FAA Penalty for overweight ultralights?
WAnthonyClarke
weight limit. What is that 254lbs?
Daniel Grunloh
wanthon...@aol.com (WAnthonyClarke) wrote:
>I just wondered if anyone ever had a run-in with the FAA for being over the
>weight limit. What is that 254lbs?
No one has ever got into trouble for ONLY being overweight.
If there is a complaint about your flying or if you are involved
in a incident, then they might ask about it and even threaten fines.
Most often they say you should quite flying that thing until you get
N-numbers and a licese. We might come back and check later. :-)
--------------
Daniel Grunloh (gru...@uiuc.edu)
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~grunloh
Jake Brodsky
wrote:
>I just wondered if anyone ever had a run-in with the FAA for being over the
>weight limit. What is that 254lbs?
I haven't heard of any.
Keep in mind, the 254 lbs weight excludes the pilot, fuel, and in some
cases, even the landing gear.
The important thing is to maintain a reasonable CG. The main hazard
to flying overweight is over stressing the airframe, and longer
takeoff and landing distances. Most U/L aircraft are built strongly
enough that a few extra pounds won't make much difference. And the
power to weight ratio is such that you don't take much of a
performance hit from being overweight either.
So to answer the question, there isn't much motivation for the FAA to
seek out U/L pilots who are flying overweight as long as they don't
get in to trouble. So as long as you don't ditch your U/L into an
elementary school, you should be ok.
Jake Brodsky, mailto:fru...@erols.com
"Nearly fifty percent of all graduates came from
the bottom half of the class."
JARunnles
do not have the man power to seek out ULs for any reason unless we are called.
If you are running someones livestock of flying over towns or any reason to
make someone report you we will not come looking. How ever If you are called.
The fine for overweight,over 5gals of fuel or any other break of the rules can
be up to $1000.00 per offence." That is what I was told.
Scrappman
his buddy were showing off along the freeway. He had to dive to miss a few power
lines, went to low and hit the road. Took the nose struts, prop, lower boom tubes
and prop. It was reported that 25 911 calls were made before the plane skidded to
a stop. The F.A.A. did show up. The kid's dad was fined $1000.00. Luckly the kids
were not hurt bad, bumps and bruised. This is the only time I have ever herd of a
fine being imposed. Personally that is....If ya don't troll for them there not
coming around................
Scrappman
Ted Colburn
was talking to some people in front of my plane when I noticed two guys with big
tags on there shirts at the rear of my plane. I walked back to talk to them and
and one said "that's a pretty big fuel tank ya got on there"(10 gal). My reply
was, you guy's aren't from the FAA are ya? The reply was YES. I told them yep it
was 10gal. I flew on the top 5 gal and the bottom 5 was for ballast. They
laughed and said have a nice day and went on there way. I am know FAA friendly.
TED
Jake Brodsky wrote:
--
----------
Ted Colburn 209-358-2949
Email: mailto:col...@jps.net
URL: http://www.jps.net/colburn
cleo brewer
need to worry about. Not the FAA.
One thing that is of Little Value in Flying !!
Fuel in the Tank Truck back at the Airport!
Flybi26
is REALISTIC and at least semi-HUMAN. I am sure there are others (at least I
hope so), but the FAA really stands out.
Ken
The only thing keeping man bound to earth, is the lack of imagination,
ingenuity and hard work.
J.D. GUINN
the lawyers"....
Sorry Tony.
J.D. Guinn
You are just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
http://community.webtv.net/MPD2959/
cms...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>My FAA encounter: I attended the first annual Golden West Fly-in with my UL. I
>was talking to some people in front of my plane when I noticed two guys with big
>tags on there shirts at the rear of my plane. I walked back to talk to them and
>and one said "that's a pretty big fuel tank ya got on there"(10 gal). My reply
>was, you guy's aren't from the FAA are ya? The reply was YES. I told them yep it
>was 10gal. I flew on the top 5 gal and the bottom 5 was for ballast. They
>laughed and said have a nice day and went on there way. I am know FAA friendly.
>TED
Yer only allowed 5 gallons??? Poor buggers.
cms
cms...@yahoo.com
brewer) wrote:
>If you hurt or kill some one in a Fat ultralight it is the Lawyers you
>need to worry about. Not the FAA.
>
This holds true no matter how you hurt or kill someone.
