GumpAir wrote:

mtv wrote:Gump--I would argue that your assertion that FAR 135 is somehow different than part 91 operations, and therefore 91 operations should be much free-er of regulations is essentially wrong.

As a 91 pilot, you or I (well okay--somebody with mucho cash anyway) can get in a Cessna Caravan, load up 9 or so of our neighbors and go fly into the Utah backcountry on a screaming hot day, late in the afternoon, and try to land on a short strip. The only difference is under 91, we'd be killing them for free, whereas under 135, they pay to get killed.

I look at same as I do the school bus analogy. Would you want your own personal passenger vehicles and driver's license regulated the same as commercial vehicles and operators? Same mechanical inspections, log books, weight stations, etc, etc, etc... Not me. Be like Russia or Nazi Germany as you drove down the road. And I view my airplane the same way. Fly for hire is one thing, but personal transportation is different.

The guy who gets whacked on a hot day is stupid, and all the rules in the world won't make him un-stupid. There's always gonna be dumb pilots out there, both in the private and commercial sector.

Gump

Well said. And to paraphrase Forrest Gump..."You can't regulate stupid".

GumpAir wrote:

mtv wrote:Gump--I would argue that your assertion that FAR 135 is somehow different than part 91 operations, and therefore 91 operations should be much free-er of regulations is essentially wrong.

.

The guy who gets whacked on a hot day is stupid, and all the rules in the world won't make him un-stupid. There's always gonna be dumb pilots out there, both in the private and commercial sector.

Gump

There aint no fixing Stupid

Danny Boy wrote:

GumpAir wrote:

mtv wrote:Gump--I would argue that your assertion that FAR 135 is somehow different than part 91 operations, and therefore 91 operations should be much free-er of regulations is essentially wrong.

As a 91 pilot, you or I (well okay--somebody with mucho cash anyway) can get in a Cessna Caravan, load up 9 or so of our neighbors and go fly into the Utah backcountry on a screaming hot day, late in the afternoon, and try to land on a short strip. The only difference is under 91, we'd be killing them for free, whereas under 135, they pay to get killed.

I look at same as I do the school bus analogy. Would you want your own personal passenger vehicles and driver's license regulated the same as commercial vehicles and operators? Same mechanical inspections, log books, weight stations, etc, etc, etc... Not me. Be like Russia or Nazi Germany as you drove down the road. And I view my airplane the same way. Fly for hire is one thing, but personal transportation is different.

The guy who gets whacked on a hot day is stupid, and all the rules in the world won't make him un-stupid. There's always gonna be dumb pilots out there, both in the private and commercial sector.

Gump

Well said. And to paraphrase Forrest Gump..."You can't regulate stupid".

Damn I missed it by = that much

Gump,

The point is that your original assertion was that part 91 shouldn't be regulated at all:

"Oh, I know quite well, and the vast, vast majority of my flying has been under Part 135. That's a whole diffrent mind-set, and whole different attitude. As it should be. I have no right to risk innocent folks as passengers, and there's a reason for that part of aviation to be very black and white. I take great pride in my professionalism as a pilot, and skill level, and had good working relationships with all the Feds I worked with up north.

Part 91 on the other hand... That's me. By myself, or with co-conspirators. Different rules and different attitude.

School bus driver with a load of kids, or a guy by himself racing across the desert. Apples and oranges."

And, my point was that you are just flat wrong. For example, you flew in Alaska, correct? Ever hear of the Arco Shuttle? Part 91 in B 737's. So, how's your school bus analogy compare to that?

As I noted, I COULD jump in a Navajo and haul nine people anywhere at all, and kill the whole shootin match, under 91, just like the 135 guys.

I'm not suggesting that Part 91 ops should meet the same standards as 135. I'm saying that not all 91 operators are "a guy by himself racing across the desert". In fact, not by a long shot.

