short time.
> That is because in normal takeoffs it is likely airborn within 6
seconds of applying takeoff power.
In a paved runway, solo, I am expecting no more than 4 seconds from full
power to wheels off. 6 seconds on grass...
> Once it is even 20 feet off the runway even if a gust gets under the
wing it and unexpectedly rolls you uncorrected that wingtip isn`t going
to hit the ground.
> In short, in 10 minutes of high speed ground taxiing with any
significant crosswind seems to me you are exposed to roughly the
flip-over risk you would incurr in 100 cross-wind takeoffs.
>
> Disclaimer: I`m niether a Kitfox pilot or a CFI.
>
> My two cents.
> Alex
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and sorry for my delay answering.
I did not see this message before, but for some reason it was marked "read"
Roberto.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Logging taxi time?
circicirci wrote:
> The Kitfox has a reputation as a well behaved aircraft.
Which Kitfox? Series 5 and Series 7 fill very solid and stable in the air.
Kitfox I, II and to a lesser degree III have a reputation for being
difficult to handle, neutral yaw stability, etc. (specially with the
original narrow landing gear.)
Kitfox IV, the one I have, while being an improvement on previous models
(better airfoil, larger rudder, higher load carrying capabilities) still
is considered "difficult" as the rest of the family. Not in requiring
exceptional piloting skills, but requiring your full attention to a
larger degree than other similar planes.
> Why not find a Kitfox pilot (or an experienced pilot or CFI with
similar type experience) to go up with you and get some experience of
the feel of the controls in the _air_, and of course on takeoff and
landing approach?
Done - The flying part is covered.
The Aerotrek is an Avid-Flyer/Kitfox clone. The only minus is that the
one I flew has a tricycle gear, while my Kitfox is a taildragger.
I found another instructor with a Kitfox II taildragger, but it is more
than two hours away. Planning to take a few lessons with him when my
Kitfox is ready to fly.
The taxiing experiments (and full power engine runups, which I did not
mention,) are to gain confidence on the engine (which did not run for a
long time, more below) and to acquaint myself with the ground handling
of *this* Kitfox, (which is different from Cubs, Champs, the Aerotrek
and other Kitfoxes.)
> The behavior of the plane and controls at taxiing speeds and
configuration will be significantly different than in landing
configuration and speeds
Agreed.
> Roberto, I`m curious: IS there any reason you took your lessons in
the Cubs, Champs and a Kitfox-like Aerotek rather than IN the KitFox?
> (You didn`t say so, but I assumed you own the KitFox or have access
to it)?
Yes, I bought it two and 1/2 years ago, in flying condition, and then,
due to life happening several times, sat untouched until now.
The lessons (and BFR in a Cub) are/were done in parallel with bringing
the Kitfox back into service, replacing potentially unsafe fuel lines,
switching from Mogaz to 100LL and seeing how the engine takes it,
finding an experimental friendly A&P for an annual inspection, etc.
I am still working on some problems. (Vibration, engine not reaching
full power RPMs)
> As a final thought:
> Doing hours of taxiing, especially if you are thinking of doing it
at increasingly higher speeds with any crosswinds around, can be
risky.... Ironically, IMO, possibly more risky than the same number of
hours of flying.
I have been warned *not* to do high speed taxi runs. It is low speed or
flying, with very little gray area between.
> The Kitfox is light with large wing area and if you get a gust under
the wing is as many LSAs needing to be handled carefully in crosswinds
to not get tipped and put that downwing wingtip on the runway or worse.
Caveats noted.
> In normal takeoffs (in contrast to the hours you are proposing
rolling around on the ground) a Kitfox is only in that very vulnerable
position (of being moving fast with the potential for massive lift under
one wing AND still close enough to the ground where the downwind wing
could hit the ground if the plane rolled even a modest 35 degrees) for a
VERY short time.
> That is because in normal takeoffs it is likely airborn within 6
seconds of applying takeoff power.