America, land of the lawsuit. Amen
Steve Dallas....Bloom County.
cms
cms...@yahoo.com
GUINN) wrote:
>Well Shakespeare said once before....."the first thing we do is kill all
>the lawyers"....
>Sorry Tony.
>
But Shakespeare was talking about how to go about illegally
overthrowing an existing government (king) and ursurping power.
cms
What do you call a hundred lawyers sitting on the bottom of Burrard
Inlet?
A bloody good start.
cms...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I hope the kid's daddy took him out to the old woodshed afterward and
liberally applied corrective physical measures to his butt.
cms
Jake Brodsky
>From what I can tell...The FAA seems to be one of the FEW Federal agencies that
>is REALISTIC and at least semi-HUMAN. I am sure there are others (at least I
>hope so), but the FAA really stands out.
If only that were so. No, the reason the FAA leaves the U/L community
alone is because they're small fry. Ask some poor guy in a GA
airplane after he's been ramp checked whether he thinks the same of
the FAA.
Actually, most of the inspectors are reasonable. The real problems
are the contradictory FSDO policies, the utterly impractical and
ignorant law suits filed by FAA attorneys, the kangaroo courts the FAA
uses for "due process," and the back-room dealings between the FAA
and the NTSB.
The only thing that keeps the FAA even semi competent is that Aircraft
obey the laws of physics, not politicians.
You guys with U/L aircraft have a lot to be thankful for.
R. Pitcher
cms...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yer only allowed 5 gallons??? Poor buggers.
>
> cms
Only for our unlicensed U'L's. With a license and a little gov't
interference we can fly anything we please anywhere we please :~)
Rick P.
PilotM...@webtv.net
lawyer in the road??
You find skid marks before the armadillo.
http://community.webtv.net/PilotMichael/UltraFlightPilot
Fr. John
that FAA is subordinate to NTSB. If that's so, there are no backroom deals,
only in-house bureaucracy.
Fr. John
"Jake Brodsky" <fru...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4dm4lss33ko86lqo2...@4ax.com...
cleo brewer
not do anything for you having a 10 gal tank unless they saw you flying
it. Then they would be forced to file violation. The same thing that
happened at Sun N Fun they didn't do anything until they witnessed a
violation. and cant do anything unless they see you commit a violation
while flying. At Sun N Fun they let Paradise City
know in advance when they will visit the UL area so the Fat boys etc
can stay on the ground during there visit. It is a little bit different
with the unregistered 2 passenger deal because you have the potential to
hurt someone other than yourself.
cleo brewer
passenger( UL) and you do not meet all the requirements it then becomes
an illegal aircraft. Then you sure are giving the Lawyers lots and lot
of ammunition. Then it does not matter if the FAA looks the other way.
How does one get off a none stop flight.?
Michael V. Ferranti
Scrappman <rap...@microassist.com> just had to go and say:
>It was reported that 25 911 calls were made before the plane skidded to
>a stop.
Sounds like one of those Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner cartoons. <grins>
- Michael V. Ferranti [blades&inreach*com]
GNUke The Planet!
The GNUclear NetworkŽ
ID# 177869 Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
J.D. GUINN
and it ain't got an N number, and you aren't buzzing your neighbor's
house, or ramming into someone's populated hacienda, then the FAA
doesn't concern itself with a little extra weight, speed or fuel, and
will leave you alone??? Come on now, what's the punch line?
stumpe...@my-deja.com
MPD...@webtv.net (J.D. GUINN) wrote:
> So to recap, if the craft looks, flies, and otherwise is an
ultralight,
> and it ain't got an N number, and you aren't buzzing your neighbor's
> house, or ramming into someone's populated hacienda, then the FAA
> doesn't concern itself with a little extra weight, speed or fuel, and
> will leave you alone??? Come on now, what's the punch line?
>
Then it's a duck!
(As in: If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck....)
Richard 'hi-max for sale' Stumpf
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
gyromike
You got it, J.D. As long as you don't make a nuisance of
yourself, endanger folks on the ground, cause any complaints to
be generated, the FAA will usually look the other way. They
really DO have better things to do than bust every fat UL they
run across. But if you are just having fun, flying safely, and
not causing trouble, you should be OK if you exceed the weight,
fuel, etc.( a little, not too much). If it looks like an
ultralight, they'll leave you alone.