So, what ARE you suggesting? No regs for Part 91 at all? After all, "you can't regulate stupid", right? Of course, the same applies to driving cars, trucks, FAR 135 operations, and, by the way--school buses.

Are you suggesting we all should be able to just go out, no pilot certificate, no training, no regulations at all, and fly to our little heart's content? That would, in very short order, be the end of general aviation in this country, I'm convinced.

If you want to rip around the desert all by yourself in your little airplane, fine. But if that's all you do with an airplane, you are certainly the exception, not the rule.

MTV

mtv wrote:So, what ARE you suggesting? No regs for Part 91 at all? After all, "you can't regulate stupid", right? Of course, the same applies to driving cars, trucks, FAR 135 operations, and, by the way--school buses.

Are you suggesting we all should be able to just go out, no pilot certificate, no training, no regulations at all, and fly to our little heart's content? That would, in very short order, be the end of general aviation in this country, I'm convinced.

If you want to rip around the desert all by yourself in your little airplane, fine. But if that's all you do with an airplane, you are certainly the exception, not the rule.
MTV

Right on !

Even in the backcountry 91 and 135 operations cross paths. 206s and Ilanders carry passengers in and out of the same strips. So what kind of system would it be if there was no regulation on non 135 flying?

Unless you own your own strip and opearate only in and out of that or off airport opearations in the middle of the desert, you have the potential to injury others and damge property.

How much risk was associated with the search for Steve Fosset? Or other rescue workers searching for lost airplanes?

BTW, cars and non CDL drivers are subject to much of same laws and regulations. The difference between what is required for a bus or truck is pretty minor if you look at all of the safety and DMV codes.

Everytime I see the news story about the "future" and someone has tha flying car to help solve the traffic problems I cringe. Most of the people on the road should not be driving and for my money we would be a lot better off if they had to have a medical to drive car. And they want to give these people flying cars? Would require a lot of regulations to weed out those would just buy one othese babies and start commuting.

It is self centered to think the risks of flying are only to ourselves.

mtv wrote:So, what ARE you suggesting? No regs for Part 91 at all? After all, "you can't regulate stupid", right? Of course, the same applies to driving cars, trucks, FAR 135 operations, and, by the way--school buses.

Are you suggesting we all should be able to just go out, no pilot certificate, no training, no regulations at all, and fly to our little heart's content? That would, in very short order, be the end of general aviation in this country, I'm convinced.

You guys are COMPLETELY missing my point. The whole start of this thread was a private pilot flying a broken airplane home after a field fix, and not being officially returned to service by an A&P, and the fear and dread that ensued over what enforcement action the FAA would take.

My point is, that if this was a guy out in the boonies who broke the steering in his pickup truck, and cobbled the thing together with bailing wire and a friend's welder, he'd be perfectly legal to drive home. On the road, oncoming traffic, the whole nine yards. Free to keep it that way until he drove the wheels off the thing. In my opinion, a whole lot more dangerous than what happened with the C182.

I am NOT talking about doing away with pilot certification, or training, or minimum standards, nothing like that. That'd be like doing away with driver's licenses, rules of the road, and not having the highway patrol out there to enforce it all. That's stupid.

I am talking about maintenance issues with private airplanes vs. commercial airplanes, and the freedom I see missing to equip and work on my own airplane as I see fit within reason. The key word is reason.

This has nothing to do with Navajos or Caravans, or even Part 91 B737's. What it has to do is with $750 for an oil guage for a '59 Cessna 182, when a $19.95 model from Napa is the identical part from the same manufacturer. A grand for a Delco starter vs $29.95, and god help you if you get caught with el cheapo. Air Gizmo dock? Why are we having pages of discussion about putting one in the panel of a 50 year old Cessna. No law says I can't put one in my car, what's the damn difference just because it's an airplane.

I think Big Brother is insane, and we're all like the characters in the Emperor's New Clothes, pretending not to see anything out of place. The king is naked folks, and you get looked at funny if you say anything.

