Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
JonThornburgh · Articles and Information Regarding Ultralights and Experimental Aircraft
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Messages 1057 - 1086 of 1086   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Messages: Show Message Summaries   (Group by Topic) Sort by Date v  
#1086 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:10 am
Subject: Check Aviation Weather At WxNotice.com
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1085 From: "Jon Thornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:10 am
Subject: A List Of Jon Thornburgh's Articles For UltraFlight Magazine
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1084 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:21 pm
Subject: TSA Wants General Aviation Pilots To Have Background Checks and Badges
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1083 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:00 am
Subject: Video On 180 Degree Turns Back To The Airport After An Engine Failure
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
This is a video from Sunrise Aviation, at Orange County Airport (SNA), in California.
 
It shows that a 69 degree banked turn is the best way to return the the runway after an engine failure on takeoff.
 
Parameters in the video:
 
Cessna 172
 
360 degree turns (not 180 degree turns)
 
Speed: just above stall
 
Angle of bank          Altitude Loss
 
15 degrees                 870 feet
 
30 degrees                450 feet
 
45 degrees                390 feet
 
60 degrees                350 feet

 http://www.aerobats.com/seminar_02-07.html

#1082 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:30 pm
Subject: Flight 3407 Icing Accident
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Here is an outstanding NASA video that is right on point regarding the probable cause of the Colgan Air Flight 3407 accident in Buffalo--ice accumulation on the horizontal stabilizer and elevator.
 

#1081 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:59 am
Subject: TSA Proposes General Aviation Pilot Background Checks
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1080 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:37 am
Subject: TSA Proposal is a Serious Threat to Personal Aviation
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1079 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:16 pm
Subject: March 5< 2009 Is The Deadline For English Proficiency Certification Notation On Your USA Pilot Certificate
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1078 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:49 am
Subject: EAA Calls on Members to Help Stop Nevada's Anti-Homebuilding Move
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1077 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:26 pm
Subject: AOPA Online TSA Large Aircraft Security Program Member Action Center
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1076 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:17 pm
Subject: AOPA Online AOPA helps balloon operator hit with $8,000 tax bill
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1075 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:24 pm
Subject: National Pilot Alert
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 

AOPA PAC header


Dear JON,

I didn't wait long!

I have been president of AOPA for less than six weeks and already I need to make a call to action!

A proposed rule to impose comprehensive security requirements on a great many aircraft in the general aviation fleet was pushed out the door by the Bush administration's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) just before they left Washington. It addresses a security threat that doesn't seem to exist. It contemplates that private aircraft with six, seven, eight or more seats might be used as weapons of destruction by terrorists.

I have seen many proposed rules during my nearly three decades in Washington. Many have had flaws, but few have been based solely on what someone imagines might happen!

That is what this does. By imagining that aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds might be a threat, the TSA is proposing that a large number of general aviation aircraft owners establish full security programs patterned after the airlines.

AOPA and the other general aviation organizations have all voiced opposition to this proposal. We have provided witnesses with considerable expertise in security to testify at TSA hearings across the county. In the face of overwhelming opposition to this measure, the TSA's regulatory process is marching forward.

I believe that if one segment of general aviation can be unjustly regulated, then any segment can face the imposition of unfair regulatory burdens. So, this fight is one we all have a stake in, regardless of what type of aircraft we fly.

When I say burdensome, let me explain that the TSA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which, if enacted, will apply commercial air carrier security measures to GA aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, regardless of how those aircraft are used. The costly proposal calls for crewmember criminal record checks, watch list matching of passenger manifests, biennial third-party audits of each aircraft operator, and new airport security requirements. The proposal fails to recognize the inherent differences between private and commercial aviation, and it attempts to impose expensive and unnecessary security regulations without justification.

All of us in the general aviation community care about security. Over a period of several years we have taken many prudent steps to ensure that our aircraft are secure and not used for hostile purposes. AOPA has been a leader in GA security and has worked with other industry groups to put into place a series of comprehensive policies and programs that work.

Having said this, I must tell you that none of this seems to matter to those who proposed this rule. Without pilots speaking out NOW, this rule may become final.

If there is any "good news" about the rule-making process, it is that it allows you and other pilots to formally object to this proposal, and to share your thoughts with Congress. I urge you to immediately let the TSA and your representatives in the House and Senate know how you feel.

All of us at AOPA will continue to work hard to fight this proposal. But we can't do it alone! When you take action, we all have a better chance of success. We need your help. So please, log onto the AOPA LASP Member Action Center ( http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/gasecurity/index.html ), follow the instructions, and let your voice be heard. AND, PLEASE ACT RIGHT NOW!

