X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:16:14 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-960314@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <sportform@cox.net>
Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.7)
  with ESMTP id 960203 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:16:00 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.29; envelope-from=sportform@cox.net
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (really [70.187.129.106]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP
          id <20060130021346.DAYS20441.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@[10.0.1.3]>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:13:46 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623)
In-Reply-To: <list-956928@logan.com>
References: <list-956928@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-26--781167246
X-Original-Message-Id: <255d8d53d0c0f35d3d61eb9fdcff6515@cox.net>
From: Barry Hancock <sportform@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Runway checks, passes, flybys
X-Original-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:15:06 -0800
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623)


--Apple-Mail-26--781167246
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed


On Jan 27, 2006, at 9:09 PM, VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote:

> It is important to remember these finer points when you are standing 
> in front of the NTSB's administrative law judge (ALJ) explaining your 
> actions in response to the FAA's request to suspend your pilot 
> certificate for 180 days.

And how is the FAA going to prosecute one for an overhead approach that 
is a) approved by the tower, or b) executed at a non-towered airport 
any more than someone entering the pattern at anything other than the 
45?  First, you would have to give them a reason to do so...and safely 
executing the overhead isn't going to be it.  There is a time and a 
place for the overhead, and times when it's not appropriate.  I don't 
think EAA Warbirds would advocate the approach if they thought it could 
bring FAA condemnation to their members  (it has not, to my 
knowledge)...

I await your next salvo of regs, Jeff, but I've shot this dead horse 
for the last time.

B
--Apple-Mail-26--781167246
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII



On Jan 27, 2006, at 9:09 PM, VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote:


<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>It is important to
remember these finer points when you are standing in front of the
NTSB's administrative law judge (ALJ) explaining your actions in
response to the FAA's request to suspend your pilot certificate for
180 days. 

</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt>

And how is the FAA going to prosecute one for an overhead approach
that is a) approved by the tower, or b) executed at a non-towered
airport any more than someone entering the pattern at anything other
than the 45?  First, you would have to give them a reason to do
so...and safely executing the overhead isn't going to be it.  There is
a time and a place for the overhead, and times when it's not
appropriate.  I don't think EAA Warbirds would advocate the approach
if they thought it could bring FAA condemnation to their members  (it
has not, to my knowledge)...


I await your next salvo of regs, Jeff, but I've shot this dead horse
for the last time.


B
--Apple-Mail-26--781167246--