Clarification on
RV- 12 E-LSA Story
IN THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
of the article,;“Van’s RV-12: Here they
come,” [November 2009] the author
states a fundamental error in his
understanding of the experimental
light-sport aircraft (E-LSA) category.
He states, “While LSA rules dictate
that all E-LSA must comply exactly
with the factory-built S-LSA ship….”
While this is true at the time of FAA
or DAR inspection, the minute the
builder is issued the airworthiness
certificate, he is free to do anything
he wishes with his airplane to con-
duct his experiment. As Edsel Ford, of
the FAA Light Sport Aviation Branch,
told me when I asked for clarification
of this issue several years ago,
“Experimental is experimental.”
Please clarify this for your readers.
_
Rick Girard, EAA 597933
Udall, Kansas
Concerned About
Airplane Jacks Article
I JUST READ THE Shop Talk article in
November EAA Sport Aviation and
wish to point out a dangerous situa-
tion. In the picture on page 98 a
Mooney is being raised o; the
ground by its tie-down rings while
the tail is secured by a chain attached
to the hangar floor. While the idea of
building your own jacks is a great
way to save money, the example
being used is very dangerous.
Mooney intends the tie-down ring to
be removed from the wing and spe-
cial jack points to be installed in the
same hole. I would doubt that the
tie-down rings were ever designed to
have such loads imposed on them.
Raising an airplane to work on the
gear means crawling under the plane
to do the work. If the tie-down ring
were to fail, the airplane could be
damaged and a person hurt or killed
by the falling airplane.
_
Clarence Beintema, EAA 289571
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Loved “Milk and Cookies”
IT GETS A LIT TLE tiresome reading
about people considering themselves
just average members of the popula-
tion with an extraordinary love for
airplanes getting their private pilot
license on their earliest birthday of
eligibility, going on to fly frontline
fighters and 747s, etc. Most people
have no such possibility, and reading
Marv Trana’s EAA Voices piece
[November 2009] was a breath of
fresh air. Well done, Marv; you made
me feel good by sharing your story.
_
Bob Axsom, EAA 370326
Farmington, Arizona
Acknowledging a Good Deed
RECENTLY AN ELDERLY GENTLEMAN
knocked over a fire hydrant on the
back side of the hangar where my
son and I are building a Van’s RV- 8 at
the Torrance Municipal Airport in
California. ;e result was a 30- to
60-foot high geyser of water;that
spewed for 15 to 30 minutes. My
hangar sustained most of the dam-
age, with a lot of water entering and
flooding the floors. We had a set of
new, unused Mid-Continent 2-inch
standby instruments mounted in a
panel sitting on an elevated shelf, a
value of close to $10,000. ;ey
were drenched. I contacted Mid-
Continent West at Van Nuys Airport
and asked for help. ;ey said bring
them in; we’ll dry them and inspect
and repair any damage. Several days
later I received a phone call saying
the instruments were fine, and fully
dried out. When I inquired as to the
cost for drying and inspecting, Mid-
Continent said, “Sounds like you
were trying to be nice, so we’re going
to be nice to you; there’s no charge.”
;is was a very kind act on the part
of Matt and the Mid-Continent
organization.
_
Jim Piper, EAA 775974
Palos Verdes Estates, California
Editor’s Note: Please visit the link on
www.SportAviation.org to see the correct method of jacking a Mooney.
Recently, the FAA approached EAA for input on a new draft policy memorandum entitled “Through-the-Fence and On-Airport
Residential Access to Federally Obligated Airports.” To gather information on this subject, EAA reached out to members and published
the memo and a call for comments in the Hangar Talk forum at
Oshkosh365. We’ve received dozens of responses so far, including a
short video from Jerry and Barbara Norcia that does an excellent job
of outlining the Through-The-Fence (TTF) situation.
Here are some of the member reactions. Log onto
www.Oshkosh365.org
to share your opinions.
... T TF arrangements have been good for M17. Watchful eyes by good T TF neighbors…provide
our best security against vandals and terrorists… DON BAKE
T TF should be the privy of the airport manager and owner of the facility. This regulation does
not increase security or accomplish anything except further burden airport operations and
cost the taxpayer for increased oversight. Let the airports manage their own a;airs… GENE
DAVIDSON
Having a home, plane, and hangar is a dream many have worked for all our lives…residen-tial airparks may be the first to fall, but then the Feds will go after commercial T TF operations
(FBO’s, etc.) demanding higher fees, silly “security measures,” etc. We need less intrusion
into our lives by the FAA, not more. Residential airparks are actually an airport’s best friend in
most cases: Their residents usually act as ambassadors for GA…and their properties act as
bu;ers between noisy airports and surrounding communities.;FAA needs to focus on…
important things…(for example fixing a fragile ATC system that keeps people on taxiways in
airliners for 8 hours)… TERR Y MCKINNE Y
How incredibly ridiculous and short-sighted to take people who love airports;and airplane
noise and force them to move away to another field to enjoy their passion and move people
in who hate airports and airplane noise.;Typical federal bureaucracy at work… TERRY BLACK
Only at Part 121 airports is there a question of incompatible land use from an adjacent residential airpark. There is no evidence that any residential airparks have been proposed or
developed adjacent to or on any Part 121 airport… DAVE SCLAIR
The FAA says it has spent more than 300 million dollars through this grant to buy houses and
land around airports to protect airports from noise complaints. I must then ask why the FAA is
trying to eliminate airpark communities that not only don’t complain about airport noise, but
are enthusiastically supportive of their airports… RORY HANSEN
Here at KPAN we have industrial as well as residential T TF operations. At last count we had
about 45 aircraft o; airport property, three-quarters in the residential airpark… If the airpark
residents were to be denied access they would find another airport. There would still be the
residences in the same place so nothing would be solved… If there was a safety factor then
the FAA could not in good conscience approve private airparks on the same basis that it
would deny T TF for publicly funded airports… If the FAA starts going backwards and denying
access I believe there will be more lawsuits than the FAA can handle… T TF operations from
the residential airpark have been a big asset to the airport... These types of operations should
be encouraged to bring more support to the publicly funded airports as opposed to pushing
them to the private airparks... DON HOWELL