Sincerely,


Craig Fuller
AOPA President

P.S. The TSA must receive your comments before February 27, so please contact them by e-mail, mail, or fax right away. I also encourage you to send a copy to me at gasecurity@... and to copy your members of Congress, as well.


Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association • 421 Aviation Way • Frederick, MD 21701-4798
800/USA-AOPA •
www.aopa.org

Please note: Your e-mail address will not be sold or rented. We may periodically e-mail you information on activities, membership, benefits or events. Click here to unsubscribe at any time.


#1074 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:35 am
Subject: Terrafugia Flying Car
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1073 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:25 pm
Subject: LSA industry makes strong showing in Sebring
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1072 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:36 am
Subject: 1956 Boeing 377 Ditching In Pacific
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1071 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:05 am
Subject: Pilot Decision Making and Good Judgment
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
www.asf.org/DecisionMaking

#1070 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:41 am
Subject: Introduction To Flying Website
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1069 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:45 pm
Subject: NTSB Chief Law Judge Dismisses FAA Emergency Order of Revocation
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1068 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:34 pm
Subject: EAA Certification Guide For Homebuilt Aircraft
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
EAA has a step-by-step certification guide which includes all the necessary forms, an instructional manual, the required "EXPERIMENTAL" sticker - even transfer labels and placards for your instrument panel - for $12.99. You can buy online or just call EAA member services at 920-426-5912 and ask for the Amateur-Built Certification Kit.
 
The step-by-step certification guide is available at:
 

#1067 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:26 pm
Subject: Aviation Insurance Information
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

 

By Bob Mackey, representative for the EAA Aircraft Insurance Plan, Administered by Falcon Insurance Agency

January 15, 2009 — Have you ever heard someone say they had a minor “fender bender” but decided not to tell their insurance agent or insurance company? When I hear this, I always ask why? The usual answers are “I don’t want my insurance to go up”…“I don’t want to lose my discount for no claims.”…“I don’t want my insurance to be canceled or non-renewed.”
People just don’t like to talk about insurance because of one or more of several reasons, including:

  • I don’t like insurance. I pay for insurance, which is just a piece of paper and I never plan to use it anyway.
  • I don’t understand insurance. The insurance companies make it so difficult to understand with all of their legal “mumbo jumbo.”
  • I don’t trust insurance or insurance people. It seems they are always using terms I don’t understand and they won’t explain anything - and on top of that, the insurance company will use any little loophole they can find to not pay a claim.
  • I don’t need insurance. What’s it going to do for me anyway?

Insurance isn’t something we feel all warm and fuzzy about, and we generally don’t like paying for something we can’t see and don’t particularly understand. But here’s a situation that occurs every couple of weeks or so.

I’ll get a call from an EAA member asking if they may add their flight instructor to their airplane insurance because they are planning on doing some additional training, getting a Flight Review, or maybe just brushing up on their flying skills. (I’ve written several articles about why it’s important to plan annually to get some level of recurrent training.) In the great majority of these cases, the instructor is qualified, so adding them as a named approved pilot usually isn’t a problem. In a worst-case scenario, if the airplane is a homebuilt, the owner may be required to give the instructor a couple of hours of orientation prior to the instruction.

What happens next is interesting. After we’ve gotten the details for adding the instructor as a named approved pilot, I ask the airplane owner if the instructor has insurance, and almost 100 percent of the time, the owner says the instructor asked to be a named approved pilot to get additional protection from the owner’s airplane insurance.

Here’s where the misunderstanding starts. You see airplane insurance policies generally state that an “Insured” is the Named Insured and anyone else that is flying the airplane with the Named Insured’s permission, using the airplane for an approved use, and either meets the Open Pilot Warranty or is a named approved pilot. The definition of an “Insured” goes on to say: “If the named pilot or person meeting the Open Pilot Warranty is in the business of commercial aviation, and it specifically mentions flight instruction, then the extension of insurance coverage to the pilot does not apply.”

The usual reaction is, “Whoa! You mean the flight instructor would not be covered?” My answer: “Yes, if the instructor is providing flight instruction or a flight review, very likely the extension of insurance coverage does not apply. So what’s the answer? How does the Flight Instructor get coverage? And, what does the airplane owner need to do to make sure their insurance is still valid?

First, to make sure the airplane owner’s insurance is valid and intact we must make sure the flight instructor is a named approved pilot. This only works to the benefit of the airplane owner, but it is important so the airplane owner’s insurance is not impaired in any way.

Second, the Flight Instructor can obtain insurance protection by being named as an Additional Insured on the airplane owner’s insurance. This only extends liability insurance, though, and does not address the potential of subrogation (legal recovery action) for physical damage (hull) insurance by the insurance company.