I registered my gyro because I already had my fixed-wing
license, which enabled me to legally fly my single-seat gyro,
and log the hours in my logbook. Otherwise I could have just
flew it as an ultralight, although I would be carrying 3 extra
gallons of fuel, 50 extra lbs., and a little too much speed.
GyroMike
www.geocities.com/gyromike
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Jake Brodsky
>Regarding the "backroom deals" between FAA and NTSB, my understanding is
>that FAA is subordinate to NTSB. If that's so, there are no backroom deals,
>only in-house bureaucracy.
And if you believe that, I've got this wonderful bridge in NYC that
I'll sell to you for cents on the dollar.
If you don't believe me, watch them. The FAA and the NTSB are
supposed to be independent. However, having seen the confused rulings
from appeals of the FAA's court decisions with the NTSB, one has to be
convinced that there is some back-scratching going on here...
See the legal columns in AOPA Pilot from the last year or two. These
two entities are supposed to be independent. However, I really have
to wonder.
Martha & Russ Oppenheim
seat, the FAA won't bother you. They are *real* picky on the 2-place
trainers, however. If you carry a passenger (excuse me, I mean a
"student") your aircraft (and you) better be legal. Otherwise they can,
and will, throw the book at you.
Martha (fixed-wing BFI)
"J.D. GUINN" wrote:
>
> So to recap, if the craft looks, flies, and otherwise is an ultralight,
> and it ain't got an N number, and you aren't buzzing your neighbor's
> house, or ramming into someone's populated hacienda, then the FAA
> doesn't concern itself with a little extra weight, speed or fuel, and
> will leave you alone??? Come on now, what's the punch line?
>
> J.D. Guinn
> You are just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
> http://community.webtv.net/MPD2959/
--
----------------------
Russ & Martha Oppenheim
mopp...@ix.netcom.com
----------------------
Martha & Russ Oppenheim
year old son in his GT500, a wing collapsed when he was coming in for a
landing, he popped the chute, and crashed. The chute saved their lives,
but they were both hurt. The FAA came looking, and discovered he had a
16 gallon fuel tank. That made it an illegal UL trainer, he was not a
licensed pilot. (They also said they could tell by the pitch of the
prop that it was capable of exceeding the max speed. Sure!!) They
slapped a $12,000 fine on him. He got a good lawyer, and I think got it
down to something like 3 or 4 K. Kind of soured him on flying, period.
Too bad. He was a great pilot, and BFI.
Martha
Scrappman wrote:
>
> A kid, I say kid he was 16, crashed a M.X. two a few years back. Seems he and
> his buddy were showing off along the freeway. He had to dive to miss a few power
> lines, went to low and hit the road. Took the nose struts, prop, lower boom tubes
> and prop. It was reported that 25 911 calls were made before the plane skidded to
> a stop. The F.A.A. did show up. The kid's dad was fined $1000.00. Luckly the kids
> were not hurt bad, bumps and bruised. This is the only time I have ever herd of a
> fine being imposed. Personally that is....If ya don't troll for them there not
> coming around................
> Scrappman
>
> JARunnles wrote:
>
> > I called the FAA before I bought my first UL and this is what I was told. " We
> > do not have the man power to seek out ULs for any reason unless we are called.
> > If you are running someones livestock of flying over towns or any reason to
> > make someone report you we will not come looking. How ever If you are called.
> > The fine for overweight,over 5gals of fuel or any other break of the rules can
> > be up to $1000.00 per offence." That is what I was told.
--
Mark Smith
>
> A couple of years ago a friend of mine (a BFI) was flying with his 10
> year old son in his GT500, a wing collapsed when he was coming in for a
> landing, he popped the chute, and crashed. The chute saved their lives,
> but they were both hurt. The FAA came looking, and discovered he had a
> 16 gallon fuel tank. That made it an illegal UL trainer, he was not a
> licensed pilot. (They also said they could tell by the pitch of the
> prop that it was capable of exceeding the max speed. Sure!!) They
> slapped a $12,000 fine on him. He got a good lawyer, and I think got it
> down to something like 3 or 4 K. Kind of soured him on flying, period.
> Too bad. He was a great pilot, and BFI.
>
> Martha
I was very saddened by the FAA actions in this matter,,,
He lost his daughter in the accident and then slap him with a fine,,
BTW, the GT 500 comes with two 8 gallon tanks, wing mounted and
eliminating one or the other would make a rather unsafe balance
situation.
