Activity Stream

Activity Stream

  1. kl7jw added a post in a topic Got'er flyin'!   

    Uhhh, I think you're right about the "hold my beer" thing with a Kitfox winter, or even summer fly-in!

    Won't be long now before the salmon runs start if you're into breakup.  I'd sure like to get back up that way for a while, but got to ride it out here until I can sell the house.

    John Hart
    • 0
  2. kl7jw added a post in a topic ok guests what do you want to see here   

    Hey, I already been hacked at!  Just because I made a comment that was incorrect, too!  [  But, that don't mean nothin' except I DID make a mistake.  Ain't the first time I've been wrong about something and it probably won't be the last mistake I make either. :beerchug: 

    As a matter of fact, I think it's great when we can discuss opinions and be told when we are wrong and check out things in the references to prove or disprove our opinions.  It's a lot like military flight crewmembers on an aircraft working together to get the job done.  It's not important who points out a mistake, but it is important to pay attention that the mistake was pointed out, and to accept the responsibility for it, correct it, and move on, not to get in a p***ing contest because you think you are right. 

    John Hart
    • 0
  3. kl7jw added a post in a topic Gross weight on the AW cert....not there.   

    No, the only place I can find a "gross weight" indicated on my Eperimental Kitfox is on the data plate (which is not an FAA requirement) and in the weight and balance calculations.  I was wrong about it being on the Special Airworthiness certificate.  And, I may be wrong about a "Gross weight" being on the application, I haven't looked lately.  I was almost certain that the weight and balance calculations had to be presented to the DAR or Inspector issuing the Special Airworthiness Certificate, but I didn't look that up either.  I'm getting about as bad as some other folks! [
    • 0
  4. kl7jw added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    And, in case you didn't notice, i didn't use the spell checker in my last post!  [

    John Hart
    • 0
  5. kl7jw added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    Uhhhh, where do I find the max gross weight for my E-LSA??  Ohhhh, I forgot, only two place "ultralights" can be licensed asw E-LSA, right? :  Really, I don't think some of them folks have much reading comprehension, nor how to research anything for themselves.

    Got any warm weater up your way yet leneord?


    John Hart
    • 0
  6. akflyer added a post in a topic Another rebuttal.....   

    keep it up mister, you are one step closer to a total   
    Keep those panties bunched up I like the fire in the keyboard!


    • 0
  7. akflyer added a post in a topic Opps...my apologies The site is stiil there...   

    I dont know why people cant read for themselves... until I took the time to read the FAR link you posted last year, I was on the shut the hell up band wagon.  Then I read it whala, right in front of you in black and white is the answer, not spun by some guys opion, just plain black and white.
    • 0
  8. 84KF added a topic in Avidfoxflyers General Hangar   

    Another rebuttal.....
    Jay & Beverly to kitfox-list
    --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay & Beverly"

    "It would be nice if current TO weight could be used. If this were the case I think there would be more normal category aircraft available to sport pilots. If the TO weight can be used, the authorities that have that information are treating it like a state secret. I think AOPA, EAA, and anyone with a normal category aircraft for sale that has a weight just above 1320 would have banner headlines with that information."

    "It would be nice if current TO weight could be used"

    Some one is not paying attention.....

    "If this were the case I think there would be more normal category aircraft available to sport pilots"

    No, because the empty weight of these aircraft would put them over the weight limit when all else is figured in.

    Once again, from http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf page 44793:
    "Some commenters stated that lacking a definition of maximum takeoff weight, aircraft with fairly high performance characteristics could meet the definition of light-sport aircraft by limiting the approved weight and payload of the airplane. The FAA considers this a valid concern and has provided some additional constraints on the weight as detailed below.

    The maximum weight of a light-sport aircraft is the sum of:

    (1) Aircraft empty weight;

    (2) Weight of the passenger for each

    seat installed;

    (3) Baggage allowance for each

    passenger; and

    (4) Full fuel, including a minimum of

    the half-hour fuel reserve required for

    day visual flight rules in § 91.151(a)(1).