In a paved runway, solo, I am expecting no more than 4 seconds from full
power to wheels off. 6 seconds on grass... ;)
> Once it is even 20 feet off the runway even if a gust gets under the
wing it and unexpectedly rolls you uncorrected that wingtip isn`t going
to hit the ground.
> In short, in 10 minutes of high speed ground taxiing with any
significant crosswind seems to me you are exposed to roughly the
flip-over risk you would incurr in 100 cross-wind takeoffs.
>
> Disclaimer: I`m niether a Kitfox pilot or a CFI.
>
> My two cents.
> Alex
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and sorry for my delay answering.
I did not see this message before, but for some reason it was marked "read"
Roberto.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> The Kitfox has a reputation as a well behaved aircraft.
Which Kitfox? Series 5 and Series 7 fill very solid and stable in the air.
Kitfox I, II and to a lesser degree III have a reputation for being
difficult to handle, neutral yaw stability, etc. (specially with the
original narrow landing gear.)
Kitfox IV, the one I have, while being an improvement on previous models
(better airfoil, larger rudder, higher load carrying capabilities) still
is considered "difficult" as the rest of the family. Not in requiring
exceptional piloting skills, but requiring your full attention to a
larger degree than other similar planes.
> Why not find a Kitfox pilot (or an experienced pilot or CFI with
similar type experience) to go up with you and get some experience of
the feel of the controls in the _air_, and of course on takeoff and
landing approach?
Done - The flying part is covered.
The Aerotrek is an Avid-Flyer/Kitfox clone. The only minus is that the
one I flew has a tricycle gear, while my Kitfox is a taildragger.
I found another instructor with a Kitfox II taildragger, but it is more
than two hours away. Planning to take a few lessons with him when my
Kitfox is ready to fly.
The taxiing experiments (and full power engine runups, which I did not
mention,) are to gain confidence on the engine (which did not run for a
long time, more below) and to acquaint myself with the ground handling
of *this* Kitfox, (which is different from Cubs, Champs, the Aerotrek
and other Kitfoxes.)
> The behavior of the plane and controls at taxiing speeds and
configuration will be significantly different than in landing
configuration and speeds
Agreed.
> Roberto, I`m curious: IS there any reason you took your lessons in
the Cubs, Champs and a Kitfox-like Aerotek rather than IN the KitFox?
> (You didn`t say so, but I assumed you own the KitFox or have access
to it)?
Yes, I bought it two and 1/2 years ago, in flying condition, and then,
due to life happening several times, sat untouched until now.
The lessons (and BFR in a Cub) are/were done in parallel with bringing
the Kitfox back into service, replacing potentially unsafe fuel lines,
switching from Mogaz to 100LL and seeing how the engine takes it,
finding an experimental friendly A&P for an annual inspection, etc.
I am still working on some problems. (Vibration, engine not reaching
full power RPMs)
> As a final thought:
> Doing hours of taxiing, especially if you are thinking of doing it
at increasingly higher speeds with any crosswinds around, can be
risky.... Ironically, IMO, possibly more risky than the same number of
hours of flying.
I have been warned *not* to do high speed taxi runs. It is low speed or
flying, with very little gray area between.
> The Kitfox is light with large wing area and if you get a gust under
the wing is as many LSAs needing to be handled carefully in crosswinds
to not get tipped and put that downwing wingtip on the runway or worse.
Caveats noted.
> In normal takeoffs (in contrast to the hours you are proposing
rolling around on the ground) a Kitfox is only in that very vulnerable
position (of being moving fast with the potential for massive lift under
one wing AND still close enough to the ground where the downwind wing
could hit the ground if the plane rolled even a modest 35 degrees) for a
VERY short time.
> That is because in normal takeoffs it is likely airborn within 6
seconds of applying takeoff power.
In a paved runway, solo, I am expecting no more than 4 seconds from full
power to wheels off. 6 seconds on grass... ;)
> Once it is even 20 feet off the runway even if a gust gets under the
wing it and unexpectedly rolls you uncorrected that wingtip isn`t going
to hit the ground.