They certainly were not 'kinder and gentler' in this one,,,
--
Mark Smith mailto:tri...@freewwweb.com
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
The Prairie Prince
<mopp...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Now this is really, really interesting.
An on-going discussion in this group has been whether we need the FAA to
oversee and certify ultralights for safety reasons. The Quicksilver GT500
is the only "ultralight" I know of that has been taken through the process
of FAA certification. Now you tell me one "collapsed" a wing on final (I
assume).
First, I would appreciate some clarification of the circumstances during
the moment of collapse. I would be really amazed if the wing spontaneously
folded up without any extenuating circumstances. These circumstances
typically involve radical maneuvering, a missing nut or bolt, violent
weather conditions, etc.
Secondly, I would hope this incident might help to open the eyes of those
in this newsgroup who assume naively that mere fact of FAA certification
magically shields one from aircraft equipment failure. I subscribed to the
NTSB reports for 2 years and read every accident report during that time.
I invite others to read these reports as they can really open your eyes to
some of the things that cause accidents in the "certified" world. The
similarity to the descriptions of accidents in the "ultralight" world is
in many ways "carbon copy". Don't take my word for it. Read these reports
yourself. It think they are available on the web. I think anyone who takes
the time to read a good number of them will develope a more realistic
attitude regarding the limitations of government oversight. I'm not saying
it is worthless... I am just saying that it is my belief that the loss of
freedom incurred by increased regulation of ultralight aircraft will not
be accompanied by increased "safety" (safety being a definition of what
risk threshold you find desirable).
Rather, if any decrease in accidents were seen from some future increase
in Federal oversight, it would occur simply as a result of the lower
number of hours being flown by the fewer ultralights there would be in the
air. Fliers need to take responsibility for their own actions and to also
not be afraid to call down a fellow pilot they think is getting out of
line. Let's do it ourselves.
Brian FitzGerald
> A couple of years ago a friend of mine (a BFI) was flying with his 10
> year old son in his GT500, a wing collapsed when he was coming in for a
> landing, he popped the chute, and crashed. The chute saved their lives,
> but they were both hurt. The FAA came looking, and discovered he had a
> 16 gallon fuel tank. That made it an illegal UL trainer, he was not a
> licensed pilot. (They also said they could tell by the pitch of the
> prop that it was capable of exceeding the max speed. Sure!!) They
> slapped a $12,000 fine on him. He got a good lawyer, and I think got it
> down to something like 3 or 4 K. Kind of soured him on flying, period.
> Too bad. He was a great pilot, and BFI.
>
> Martha
>
Mark Smith
>
> In article <395447C8...@ix.netcom.com>, Martha & Russ Oppenheim
> <mopp...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Now this is really, really interesting.
> An on-going discussion in this group has been whether we need the FAA to
> oversee and certify ultralights for safety reasons. The Quicksilver GT500
> is the only "ultralight" I know of that has been taken through the process
> of FAA certification. Now you tell me one "collapsed" a wing on final (I
> assume).
Improper assembly of some impoprtant parts was the cause.
The leading edge outboard spar attach fitting is an extrusion which
encircircles the 2 inch spar. There are four bolts going through ome
side of the extrusion, through the spar and then through the backside of
the extrusion.
This is the best way to attach a fitting to a spar. It is not just a
couple of sandwich plates with some off the shelf sadddles to make up
for the thickness differences.
Quicksilver outdid themselves on the 500, set the bar pretty high for
anyone else to reach certification as shown by no other plane making it
in the five years since they did it.
When the attach fitting was installed on the GT 500 in question, the
front of the fitting was aligned with the holes and the bolts inserted.
The four holes in the rear of the fitting never got aligned with the
holes on the back of the spar.
The bolts missed the bracket entirely, and only the front portion was
carrying the lift loads of the plane.
Even then the plane was used for 100 or so hours for BFI training before
the improperly assemb;ed junction failed. And even then, the rear spar
fitting carries the load long enough to successfully deploy a chute.
The back of the joint in inside the sail, hard to see at best. I checked
my Gt 500 immediately, and of course, the fittings were properly
installed.