    Take any certificated aircraft, and using the data in it's TCDS do the math, and see for yourself.
    Now, you won't find "empty weight" in a TCDS, because it varies from aircraft to aircraft. Do some research, find the typical empty weight of any certificated aircraft NOT on the list, apply the "formula" and see that they are unable to meet the definition.
    Faa link.... http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/existing_models.pdf
    EAA link... http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_aircraft.html
    One will not find any certificated aircraft not on the list, that would be otherwise.
    These boys (FAA) did their homework on this one...they have all bases covered.

    "If the TO weight can be used, the authorities that have that information are treating it like a state secret"

    The "information" has been available since July 24, 2007.
    http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf

    Steve
    • 1 reply
    • 306 views
  9. 84KF added a topic in Avidfoxflyers General Hangar   

    Opps...my apologies The site is stiil there...
    And in all fairness, here is the link... http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmfaqs.asp?topicid=12

    It just didn't google for me as usual... my bad.

    Anyway, here is the link to the post in question.... and the reply that mentions the "well, if you ever exceed...."

    http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=415

    Also, Mr. Norris depends on twisting the facts, such as
    ..."This verbiage clearly says that an aircraft must meet all the criteria called out in the definition of an LSA at the time of its original certification AND CONTINUOUSLY thereafter....", which is intended to apply to TCDS aircraft only, as stated in the final rule...  found under
    Modifications of Aircraft To Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft Definition
    As stated above in the
    section titled ‘‘Modifications of Aircraft
    To Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft
    Definition,’’ a sport pilot may not fly an
    aircraft with a standard airworthiness
    certificate that has been modified to
    meet the light-sport aircraft definition.

    Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 44793

    It doesnt say ANY aircraft, it states aircraft with  a standard airworthiness
    certificate. Period.


    The problem is one must read the rule first or they wouldn't know this.....


    I have nothing to hide.
    • 1 reply
    • 387 views
  10. akflyer added a post in a topic two faced...or what??   

    damn I need to come up with a kicking the beehive emoticon.  It was very hard for me to hold my tounge or should I say resrtain my fingers from typing a reply to Guy on that one... I pretty damn much had typed what you said pretty close to word for word lol.. I was gonna ask if he had read the ruling for himself and if so, what the hell more info did he need?  I hit the back button instead of reply though as I knew he would give me the boot again for it.

    At the end of the day, here is my bottom line.  If I want to fly a plane, any damn plane, in any manner I wish I will do so.  Just because the regs say I can or cant put X amount of weight in and be "legal" as long as I am safe, I will do as i want. 

    OK lets say that you have lost a medical and you want to fly under sport pilot, or just say piss on it and fly anyway, what is gonna happen.... not a damn thing.  I personally know a guy that had 130 something charges against him (a part 135 operator that happens to owe me money for doing a dead of winter otter retreival operation for him) that was found guilty on all charges.. they took his A&P and AI away as well as commercial certificate.. guess what, the very next day he was flying clients.  This past winter he re-built an otter and sold the damn thing.  What happened to him... not a damn thing.  fly the hell outa your plane at what ever weight you feel comfortable at as there is not a f#$king gross weight documented on your damn experimental plane to begin with.
    • 0
  11. 84KF added a topic in Avidfoxflyers General Hangar   

    two faced...or what??
    Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:36 pm    Post subject: Series 5 Light Sport   

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HOORAY! HOORAY!

    SOMEONE has finally gone the distance and found some
    DEFINITIVE information. (I hope.) Jay, may we have a source for this
    quote? I'd like to know who it came from so we can ascertain their credentials.

    Now before anyone thinks I was rooting either way, I wasn't
    and I'm not. Indeed I hoped that Steve was right and that he would
    publish definitive proof sooner or later. All I wanted was data, not opinion.

    Guy Buchanan
    San Diego, CA


    What a crock.... What is more definitive then the FAA itself, and http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf

    "Now before anyone thinks I was rooting either way...."

    Excuse me?

    "All I wanted was data, not opinion."

    Here's your friggin data Guy.....  http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf

    As I said before... "the Pope Himself......."


    "Indeed I hoped that Steve was right...."

    Oh please....

    "may we have a source for this quote?"

    Naturally, any quote found on the Internet will take precedent over the FAA....in Guys mind.

    (find the reference to Joe Norris elsewhere on this site. ) Note: Joe Norris is NOT the EAA, just someone who wrote for them, and got it wrong. I don't fault the EAA in general, just the dribble Norris published at one time.

