X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:01:46 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from sccrmhc15.comcast.net ([63.240.77.85] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.3) with ESMTP id 1368155 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:52:33 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.240.77.85; envelope-from=bjburr@mwheli.com Received: from mountain0676a7 (c-24-10-172-111.hsd1.ut.comcast.net[24.10.172.111]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc15) with SMTP id <2006090718515201500onvlde>; Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:51:52 +0000 From: "Bryan Burr" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Over flight X-Original-Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:51:48 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <003301c6d2ae$af366d40$0400a8c0@mountain0676a7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C6D27C.649BFD40" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C6D27C.649BFD40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To me it looks as if the EAA is trying to stay on top of this issue. I am not sure about AOPA although I would think they would be very instrumental when combined with the EAA to take the lead roles. As members we should stay abreast and become vocal when the time comes. I hope EAA and AOPA will let us know when and how we should do this. Anyone out there connected to the higher management of these organizations that can get us more a structured strategy? The FAA can not win this one! If SoCal gets this it is only time before it goes country wide! Bryan N132BB LNCE -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Charlie Kohler Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:27 PM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Overflight To those who might have missed it: EAA e-Hotline News and Views September 1, 2006 Volume 6, Number 42 http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/060830_overflights.html A TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT issue regarding Experimental overflight is rearing it's ugly head AGAIN! SoCal (Probably Riverside FSDO) wants to prohibit ALL experimentals from flying in the LA basin. As it now stands-- You are issued Operating Limitation with the following statement in Phase I (5) Except for takeoffs and landings, this aircraft may not be operated over densely populated areas or in congested airways. Western Pacfic Region has pressed for total prohibition on experimentals. FAA has given them recognition of their concern by adding a second statement in Phase 2 PHASE II (9) This aircraft is prohibited from operating in congested airways or over densely populated areas unless directed by Air Traffic Control, or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property on the surface." Apparently this is not enough and now "they" want the right to chose the route if not ban access entirely! "According to FAA orders, once an Experimental/Exhibition aircraft receives its operating limitations that allow flights over densely populated areas for takeoffs and landings, a FSDO inspector can direct pilots to plan arrival and departure routes that avoid those areas whenever possible, but not ban all overflights completely. In addition, Experimental/Exhibition category aircraft operating limitations and airworthiness certificates remain the same regardless of where the airplane is based. Instituting restrictions at individual airports or regions creates a patchwork of regulations and policies across the nation that could be nearly impossible to follow." (emphis added) This is the FAA's effort to mediate the efforts of the Western Region to ban all flight into certain airports. They have said "you can control the routes but you cannot ban experimentals entirely. Do you think it would be helpful if we could identify the "FSDO inspector " who believes these restrictions are appropiate and invite him to a EAA meeting-inspect several projects in progress --and give him a flight in a Lancair???? Earl Lawrence deserves our gratitude for standing up for our interests in this issue. Charlie K. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C6D27C.649BFD40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To me it looks as if the EAA is = trying to stay on top of this issue.  I am not sure about AOPA although I would think they would be very instrumental = when combined with the EAA to take the lead roles.  As members we should stay = abreast and become vocal when the time comes.  I hope EAA and AOPA will let us know when and how we should do = this.

 

Anyone out there connected to the = higher management of these organizations that can get us more a structured = strategy?  The FAA can not win this = one!  If SoCal gets this it is only = time before it goes country wide!

 

Bryan

N132BB

LNCE

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing = List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On = Behalf Of Charlie Kohler
Sent: Thursday, September = 07, 2006 12:27 PM
To: Lancair Mailing = List
Subject: [LML] = Overflight

 


 

To those who might have = missed it: 

3D"EAA 

3D"News

September 1, 2006    Volume 6, Number 42

 

 

A TREMENDOUSLY = IMPORTANT issue regarding Experimental overflight is rearing it's ugly head = AGAIN!

SoCal (Probably Riverside = FSDO) wants to prohibit ALL experimentals from flying in the LA = basin.

As it now stands-- You are = issued Operating Limitation with the following statement in =

 

Phase I

 

(5) Except for takeoffs and landings, this aircraft may = not be operated over densely populated areas or in congested = airways.

 

Western = Pacfic Region has pressed for total prohibition on experimentals. =

 FAA has given them recognition of their concern by adding a second statement in = Phase 2

 

PHASE II

 

(9) This aircraft is prohibited from operating in = congested airways or over densely populated areas unless directed by Air Traffic = Control, or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency = landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or = property on the surface."

 

Apparently this is not = enough and now "they" want the right to chose the route if not ban access entirely!

 

"According to FAA = orders, once an Experimental/Exhibition aircraft receives its operating limitations = that allow flights over densely populated areas for takeoffs and landings, a = FSDO inspector can direct pilots to plan arrival and departure routes that = avoid those areas whenever possible, but not ban all overflights = completely. In addition, Experimental/Exhibition category aircraft operating = limitations and airworthiness certificates remain the same regardless of where the = airplane is based. Instituting restrictions at individual airports or regions = creates a patchwork of regulations and policies across the nation that could be = nearly impossible to follow."

(emphis = added)

 

This is the FAA's effort to = mediate the efforts of the Western Region to ban all flight into certain = airports. They have said "you can control the routes but you cannot ban = experimentals entirely.

 

 

Do you think it would be = helpful if we could identify the "FSDO inspector " who believes these restrictions are appropiate and invite him to a EAA meeting-inspect = several projects in progress --and give him a flight in a = Lancair????

 

Earl Lawrence deserves our gratitude for standing up for our interests in this = issue.

 

Charlie = K.

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C6D27C.649BFD40--