Since the fitting is a rather robust piece, the length of the four
attaching bolts was way too long when one side was missed, and I am sure
the bolt/nut bottomoed out and a competent assembler should realize this
during assembly, and check fot the reason,,,,
Quicksilver planes have the best airframe safety record of any plane
ever built by anyone. They take beginner abuse, backyard repairs with
all manor of bolts and pipes, and still have a most enviable record.
I can only fault the assembler in this one, but like so many items on
this wonderfull internet, half the story gets told,,,,,,,,,,
Jim Williamson
>I can only fault the assembler in this one, but like so many items on
>this wonderfull internet, half the story gets told,,,,,,,,,,
>--
>
>
>Mark Smith mailto:tri...@freewwweb.com
>Tri-State Kite Sales
>1121 N Locust St
>Mt Vernon, IN 47620
The famous saying "And now you know the rest of the story" seems 'bout
right for this nice post.
sleepy6
>The leading edge outboard spar attach fitting is an extrusion which
>encircircles the 2 inch spar. There are four bolts going through ome
>side of the extrusion, through the spar and then through the backside
of
>the extrusion.
>
SNIP
>
>When the attach fitting was installed on the GT 500 in question, the
>front of the fitting was aligned with the holes and the bolts
inserted.
>The four holes in the rear of the fitting never got aligned with the
>holes on the back of the spar.
>
>The bolts missed the bracket entirely, and only the front portion was
>carrying the lift loads of the plane.
>
SNIP
>
>Since the fitting is a rather robust piece, the length of the four
>attaching bolts was way too long when one side was missed, and I am
sure
>the bolt/nut bottomoed out and a competent assembler should realize
this
>during assembly, and check fot the reason,,,,
>
SNIP
>Mark Smith mailto:tri...@freewwweb.com
>Tri-State Kite Sales
>1121 N Locust St
>Mt Vernon, IN 47620
Maybe its just me Mark but if the fitting encircles the spar, how did
the bolts miss the back side ?
Bob
Mark Smith
The extrusion does not fully encircle the spar but goes past 180 enough
for the mating sets of holes.
see a picture at http://www.trikite.com/sparatt.jpg
--
Martha & Russ Oppenheim
flying with his son, not his daughter, and no lives were lost. There
was only one fuel tank, and it was not wing mounted. The cause of the
accident turned out to be faulty assembly. A bolt was not properly
installed. (Sorry, I don't know exactly which one. This kind of thing
is not my strong point.)
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> Martha & Russ Oppenheim wrote:
> >
> > A couple of years ago a friend of mine (a BFI) was flying with his 10
> > year old son in his GT500, a wing collapsed when he was coming in for a
> > landing, he popped the chute, and crashed. The chute saved their lives,
> > but they were both hurt. The FAA came looking, and discovered he had a
> > 16 gallon fuel tank. That made it an illegal UL trainer, he was not a
> > licensed pilot. (They also said they could tell by the pitch of the
> > prop that it was capable of exceeding the max speed. Sure!!) They
> > slapped a $12,000 fine on him. He got a good lawyer, and I think got it
> > down to something like 3 or 4 K. Kind of soured him on flying, period.
> > Too bad. He was a great pilot, and BFI.
> >
> > Martha
>
> I was very saddened by the FAA actions in this matter,,,
>
> He lost his daughter in the accident and then slap him with a fine,,
>
> BTW, the GT 500 comes with two 8 gallon tanks, wing mounted and
> eliminating one or the other would make a rather unsafe balance
> situation.
>
> They certainly were not 'kinder and gentler' in this one,,,
> --
>
> Mark Smith mailto:tri...@freewwweb.com
> Tri-State Kite Sales
> 1121 N Locust St
> Mt Vernon, IN 47620
--
Martha & Russ Oppenheim
<First, I would appreciate some clarification of the circumstances
during
the moment of collapse. I would be really amazed if the wing
spontaneously
folded up without any extenuating circumstances.>
The wing folded up on final approach because of faulty assembly. A bolt
was not correctly fitted. This pilot had put approximately 200 hours on
this plane (a couple of them with me) before the bolt finally gave way
and the wing collapsed.
Martha & Russ Oppenheim
Fr. John
We see things similarly, but attribute different causations. I'm saying that
the FAA is hamstrung by the NTSB. I never had heard that they were
supposedly independent, though. My understanding is that the NTSB has
overruled the FAA a number of times.