    Steve
    PS...It would be nice if it was pointed out to "list" readers that I am unable to reply or respond to Guys comments there due to ...whatever.  Not a very fair way to spread information. Sort of childish....
    • 1 reply
    • 335 views
  12. akflyer added a topic in Avidfoxflyers General Hangar   

    ok guests what do you want to see here
    I know there are alot of lurkers and guests poking around here, and I am wondering what it will take to get you to post up.

    Dont be afraid to say or do anyting that will get you banned here.. within and very few rules nothing is gonna get you banned, we may hack on you a little but not too bad.
    • 6 replies
    • 454 views
  13. akflyer added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    lol.. we both did a few dyas ago.. in a thread that should have got a few guys over here....  I will see what I can work it into.
    • 0
  14. 84KF added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    Slip a link to "here" ( http://avidfoxflyers.com/index.php)  into a post "over there" and watch the counts go way, way up.
    Someone there asked about the this site recently, perhaps the group just needs a little "direction"

    Steve
    • 0
  15. akflyer added a post in a topic what to do if your IP has been banned from the list   

    ahh you know me, I can bring out the best in everyone!


    • 0
  16. akflyer added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    then one could say that for 6 months out of the year I am a professional hobbiest lol

    I was just busting your hump and was more of a slam to mr. dickhead on the other site in the event that he reads it.. we seem to have alot of guests that read threads yet never reply.
    • 0
  17. 84KF added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    amateur hobbyist"

    HA HA... I wondered how long it would take for that to come back at me.


    Main Entry: am·a·teur   
    Pronunciation: ?a-m?-(?)t?r, -?tu?r, -?tyu?r, -?chu?r, -ch?r
    Function: noun

    : one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession

    hobbyist
    Main Entry: hobby
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural hobbies

    : a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation
    — hob·by·ist  -b?-ist noun

    "It's not an insult to say a dead man...is dead" 

        ODYSSEUS
                "Troy"
    • 0
  18. 84KF added a post in a topic what to do if your IP has been banned from the list   

    Ya know Leni, it's people like you that give me a bad name..... 

    Thanks....I'll check it out.

    I keep telling them it would be easier for all involved to just re-instate my original account as I have lots of time to do nothing but make their moderating lives miserable as long as I am "banned"

    I love it....  someday I'm going to have to get a real job so I don't have all this free time too.

    Wait a minute...strike that. What was I thinking....?? That type of (my) thinking must be the result of siphoning to much autofuel (spit spit...)

    Steve
    • 0
  19. 84KF added a topic in Avidfoxflyers General Hangar   

    Gross weight on the AW cert....not there.
    "Any builder can specify the maximum takeoff weight of his aircraft, and have the special airworthiness certificate list the maximum takeoff weight as 1320 pounds "

    John,
      could you post a picture of your AW cert..., or any "application form", and show where it indicates or stipulates a weight of any type?

    Here are mine.... (attached)

    The thing is, it's irrelevant... since the LSA MTOW is an operating limitation, not a number, such as found on a TCDS, which is the only place you will find the weight limits on certificated aircraft. (it is not included on aw certs)

    Data Plates....
    " We now know that the aircraft must be identified by means of a fireproof plate containing the information specified in 45.13, the pertinent part of which states:

    45.13 Identification data.
    (a) The identification required by § 45.11(a) and (B) shall include the following information:
    (1) Builder's name.
    (2) Model designation.
    (3) Builder's serial number.
    (4) Type certificate number, if any.
    (5) Production certificate number, if any

    You'll note that items number 4 and 5 would not apply to amateur-built aircraft, so items 1 through 3 are the only info required on an amateur-built aircraft data plate."
    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:xI7JFO_M4okJ:members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/Data%2520Plate.html+experimental+aircraft+data+plate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us



    Any more flight time on the IV? Hope it's going well.
    Airworthiness.pdf
    • 1 reply
    • 380 views
  20. akflyer added a topic in Hardcore Avidfoxflyers   

    what to do if your IP has been banned from the list
    do a quick google search for "proxy servers"  if you IP just happens to be banned from the list you can still get in this way.  I use this on a certain snowmobile site that has seen fit to ban me for calling a moderator out.  now I have fun poking the shit outa them from proxy servers and making up duplicate accounts... I keep telling them it would be easier for all involved to just re-instate my original account as I have lots of time to do nothing but make their moderating lives miserable as long as I am "banned"
    • 2 replies
    • 644 views
  21. akflyer added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    I think he is talking about phase I of the initial flight requirements.  It still kills me that the guys cant get past the kit manufactures "suggested gross weight" and what you, the fricken builder decide you want to give it.