> In short, in 10 minutes of high speed ground taxiing with any
significant crosswind seems to me you are exposed to roughly the
flip-over risk you would incurr in 100 cross-wind takeoffs.
>
> Disclaimer: I`m niether a Kitfox pilot or a CFI.
>
> My two cents.
> Alex
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and sorry for my delay answering.
I did not see this message before, but for some reason it was marked "read"
Roberto.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group "three landings within the preceding 90 days"
Can anyone help me with this, please?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
(a) General experience.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as a pilot in command
of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot
flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings
within the preceding 90 days, and—
(i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the same category,
class, and type (if a type rating is required), and,
if the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel,
the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that the tailwheel flyer needs to do his landings to a full stop.....
My problem is that somewhere I got the idea that PPC and WSC also require landings to full stop.
Is that correct?.... documented anywhere?.... or merely hearsay?
Thanks,
Mike
.
.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
(a) General experience.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as a pilot in command
of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot
flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings
within the preceding 90 days, and—
(i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the same category,
class, and type (if a type rating is required), and,
if the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel,
the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that the tailwheel flyer needs to do his landings to a full stop.....
My problem is that somewhere I got the idea that PPC and WSC also require landings to full stop.
Is that correct?.... documented anywhere?.... or merely hearsay?
Thanks,
Mike
.
.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Monday, August 20, 2012
Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Ultralights are now "Aircraft"
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Reggie" <Reggie@...> wrote:
>
> Co to Yahoo news to see the whole article.
>
> excerpt:
> The ultralight's use by smugglers has become so ubiquitous
> that Congress recently updated their definition of "aircraft"
> to include ultralights and,
> therefore, make those caught smuggling drugs with them subject
> to the same
> penalties as other aircraft under the Tariff Act of 1930.
>
> The legislation, known
> as the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012,
> was the last bill sponsored by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
> (D-Arizona) before she resigned from
> Congress after surviving an apparent assassination attempt
> last January
>
Here is my response already posted posted elsewhere. Don't get your panties in a bunch. Thanks.
--------
Gosh this is an old story. I first wrote about it in June 2010. The change is ONLY for the purposes of regulation and enforcement of laws against drugs smuggling it has nothing to do with any of you unless you are bringing contraband into the USA with an ultralight. It does not supersede or change any rules adopted by the FAA.
Ordinary flying ultralight = vehicle
Get caught smuggling drugs ultralight= aircraft
Its purpose is "To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to include ultralight aircraft under the definition of aircraft for purposes of the aviation smuggling provisions under that Act."
http://www.eaa.org/lightplaneworld/articles/1006_f16s.asp
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> Co to Yahoo news to see the whole article.
>
> excerpt:
> The ultralight's use by smugglers has become so ubiquitous
> that Congress recently updated their definition of "aircraft"
> to include ultralights and,
> therefore, make those caught smuggling drugs with them subject
> to the same
> penalties as other aircraft under the Tariff Act of 1930.
>
> The legislation, known
> as the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012,
> was the last bill sponsored by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
> (D-Arizona) before she resigned from
> Congress after surviving an apparent assassination attempt
> last January
>
Here is my response already posted posted elsewhere. Don't get your panties in a bunch. Thanks.
--------
Gosh this is an old story. I first wrote about it in June 2010. The change is ONLY for the purposes of regulation and enforcement of laws against drugs smuggling it has nothing to do with any of you unless you are bringing contraband into the USA with an ultralight. It does not supersede or change any rules adopted by the FAA.
Ordinary flying ultralight = vehicle
Get caught smuggling drugs ultralight= aircraft
Its purpose is "To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to include ultralight aircraft under the definition of aircraft for purposes of the aviation smuggling provisions under that Act."
http://www.eaa.org/lightplaneworld/articles/1006_f16s.asp
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Ultralights are now "Aircraft"
Co to Yahoo news to see the whole article.
excerpt:
The ultralight's use by smugglers has become so ubiquitous
that Congress recently updated their definition of "aircraft"
to include ultralights and,
therefore, make those caught smuggling drugs with them subject
to the same
penalties as other aircraft under the Tariff Act of 1930.