Blessings,
Fr. John
"Jake Brodsky" <fru...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:55d7lssvcclqlchn4...@4ax.com...
sleepy6
Either the spar or the fitting had to be twisted pretty bad at time
of assembly. This and/or excess length of bolts (like you said) really
should have set off some alarm bells during assembly.
In article <39550...@freewwweb.com>, tri...@freewwweb.com says...
>> >Mark Smith mailto:tri...@freewwweb.com
>> >Tri-State Kite Sales
>> >1121 N Locust St
>> >Mt Vernon, IN 47620
>>
>> Maybe its just me Mark but if the fitting encircles the spar, how
did
>> the bolts miss the back side ?
>>
>> Bob
>
>
>The extrusion does not fully encircle the spar but goes past 180
enough
>for the mating sets of holes.
>
>see a picture at http://www.trikite.com/sparatt.jpg
Martha & Russ Oppenheim
This is exactly what happened. And I wholeheartedly concur with your
endorsement of Quicksilver. I just got home from flying both mine
(Sprint II and GT400), and I have a big grin on my face. Great planes!
Martha
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> The Prairie Prince wrote:
> >
> > In article <395447C8...@ix.netcom.com>, Martha & Russ Oppenheim
> > <mopp...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Now this is really, really interesting.
> > An on-going discussion in this group has been whether we need the FAA to
> > oversee and certify ultralights for safety reasons. The Quicksilver GT500
> > is the only "ultralight" I know of that has been taken through the process
> > of FAA certification. Now you tell me one "collapsed" a wing on final (I
> > assume).
> > First, I would appreciate some clarification of the circumstances ,,,,,,,
>
> Improper assembly of some impoprtant parts was the cause.
>
> The leading edge outboard spar attach fitting is an extrusion which
> encircircles the 2 inch spar. There are four bolts going through ome
> side of the extrusion, through the spar and then through the backside of
> the extrusion.
>
> This is the best way to attach a fitting to a spar. It is not just a
> couple of sandwich plates with some off the shelf sadddles to make up
> for the thickness differences.
>
> Quicksilver outdid themselves on the 500, set the bar pretty high for
> anyone else to reach certification as shown by no other plane making it
> in the five years since they did it.
>
> When the attach fitting was installed on the GT 500 in question, the
> front of the fitting was aligned with the holes and the bolts inserted.
> The four holes in the rear of the fitting never got aligned with the
> holes on the back of the spar.
>
> The bolts missed the bracket entirely, and only the front portion was
> carrying the lift loads of the plane.
>
> Even then the plane was used for 100 or so hours for BFI training before
> the improperly assemb;ed junction failed. And even then, the rear spar
> fitting carries the load long enough to successfully deploy a chute.
>
> The back of the joint in inside the sail, hard to see at best. I checked
> my Gt 500 immediately, and of course, the fittings were properly
> installed.
>
> Since the fitting is a rather robust piece, the length of the four
> attaching bolts was way too long when one side was missed, and I am sure
> the bolt/nut bottomoed out and a competent assembler should realize this
> during assembly, and check fot the reason,,,,
>
> Quicksilver planes have the best airframe safety record of any plane
> ever built by anyone. They take beginner abuse, backyard repairs with
> all manor of bolts and pipes, and still have a most enviable record.
>
> I can only fault the assembler in this one, but like so many items on
> this wonderfull internet, half the story gets told,,,,,,,,,,
> --
>
> Mark Smith mailto:tri...@freewwweb.com
> Tri-State Kite Sales
> 1121 N Locust St
> Mt Vernon, IN 47620
--
Rich Tintera
back side? If he couldn't see that the pieces didn't line up, did he just
feel around with his finger til he found a hole, and put in the bolt, not
realizing it wasn't going through 2 different things?
Rich
sleepy6 wrote in message ...
>Thanks for the picture. I see it now. To miss the rear holes,
>Either the spar or the fitting had to be twisted pretty bad at time
>of assembly. This and/or excess length of bolts (like you said) really
>should have set off some alarm bells during assembly.
>
>
>In article <39550...@freewwweb.com>, tri...@freewwweb.com says...
>>
>>sleepy6 wrote:
>>>
>>> >The leading edge outboard spar attach fitting is an extrusion which
>>> >encircircles the 2 inch spar. There are four bolts going through
>ome
>>> >side of the extrusion, through the spar and then through the
>backside
>>> of
>>> >the extrusion.