Gump

My point is, that if this was a guy out in the boonies who broke the steering in his pickup truck, and cobbled the thing together with bailing wire and a friend's welder, he'd be perfectly legal to drive home. On the road, oncoming traffic, the whole nine yards. Free to keep it that way until he drove the wheels off the thing. In my opinion, a whole lot more dangerous than what happened with the C182.

Are you kidding? There are plenty of laws regarding the physical condition of private cars and trucks. If the guy with the PU crossed the line and killed someone and they found that the cause of the accident was his cobbled repair, he would do hard time in most states. Tires, steering, brakes, lights and a number of other issues are requirements, not options on all on road motor vehicles.

I am NOT talking about doing away with pilot certification, or training, or minimum standards, nothing like that. That'd be like doing away with driver's licenses, rules of the road, and not having the highway patrol out there to enforce it all. That's stupid.

So what do we keep? Who decides what is required?

I am talking about maintenance issues with private airplanes vs. commercial airplanes, and the freedom I see missing to equip and work on my own airplane as I see fit within reason. The key word is reason. This has nothing to do with Navajos or Caravans, or even Part 91 B737's. What it has to do is with $750 for an oil guage for a '59 Cessna 182, when a $19.95 model from Napa is the identical part from the same manufacturer. A grand for a Delco starter vs $29.95, and god help you if you get caught with el cheapo. Air Gizmo dock? Why are we having pages of discussion about putting one in the panel of a 50 year old Cessna. No law says I can't put one in my car, what's the damn difference just because it's an airplane.Gump

Well, we do agree on this one, there is a serious need to find a way to get new parts on old aiplanes. Much of the old stuff is not as good as the new stuff and we cannot use it. Parts do makeup the plane and with the Chinnese, Mexicans and everyone else making so many auto parts it is hard to know what is good and what it bad.

Gump,

Consider that if the fellow had field repaired his 182, flew it home, and upon landing lost control of the plane due to a failed repair, then crashed into.....

Basically, the consequences of litigation would be far worse than anything the FAA could do to him.

I've seen some "field repairs" flown home that scared me bad. On one, a Super Cub wing FELL off upon landing. The only thing holding it on was the wing root fairing and the struts. The pilot thought it looked okay after he hit a tree with it.....

Similar deal for a pilot I knew who flew a wounded 206 from the Bethel area to ANC for repairs instead of taking it to Bethel like he was supposed to. Thought he'd save the outfit some money. The one wing was held on by a thread. He was lucky--no turbulence going over the Range that day.

So, who decides when it's okay to do your own thing? You? Me?

That's why we have mechanics. Nowadays, with cell phones, sat phones and all such, it is really not that hard to acquire a ferry permit. And, if you have to camp a day or two waiting?? Why were you out there in the first place--recreation, right?

Anyway, as I mentioned, the insurance industry regulates aviation nowadays, not the FAA.

MTV

GumpAir wrote:

mtv wrote:So, what ARE you suggesting? No regs for Part 91 at all? After all, "you can't regulate stupid", right? Of course, the same applies to driving cars, trucks, FAR 135 operations, and, by the way--school buses.

Are you suggesting we all should be able to just go out, no pilot certificate, no training, no regulations at all, and fly to our little heart's content? That would, in very short order, be the end of general aviation in this country, I'm convinced.

You guys are COMPLETELY missing my point. The whole start of this thread was a private pilot flying a broken airplane home after a field fix, and not being officially returned to service by an A&P, and the fear and dread that ensued over what enforcement action the FAA would take.

My point is, that if this was a guy out in the boonies who broke the steering in his pickup truck, and cobbled the thing together with bailing wire and a friend's welder, he'd be perfectly legal to drive home. On the road, oncoming traffic, the whole nine yards. Free to keep it that way until he drove the wheels off the thing. In my opinion, a whole lot more dangerous than what happened with the C182.

