Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: UL: Re: lack of UL trainers problem - Goodbye FAR 103

Expand Messages
  • Scott Perkins
    Ron- I dont doubt there being 100 planes, I doubted anyone being able to put together 100 names for the FAA as proof if they asked for it. Do you think USUA
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron-
      I dont doubt there being 100 planes, I doubted anyone being able to put
      together
      100 names for the FAA as proof if they asked for it. Do you think USUA
      or Jim Stephensen could ? I am not aware of them trying to keep track.
      Scott


      Ron or Mary Ohler wrote:
      > Scott,
      > you are full of it. 100 true UL's. Cripe, we've been down this road before. That is only 2 per state. Just here in Southern Michigan I personally know of a Vector, a WIzzard, a couple Lazair's, a Mitchel Wing, 5 Pterodactyls, a Easy Riser, a Falcon UL, a Hummer... ah s**t. This isn't worth it after 9 hours of continuous welding out in the sun on a 95degree day.
      > Ron
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Scott Perkins
      > To: FLY-UL@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:53 AM
      > Subject: UL: lack of UL trainers problem - Goodbye FAR 103
      >
      > When ever enough people complain to the FAA about
      > the problem, that they think it is a problem, it is going
      > to be viewed as an FAR-103 problem that they didnt use to have
      > or havent had for a long time. With the FAA feelings about
      > Sport Pilot, the simple solution to the problem will be
      > to eliminate FAR 103. Sport Pilot is more than enough
      > for any reasonable general population to enjoy
      > recreational flying.
      >
      > If the FAA said prove there is enough interest to sustain the
      > FAR 103 program, I dont know anyone who could put together a
      > hundred names with a description of their aircraft flying
      > 100 percent 103 compliant planes in accordance with all the
      > guidelines.
      >
      > The UL community better get used to flying very light planes
      > locally with no more than 25 or 30 hp like they did 25 years
      > ago or it will all go away. I dont know many/any planes today
      > that will fly on that much HP but they all did 25 years ago.
      > An upgrade to the 377 provided mind boggling performance.
      >
      > 5 or 10 years from now we will say the desire for speed,
      > flying in windy weather, cross country, and carrying
      > passengers killed FAR 103.
      >
      > > Broommail wrote:
      > > And yes, I understand about the exemption going away and
      > > lack of training in two-seat UL trainers and how this is
      > > going to cause problems.
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > Need help? Contact: fly-ul-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Ron or Mary Ohler
      Give me a chance and a purpose and I can come up with full names and addresses for the ones that I know of. The quest for that info will surely lead to others.
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Give me a chance and a purpose and I can come up with full names and addresses for the ones that I know of. The quest for that info will surely lead to others. I listed 13. If you count the repairable Dac and the Ralley 2B that I have, then the count is 15. I don't even claim that that is a complete list of the ones that I know of. I have left out several that are not located in Michigan. I am only counting fixed wing. I'm just one guy counting planes that I know are 103 compliant. Poking around would probably bring the count up 3 or 4 fold. Multiply that count by 50 states and there is no question of a significant number existing.
        Ron
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Scott Perkins
        To: FLY-UL@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 6:11 AM
        Subject: Re: UL: Re: lack of UL trainers problem - Goodbye FAR 103


        Ron-
        I dont doubt there being 100 planes, I doubted anyone being able to put
        together
        100 names for the FAA as proof if they asked for it. Do you think USUA
        or Jim Stephensen could ? I am not aware of them trying to keep track.
        Scott

        Ron or Mary Ohler wrote:
        > Scott,
        > you are full of it. 100 true UL's. Cripe, we've been down this road before. That is only 2 per state. Just here in Southern Michigan I personally know of a Vector, a WIzzard, a couple Lazair's, a Mitchel Wing, 5 Pterodactyls, a Easy Riser, a Falcon UL, a Hummer... ah s**t. This isn't worth it after 9 hours of continuous welding out in the sun on a 95degree day.
        > Ron
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Scott Perkins
        > To: FLY-UL@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:53 AM
        > Subject: UL: lack of UL trainers problem - Goodbye FAR 103
        >
        > When ever enough people complain to the FAA about
        > the problem, that they think it is a problem, it is going
        > to be viewed as an FAR-103 problem that they didnt use to have
        > or havent had for a long time. With the FAA feelings about
        > Sport Pilot, the simple solution to the problem will be
        > to eliminate FAR 103. Sport Pilot is more than enough
        > for any reasonable general population to enjoy
        > recreational flying.
        >
        > If the FAA said prove there is enough interest to sustain the
        > FAR 103 program, I dont know anyone who could put together a
        > hundred names with a description of their aircraft flying
        > 100 percent 103 compliant planes in accordance with all the
        > guidelines.
        >
        > The UL community better get used to flying very light planes
        > locally with no more than 25 or 30 hp like they did 25 years
        > ago or it will all go away. I dont know many/any planes today
        > that will fly on that much HP but they all did 25 years ago.
        > An upgrade to the 377 provided mind boggling performance.
        >
        > 5 or 10 years from now we will say the desire for speed,
        > flying in windy weather, cross country, and carrying
        > passengers killed FAR 103.
        >
        > > Broommail wrote:
        > > And yes, I understand about the exemption going away and
        > > lack of training in two-seat UL trainers and how this is
        > > going to cause problems.
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > Need help? Contact: fly-ul-owner@yahoogroups.com
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert Laird
        Well, we know the FAA is never wrong, and they ve estimated 10,000 FAR 103 planes.
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, we know the FAA is never wrong, and they've estimated 10,000 FAR
          103 planes.

          On 8/1/06, Ron or Mary Ohler <r-m-ohler@...> wrote:
          >
          > Give me a chance and a purpose and I can come up with full names and addresses for the ones that I know of. The quest for that info will surely lead to others. I listed 13. If you count the repairable Dac and the Ralley 2B that I have, then the count is 15. I don't even claim that that is a complete list of the ones that I know of. I have left out several that are not located in Michigan. I am only counting fixed wing. I'm just one guy counting planes that I know are 103 compliant. Poking around would probably bring the count up 3 or 4 fold. Multiply that count by 50 states and there is no question of a significant number existing.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.