>>> >
>>> SNIP
>>> >
>>> >When the attach fitting was installed on the GT 500 in question,
>the
>>> >front of the fitting was aligned with the holes and the bolts
>>> inserted.
>>> >The four holes in the rear of the fitting never got aligned with
>the
>>> >holes on the back of the spar.
>>> >
>>> >The bolts missed the bracket entirely, and only the front portion
>was
>>> >carrying the lift loads of the plane.
>>> >
>>> SNIP
>>> >
>>> >Since the fitting is a rather robust piece, the length of the four
>>> >attaching bolts was way too long when one side was missed, and I am
>>> sure
>>> >the bolt/nut bottomoed out and a competent assembler should realize
>>> this
>>> >during assembly, and check fot the reason,,,,
>>> >
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>> >Mark Smith mailto:tri...@freewwweb.com
>>> >Tri-State Kite Sales
>>> >1121 N Locust St
>>> >Mt Vernon, IN 47620
>>>
>>> Maybe its just me Mark but if the fitting encircles the spar, how
>did
>>> the bolts miss the back side ?
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>>
>>The extrusion does not fully encircle the spar but goes past 180
>enough
>>for the mating sets of holes.
>>
>>see a picture at http://www.trikite.com/sparatt.jpg
Mark Smith
>
> I'm confused...didn't the assembler have to put the bolt in from the
> back side? If he couldn't see that the pieces didn't line up, did he just
> feel around with his finger til he found a hole, and put in the bolt, not
> realizing it wasn't going through 2 different things?
Can't speak for whoever assembled the plane but the instructions clearly
show the bolts going from the outside of the wing with the nuts inside
the wing.
Jake Brodsky
>We see things similarly, but attribute different causations. I'm saying that
>the FAA is hamstrung by the NTSB. I never had heard that they were
>supposedly independent, though. My understanding is that the NTSB has
>overruled the FAA a number of times.
They have. However, there's also substantial evidence of collusion
where these organizations are supposed to be independent. This seems
to happen most in pilot certificate actions. Any time the FAA wants
to revoke a pilot's certificate for whatever reason (valid or not),
the NTSB takes the opinion that the FAA is right unless they're making
a mistake so egregious that even someone in the non-flying public
would have to wonder what was going on.
In the end, this is a bad policy. After all, if you allow the cowboy
inspectors to have their way with the pilot community, pretty soon
there will be (and have been) some extraordinarily dumb in-flight
decisions because pilots are worried about what will happen when they
land.
It's sad, but true. The less we have to do with the FAA, the happier
we will be.
Fr. John
we will be"
Amen! Preach it brother!
Fr. John
"Jake Brodsky" <fru...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bcbflsc5sv5pcb5h1...@4ax.com...
Jeremy Harris
Fr. John <frj...@home.com> wrote in message
news:AOO55.12879$_54.2...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> "The less we have to do with the FAA, the happier
> we will be"
>
> Amen! Preach it brother!
> Fr. John
>
I don't have any problem with the FAA at all (but then I do live in the UK
:)>............)
Jeremy
J.D. GUINN
kind of trouble will I get into if I do what I have to do?? Why not
instead make it mandantory to use common sense and fly the airplane out
of trouble??
Oh I forgot, we are dealing with a Governmental agency, common sense
does not normally apply!
Fr. John
<<Why not instead make it mandantory to use common sense >>
I wish churches would do that instead of trying to come up with new "laws"
and split hairs ... but that's another forum, I guess.
Fr. John
"J.D. GUINN" <MPD...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:861-395...@storefull-291.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
J.D. GUINN
I know, I know, "Forgive me Father for I have sinned....."
Hephaestus
:)
tim
J.D. GUINN <MPD...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<861-395...@storefull-291.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> It is pretty bad when decisions have to be made in reference to: what
> kind of trouble will I get into if I do what I have to do?? Why not
> instead make it mandantory to use common sense and fly the airplane out
> of trouble??
> Oh I forgot, we are dealing with a Governmental agency, common sense
> does not normally apply!
>
>
cms...@yahoo.com
>Yes. Like looking for a civil servant who is either......
>
>:)
>
>tim
>
In any modern industrial society, civil servant equates into civil
master.
cms
Paraphrasing the master, RAH AKA Lazarus Long.
snip