I am NOT talking about doing away with pilot certification, or training, or minimum standards, nothing like that. That'd be like doing away with driver's licenses, rules of the road, and not having the highway patrol out there to enforce it all. That's stupid.

I am talking about maintenance issues with private airplanes vs. commercial airplanes, and the freedom I see missing to equip and work on my own airplane as I see fit within reason. The key word is reason.

This has nothing to do with Navajos or Caravans, or even Part 91 B737's. What it has to do is with $750 for an oil guage for a '59 Cessna 182, when a $19.95 model from Napa is the identical part from the same manufacturer. A grand for a Delco starter vs $29.95, and god help you if you get caught with el cheapo. Air Gizmo dock? Why are we having pages of discussion about putting one in the panel of a 50 year old Cessna. No law says I can't put one in my car, what's the damn difference just because it's an airplane.

I think Big Brother is insane, and we're all like the characters in the Emperor's New Clothes, pretending not to see anything out of place. The king is naked folks, and you get looked at funny if you say anything.

Gump

Or you guys could build an experimental, apply and receive a repairmens certificate from the feds. You are now the pilot, inspector, mechanic, test pilot,prosecutor, defense attorney and defendant... All wrapped up in one nice package. The point I am trying to make this is one of the main reasons 25% of single engine aircraft flying in the world are "experimental". As close to a [ get out of jail free] card I can think of.

ps, I hope it all works out for the offending pilot..

Tailwinds guys,,,,, and gals

Stol wrote:Or you guys could build an experimental, apply and receive a repairmens certificate from the feds. You are now the pilot, inspector, mechanic, test pilot,prosecutor, defense attorney and defendant... All wrapped up in one nice package.

This is an excellent point, which makes one wonder why we're flying around 50 year old certified aircraft. Is it really so much better to have that type certificate helping us sleep at night? Where does the balance of the peace-of-mind of a certified aircraft meet the convenience of an experimental? After the first knuckle-rapping from the FAA I imagine...

quicksilver wrote:

Stol wrote:Or you guys could build an experimental, apply and receive a repairmens certificate from the feds. You are now the pilot, inspector, mechanic, test pilot,prosecutor, defense attorney and defendant... All wrapped up in one nice package.

This is an excellent point, which makes one wonder why we're flying around 50 year old certified aircraft. Is it really so much better to have that type certificate helping us sleep at night? Where does the balance of the peace-of-mind of a certified aircraft meet the convenience of an experimental? After the first knuckle-rapping from the FAA I imagine...

Your flying a 50 year old airplane because there are builders and flyer's, very few of us are builders and flyer's.

I am on my third RV, great airplanes land and take off in 300 FT and go 200 MPH.

If you want all the privileges mentioned above you have to build it yourself, so far there's over 30,000 exp aircraft flying.

Most of you dont want to spend 2000hrs building a airplane that's a lot of time not flying

I've owned two experimental airplanes....


....a Pitts and a Skybolt. Didn't build either of them. It was alway fun when asked about "what are you doing or can you do that?''

I'd point to" Experimental" on the side of the airplane and answer...experimenting!"

I own a Maule now....but experimental airplanes are the cheapest ticket to the sky. Come to think of it; the Maule is the closest thing to an experimental airplane I can think of!!

Bob

Hate to rain on your freedom to fly a field repair home parade but I think the FAA will throw the book at this guy. Why you ask?

1. He wasnt in the boonies. Got a road going to the strip.
2. Field repair is for when your at some place in accessable and you have to fix it to get home. Like Don and Noel etc.
3. Probaly could of gotten away with flying it to McCall and leaving it but then to take off again ???

I could care less what this guy did or anybody else but when I first read it I had to read it again because I thought it was a joke.

The rules for ferrying an experimental category airplane are the same as they are for a normal category airplane. You have to have a repairman make a temporary repair.

Then, the repairman has to contact the FSDO with jurisdiction and get a telephonic ferry permit.

