Thought u would be filling sandbags Mike...........

Moose! It's what's for dinner!

They didn't care much for the ratchet straps...

I LIKE that external load!! Dang, I musta missed out on those....

No sandbags for this kid. Red Lake River peaked last Saturday or Sunday night. No flooding here this year it seems. Fargo, on the other hand...may.

MTV

You guys working under 133 for that stuff? The fsdo said something to the effect of "you just can't hang any @#$%&* thing you want on an airplane and go fly". It only got worse after that. Just a fair warning for posting photos on the web.

Pics were 30 yrs ago.......different rules then. Statute of limitations surely up by now

The photo I posted was in Alaska, where there is a clear and intelligent Alaska Region FAA policy on carriage of external loads on fixed wing airplanes. The boat on the 206 was totally legal, and FAA approved, and NOT 30 years ago.

MTV

Working for the feds or OAS u probably didn't need FAA approval anyway.

mtv wrote:The photo I posted was in Alaska, where there is a clear and intelligent Alaska Region FAA policy on carriage of external loads on fixed wing airplanes. The boat on the 206 was totally legal, and FAA approved, and NOT 30 years ago.

MTV

Don,

When I first started with them we pretty much did what we wanted, and we flew some "interesting" modifications and loads in our airplanes. Lately, the outfit got tighter and tighter to the point where everything had to pass at least Part 91 muster, with a sprinkling of 135 requirements.

In the "good old days" there were some interesting beasts flying around out there.

MTV

Figured as much, just wanted to save some folks a headache that I sure didn't enjoy.

mtv wrote:Don,

When I first started with them we pretty much did what we wanted, and we flew some "interesting" modifications and loads in our airplanes. Lately, the outfit got tighter and tighter to the point where everything had to pass at least the equivalent to Part 91 muster, with a sprinkling of the equivalent to 135 requirements.

In the "good old days" there were some interesting beasts flying around out there.

MTV

Lest anyone besides me care about the details

Richard,

My point in using that terminology is that some of our aircraft were subject to FAR Part 91 rules, others were not subject to the FAR's at all, since they were "public aircraft". Largely because the public aircraft rules changed a lot several years ago, we pretty much opted to follow the regulations voluntarily. If your airplane isn't subject to FAR 91 or 135, however, you basically follow those rules "equivalently". Technicality, but...the public aircraft subject is FULL of technicalities, believe me.

Bottom line is that the days of just doing whatever you like, just because your airplane is owned by a government agency are gone. Even public aircraft have to toe a few lines, and if you don't the FAA can still come knocking. So far, all agencies I'm aware of have really cleaned up their programs to the point where they essentially comply with at least 91, if not 135.

The outfit I worked for still have at least one uncertified airplane and a couple with "non tso'd" instruments, and operate a very few airplanes in excess of their certificated gross weight under an FAA issued waiver, but for the most part, they've adopted most 135 regs as policy and the FAA is well aware of anything that's done, even to the "public aircraft".

MTV

The only twin engine Beaver I ever saw...

Give it to Dale! He'll fly it...

Today I flew out some lumber for a buddy who is building a new dock at his remote cottage. There were more short pieces in the plane too. Total of 11 pieces of 2x10 x 10'. It flew well with the fairly low drag lumber on the struts and no yaw problems as the load was balanced on each side. One more load to go.