Example; the flight instructor says, “I’ll show you how to do a short-field take-off,” and the airplane drifts off the centerline and into parked airplanes. If the instructor is an Additional Insured then the airplane owner’s insurance will offer protection. But the airplane insurance company may also go back to recover what they paid to settle claims.

The Waiver of Subrogation is like a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card, meaning the insurance company agrees to not pursue the flight instructor for recovery of what they paid in claims. Most of time, the airplane insurance company will charge the airplane owner for these extensions of insurance for the instructor. How much? It varies - usually more than $500 - but it can be more for higher-valued airplanes and higher limits of liability insurance.

There is another option, keeping in mind that the instructor still needs to be a named approved pilot on the owner’s airplane insurance unless meeting the Open Pilot Warranty. If the owner does not wish to add the instructor as an Additional Insured with a Waiver of Subrogation, or the instructor will not reimburse the airplane owner for the expense of extended coverage, then the next option is for the instructor to secure their own insurance…and there’s an option for this too!

The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) has an insurance plan exclusively designed for flight instructors. This insurance provides coverage for use of an airplane the flight instructor does not own and insurance for the instructor’s professional services of instruction, flight review, flight check-ride, or flight exam. The NAFI Plan is easily accessible at www.nafinet.org or you may call and speak to an insurance specialist at 866-243-6234 (NAFI).

If you would like more information about the EAA Aircraft Insurance Plan and all the extended insurance coverages available to EAA members, you can submit an online quote request at www.eaainsurance.org or contact one of the aviation insurance specialists with the EAA Plan at 866-647-4EAA (4322).

Whatever you do…don’t dislike insurance just because no one will take the time to explain it to you. Also, don’t be caught without insurance just because other so-called experts told you that you don’t have a need or that you should be covered. If you want to know for sure, all it takes is one phone call. Thanks! Happy and safe flying.

Bob Mackey is a Senior Vice President with Falcon Insurance Agency and he works with the EAA Plan and NAFI Plan. If you would like to see a specific topic addressed in a future article you may send your recommendation to Bob at bmackey@...

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.eaa.org/insurance/articles/2009-01-15_insurance.asp

 


#1066 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:03 pm
Subject: General Aviation Statistics
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1065 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:46 am
Subject: NBAA: 'TARP' Language Against BizAv Will Fuel General Aviation Job Losses
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1064 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 5:35 pm
Subject: EAA News - Perfect Storm Brewing To Threaten General Aviation
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 
 
This article doesn't even mention the economic downturn, the potential cost of ADS-B compliance,  and the cost of the 406 Mz ELT.

#1063 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 2:07 pm
Subject: Article Blasts TSA NPRM
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Left Seat
By J. Mac McClellan

Business Aviation Be Damned
It is clear that the present administration in Washington, in the midst of the greatest economic crisis in 70 years, doesn't care one wit about the future of business aviation. Over the past several weeks it has lumped all private airplanes used for business into a category of spending that is so wasteful it cannot be tolerated. And now it continues to press ahead with its Large Airplane Security Program (LASP) that piles more cost onto business flying and robs those airplanes of a huge chunk of their usefulness.

The LASP would impose most of the "security" requirements of scheduled airline flying onto any airplane that is certified for more than 12,500 pounds at takeoff. That is the FAA definition of a "large" airplane, and the TSA has seized on it to define a threat. If the LASP proposal is adopted all operators will need to screen all passengers against a terrorist watch list; have a security audit from some private firm; have pilots approved by TSA; and obtain government approval of a "security" program for their airplanes both at home base and at any airport they use. Plus, owners won't be able to carry items that are banned on scheduled airlines in their own airplanes.

The government refuses to understand that the huge majority of so-called "large" business jets in the United States could hide under the horizontal tail of a truly large airplane. The big majority of business jets weigh less than 30,000 pounds. And all business jets that are not converted airliners weigh less than 100,000 pounds. Rules that may make some sense for public transportation using aircraft that weigh hundreds of thousands of pounds are absurd for the typical business airplane that its owners use to visit the thousands of airports around the country that are not served by any airline.

The only hope is that the hundreds of comments the TSA and Congress are receiving about the proposal will defeat it, or at least modify it to some logical form. The TSA is holding public hearings over the next several weeks and accepting written comments. But the most effective reaction by airplane owners is probably to contact your congressman and senator directly to describe how this proposal will add nothing to national safety, but will help to drive business aviation, and your own company, even further into a recession.

The National Business Aviation Association has an excellent system for contacting your representative and senator on its website at nbaa.org. The site can show you sample letters and direct your communication to your congressman and senator. The government says it's going full speed ahead to turn the economy around, so let's encourage them to at least stop driving an important segment—business aviation—further into recession.