Even with an experimental category airplane, a ferry permit would be required, and those come from a FSDO. The only difference is that the builder of an experimental may be the repairman.

I've ferried a couple of broken airplanes out of some pretty remote places, but only after an IA that I really trust inspected them and assured me they'd do fine.

That is why some folks work so hard to acquire the skills and knowledge to possess those repairman certificates.

I for one don't want their jobs

MTV

So what happened, looks like i missed it...

Tom

Yea what were all of the regs that he busted that you guys keep talking about? I don't really see anything wrong with what he did, don't know that I would do the same, just depends on all of the circumstances at the time.

Geez, and I thought that it was just retreiver club folks that like to argue for the sake of arguing................. This thread sure seems to be getting out of hand....folks seeing what they want to see in posts and folks refusing to acknowledge that there could be a point different from their own...folks trying to put words in other's mouths, etc. It is intertaining though.... Just love watching folks take themselves too serious......if you watch long enough, the usually fall off their soapbox because of their rigidity when they won't admit that anyone else could also be correct in any way

GumpAir wrote:
There's a few of us left who still believe that this is a free country, and we have the right to take risks and push our limits as long as we aren't hurting anyone else. I'm sure that my thinking is old-fashioned and outdated in today's Big Brother world, but so be it. Be a cold day in hell before I tuck my tail and grovel in front of some petty bureaucrat for doing something I feel I have the right to do. Catch me... Fine. Apologize, no.

And it's a Darwinian thing too. I've survived a whole lot of years, and a whole lot of hours in some pretty harsh places. Foolish and reckless hours, no. I've never put a scratch on an airplane. But on my own, and not really concerned about rules made up a long, long ways away and by people not sitting in an airplane with me, yes.

Gump

Gump, I think the key concept a few folks are either not seeing or are ignoring in your post is the very important part of "as long as we aren't hurting anyone else". I also believe that, as long as I'm not huring anyone else, it shouldn't be anyone else's business. Unfortunately, there are lots of folks that were never taught that their business stopped at the end of their nose. These are the do-gooders that cause problems for everyone else. And the last thing I want to hear at my door is, "Hi, I'm from the government (insert any branch or office) and I'm here to help you!" We are already being helped to death.

mtv wrote:The rules for ferrying an experimental category airplane are the same as they are for a normal category airplane. You have to have a repairman make a temporary repair.

Then, the repairman has to contact the FSDO with jurisdiction and get a telephonic ferry permit.

Even with an experimental category airplane, a ferry permit would be required, and those come from a FSDO. The only difference is that the builder of an experimental may be the repairman.

I've ferried a couple of broken airplanes out of some pretty remote places, but only after an IA that I really trust inspected them and assured me they'd do fine.

MTV

You might be a little off on your rules for homebuilts and modifications done by the builder and Repairmens cert holder... I have met a few IA's who have been "less then competent". You would figure that if they were blessed by the feds they would be qualified. Ya know the same feds that might barbaque this other pilot.. :<(..

That is why some folks work so hard to acquire the skills and knowledge to possess those repairman certificates.

STOL,

You will notice that in my statement I adopted at least PART of Gump's philosophy, by stating that I ferried airplanes after an IA that I trusted (and by the way who was also FAA certified) inspected it, and determined it could be ferried safely .

I don't believe the ferry after damage regs are any different for Exp aircraft. It may well be that the "repairman" may be the person who built the plane, and therefore not hold an A and P certificate, but they would hold repairmans authority for THAT aircraft, which is the same thing.

Nonetheless, you can't fly an airplane that's been damaged legally without a ferry permit, issued by the FAA. That's the reg, and the path to acquiring it is quite clear.

An Experimental certified aircraft is subject to all the same rules as a normal category aircraft once it's completed and issued an airworthiness cert. The one difference is you can't use it for compensation or hire, except in very restricted circumstances.

MTV