    The other subject is the term "max take off weight" and max gross weight.. how can one be so damn stupid as to not be able to understand the difference between the two. 

    But alas, all this is just the rambling of an ameture hobbiest LMAO.
    • 0
  22. 84KF added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    "just wondering... do you log the maximum weight in your log book for each takeoff "

      I asked this same question over the phone in a "conversation" with Joe Norris...  all I got was "ahh's?"...., and "well....?," Then I received email from him asking not to bring the subject again, as he had already "explained" in on his site.
      He quite accepting comments and questions on the subject of ExperimentalAmateur Built LSA relationship soon after that.

    You would see that he also claimed that the "Wag-Aero" Cub kit is not eligible for use by sport pilots.... because the "gross weight" was to high...,  and the plane wasn't even built yet...

    But wait...you can't see, cuz now that the entire site has been changed and there is no LightsportLSA topic.... it's all been deleated. All the crap he put up is gone.  http://www.youngeagles.org/questions/default_askexpert.asp


    Here is a copy of the message I sent to "Jay" in regards to his post....

    Jay,
    First, Joe Norris's opinion stated on his site is contrary to the FAA's published rules and regulations, and soon after the discussions, both email and land line, with Morris, he quit making statements on that site. Nothing new has been posted there in over a year now.  He got caught with his foot in his mouth and quit taking questions since he would have to admit he was providing wrong info.


    "Did you not like the answer from EAA?"

    As a professional FAA representative, (look me up in the FAA site) I do not rely on the EAA to provide correct regulatory information. I go straight to the source, in this case.... http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf

    Now, you take some time and read this"official" document, then come back and tell me, and others, that Norris is correct.

    Steve

    And then....

    If you are truly interested in the subject, checkout http://avidfoxflyers.com/index.php, and recently, in regards to this particular thread, http://avidfoxflyers.com/index.php?topic=169.0 and http://avidfoxflyers.com/index.php?topic=170.0

    Steve




    Steve
    • 0
  23. 84KF added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

      Sportpilot posts and statements from the "list"....
    Mark, on the list posts...
    "As far as a Sport Pilot using an experimental homebuilt aircraft. I believe it is required to test the flight characteristics at gross weight during the 40 hour phase and record the results in the log book"


    He "believes".... he believes...,  but will not show a reference to back up his "beliefs".
    It is not stipulated in FAA regs, or his ops limits.
    Again, as was said, looking for made up reasons to justify fiction.

    And we are missing the whole point here....... one has nothing to do with the other..."so called gross weight, and maximum takeoff weight.... One is a structural limitation, the other is an operating limitation.


    Steve
    • 0
  24. akflyer added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    thats it mr. your in big trouble now  ..... what a bunch of idiots.  I cant beleve that Deke is allowd to say what he wants and put in a big ass dig to Dave then Dave is the one that gets his pee pee whacked for defending himself and not one #@%$#$  word is said to Deke....

    Pretty damn one sided.

    Guess I will ante up for another couple years for this site as I hope it gets more members and discussions on these kicks ass planes.


    • 0
  25. akflyer added a post in a topic Deleting posts on the "list"   

    nice.... so they are up to the old tricks again huh...  Damn how many times are you gonna get banned?

    Too bad grown men cant wake up in the morning and pull on their big boy pants so they can deal with opinions other than thier own in a "grown up" manner.  i see more and more complaints over their about the aloof attitude of some and the god like status of others. 

    One guy cant offer a professional, thought out and well worded opinion yet onother is allowed to post up a big ass slam on another member and justify it with .. oops sorry, I ment to say that behind his back not in front of his face where he can defend himself.

    I wish others would find more use out of this site where you can say what you want and not be bitch slapped for it.


    • 0