#1062 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 5:38 pm
Subject: Don't Miss The Deadline To Tell TSA You Oppose Their Proposed General Aviation Security Program
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
TELL TSA WHAT THE LARGE AIRCRAFT SECURITY PROGRAM MEANS TO YOU

The Transportation Security Administration wants to impose new security regulations that would treat larger general aviation aircraft just like the airlines, and AOPA members are urged to file comments telling the TSA how the rules would affect them. The proposed Large Aircraft Security Program, or LASP, would impose a whole range of expensive and burdensome requirements on Part 91 operators of aircraft weighing more than 12,500 lbs. Those requirements include criminal history record checks for crew members, matching passengers to TSA watch and no-fly lists, checking passengers and baggage for dangerous weapons or prohibited items, and paying for biennial third-party audits. That last item amounts to outsourcing security oversight, an inherently governmental function. Read more and submit your comments (
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/081231gasecurity.html?WT.mc_id=090102epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts ).
 
 

Friday, January 02, 2009

 
 


#1061 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 8:42 am
Subject: LASP HEARINGS START NEXT WEEK
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
LASP HEARINGS START NEXT WEEK
New rules proposed by the Transportation Security Administration would affect only the operators of large aircraft -- over 12,500 pounds -- but the general aviation community, representing pilots of aircraft of all sizes, is united in opposition to the plan. Public hearings on the Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP) begin next week, Friday, Jan. 6, at Westchester County Airport in White Plains, N.Y. In a briefing paper, EAA said that it "strongly encourages" everyone involved in recreational, personal and business aviation to participate in the TSA public hearings. EAA is concerned that the proposal would infringe "on the freedom of movement by private U.S. citizens and their family, friends, and business associates in their own personal or business-use aircraft." Ed Bolen, CEO and president of the National Business Aviation Association, plans to be in White Plains to testify. NBAA has posted a list of concerns with the proposal, which includes a TSA checklist of 80 items that would be prohibited from the cabin, a requirement for private aircraft to carry federal air marshals on demand, and fees for required "security audits." Anyone who wishes to provide oral testimony can attend the New York hearing, which begins at 9 a.m., with registration starting at 8. For more information about the hearings, click here for the complete TSA official notice. Other public meetings are scheduled for Jan. 8 in Atlanta, Ga.; Jan. 16 in Chicago; Jan. 23 in Burbank, Calif.; and Jan. 28 in Houston, Texas. More...
 

AVwebBiz: Wednesday, December 31, 2008


#1060 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:24 pm
Subject: Response Guide Developed For TSA's Large Aircraft Security Program
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
News & Views from EAA December 23, 2008    Volume 8, Number 63

RESPONSE GUIDE DEVELOPED FOR TSA'S LARGE AIRCRAFT SECURITY PROGRAM
How you can get involved
TSA Briefing PaperEAA is bolstering ongoing efforts to advocate on behalf of its members and others who love aviation with a new briefing paper outlining the Transportation Security Administration's proposed Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP). If enacted, the LASP would be extremely harmful to general aviation by imposing a host of new regulatory requirements on aircraft 12,500 lbs or heavier. EAA fears these requirements could eventually be imposed on smaller aircraft and strip away the freedoms we as aviators enjoy today. The PDF document now available on the EAA website discusses what is being proposed, how to participate in the public hearings announced for January 2009, and how to prepare comments to the official government docket. Read the briefing paper.


#1059 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:19 pm
Subject: TSA to Hold Hearings on Large Aircraft Security Program
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#1058 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:08 pm
Subject: "Standard Aircraft" Definition
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

EAA Q & A: 
Question of the Week

 

I cannot find anything in the FARs that define what a "standard" category aircraft is. FAR 61.5 defines certificates and ratings; specifically, aircraft Category and Class ratings. Appendices, glossaries, definitions, etc , have no reference to "standard category." If there is a "standard category," then what is a "non-standard category"? 

Answer:
You need to look at the airworthiness certificate issued to the individual aircraft. Type certificated aircraft such as those sold by Cessna, Piper and others will have a Standard Airworthiness Certificate as allowed by 14 CFR 21.175(a) and 21.183. These are "standard aircraft." Aircraft certificated as amateur-built aircraft (aka, "homebuilts") hold a Special Airworthiness Certificate as allowed by 14 CFR 21.175(b) and 21.191(g). Any aircraft with a Special Airworthiness Certificate is not a "standard aircraft."

 

EAA e-Hotline Vol. 8 No. 63


#1057 From: "JonThornburgh" <JonThornburgh@...>
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:04 pm
Subject: EAA Develops Fact Sheet For CBP's International GA Flight Notification Rule
jonthornburgh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Messages 1057 - 1086 of 1086   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Advanced
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help