The legislation, known
as the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012,
was the last bill sponsored by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
(D-Arizona) before she resigned from
Congress after surviving an apparent assassination attempt
last January
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
excerpt:
The ultralight's use by smugglers has become so ubiquitous
that Congress recently updated their definition of "aircraft"
to include ultralights and,
therefore, make those caught smuggling drugs with them subject
to the same
penalties as other aircraft under the Tariff Act of 1930.
The legislation, known
as the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012,
was the last bill sponsored by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
(D-Arizona) before she resigned from
Congress after surviving an apparent assassination attempt
last January
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group If you come to Florida stop by and say hello
https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Florida-Flying-Gators-Ultralight-Airport/140073589366742
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Logging taxi time?
Have you found even one actual expert who has any question about what FAR 1.1 means? It's really pretty clear. Taxiing to go fly counts. Taxiing to do a maintenance run, simply move the airplane on the ramp, or taxiing just to practice taxiing, does not. If you call FSDO, The FAA in OKC, or AOPA legal department, and find even one person who disagrees with what I just said, please jot their name down. It isn't going to happen.
If you really want to stir the pot, start on PIC time. Having 2 people logging PIC is quite common, but a FSDO ops guy gave me a scenario where 3 pilots could all be logging PIC at the same time. LOL.
Jim
From: Lyn Wagner
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Logging taxi time?
This is like nost rules and laws, depends on which expert you ask. As far as log books they are only as accurate as the honesty of the individual keeping them. It might be a stretch for me to log P51 time but there is no proof needed for your log other than your honesty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lyn Wagner
Taylorcraft BC12-D
N96290
LXN
Lyn Wagner
Taylorcraft BC12-D
N96290
LXN
From: circicirci <acensor@fastmail.fm>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Logging taxi time?
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Logging taxi time?
Helen wrote --
Re: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Logging taxi time?
FAR 1.1 Flight Time
(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing.
------------------------------------------------
A side/footnote complementing Helen`s note above:
Some time ago I was talking to a charter pilot who confirmed that, and mentioned that charter operators sometimes don`t like the fact that their pilots HAVE to log every minute of time that the plane is taxiing, or worse yet, sitting on the ground with engine running for half hour waiting for takeoff clearance, as flight time because there are regulations limiting the number of hours their pilots can fly.
And I suppose, getting back to Roberto`s original question:
I suppose one COULD take it as withing the meaning of taxiing for `purpose of flight` in his case... As in fact ultimately all the taxiing he is talking about doing IS for the purpose of [future] flight. It`s not for any OTHER purpose.
If I were in his situation and felt it to my benefit to have more hours I would feel I was within the letter and spirit of the regs to log that as PIC flight time LOCAL. Experience at the controls is experience at the controls and IMO should be logged. The only odd thing would be in his logbook it would show the number of landings per entry as zero.
Alex
Re: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Logging taxi time?
FAR 1.1 Flight Time
(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing.
------------------------------------------------
A side/footnote complementing Helen`s note above:
Some time ago I was talking to a charter pilot who confirmed that, and mentioned that charter operators sometimes don`t like the fact that their pilots HAVE to log every minute of time that the plane is taxiing, or worse yet, sitting on the ground with engine running for half hour waiting for takeoff clearance, as flight time because there are regulations limiting the number of hours their pilots can fly.
And I suppose, getting back to Roberto`s original question:
I suppose one COULD take it as withing the meaning of taxiing for `purpose of flight` in his case... As in fact ultimately all the taxiing he is talking about doing IS for the purpose of [future] flight. It`s not for any OTHER purpose.
If I were in his situation and felt it to my benefit to have more hours I would feel I was within the letter and spirit of the regs to log that as PIC flight time LOCAL. Experience at the controls is experience at the controls and IMO should be logged. The only odd thing would be in his logbook it would show the number of landings per entry as zero.
Alex
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
