Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 99 of 99

Thread: New small airplane laws may allow owner Owner Maintenance!!!

  1. #91

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    wichita ks
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    As someone pointed out: where did this come from? I don't recall seeing an answer on that.
    I answered it a couple of times Steve - in fact it's on the first page of this thread.

  2. #92
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    All I see on the first page is a vague comment about "a group within the FAA" that's rewriting the small airplane regulations.

    Evidently there is an FAA group rewriting the small aircraft laws.
    Which group specifically?

    Then you make a comment that sounds like you don't know who is behind it:

    Great Job EAA!!!!!!!!!! (or whomever is doing this!!!)
    You also claim to have just randomly found it on a message board:
    I saw this on another message board – after reading it I am really excited and had to post it! I attached the file to this post, hopefully it works.
    Which one?

    ....or was it a mailing list?
    Being new here I am not sure if I am doing it right. Unfortunately I can;t point you to a webpage because this actually came off a Beech mail list I am on
    Better yet, how did you learn of this before any of the major alphabet organizations did?

    I call BS on this until we're given some actual information and not just the runaround by someone whose story seems to shift considerably each time he "answers" the question.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  3. #93

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    algonquin il
    Posts
    38
    Wow Steve - you sure know how to make friends. You seem to insult people all across these boards - maybe you should find a new hobby where being nice to people is not required.

    That being said, I don't think that the Beechboy knows where this came from beyond the message board he got it from. However, owner MX was a subject on the agenda at the last ARC meeting. EAA and AOPA government relations, NATCA and whole host of type clubs are aware of it and discussing it. Whether or not they are in favor of it, I will let them speak for themselves.

    Now Steve - go take a Dale Carnegie class... Beechboy I sent you a private message, please contact me.

  4. #94
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    You seem to insult people all across these boards -
    You call it insulting people. I call it being honest and not blowing smoke just to avoid ruffling feathers. The problem is that with the lack of tone of voice inherent in internet forums what is said one way (bluntly) comes across as a totally separate one when it's said in person or on the phone.

    maybe you should find a new hobby where being nice to people is not required.
    Last time I checked aviation didn't require being all sunshine and rainbows to people either. I mean there are a lot of very successful people in the ranks of aviation who make me seem like Mahatma Gandhi.

    Now Steve - go take a Dale Carnegie class.
    I call it like I see it. There's no stipulation that I have to kiss the butt of everyone I cross paths with. If you seriously think I've got an attitude problem beyond just a low tolerance for indecisiveness and possible BS coupled with a means of communication that makes it difficult at times to interpret intent, then I guess you've got a problem and well....no offense but deal with it until July and we can sort it out over a beer or something. I'll be bringing a couple of cases since I think I've offered a bottle to just about everyone on here at one time or another. There are a lot of folks on this forum that I originally thought were abrasive or prickly (Hi Frank!) until I got a chance to talk to them.

    I don't think that the Beechboy knows where this came from beyond the message board he got it from.
    Well, then he needed to say that. When he gives conflicting stories about something that no one seemed quite sure of who wrote the "proposal" we were presented with, it makes it seem as though the source (in this case "Beechboy") may be feeding us a line. Even if he had just said "Well, I found it over on AOPA forums/PoA/Purple Board/etc...." it would have been much simpler and reliable than a vague non-committal answer that appeared to change several times.

    That said, if that came across as excessively harsh, my apologies. My point was just to get to the bottom of where this came from and to point out that Beech hadn't really answered my question like he thought he had. That said, now that the origins/implications of the document have been ascertained, Beech, my apologies for being so freaking harsh. Sometimes that "in G-d we trust, everyone else bring ****ing data" mantra that I've had drilled into my head during my tenure in research tends to get the better of me.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  5. #95

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Barrington, IL
    Posts
    121
    Everyone else,

    Based on the style and format this is likely a draft from a rules making committee. This may have come from industry, one of the alphabet groups, or FAA. There is no way to tell for sure. The call to action is to 1). read the proposal. 2). if you are an owner / operator of a certified aircraft and you believe this proposal to be beneficial lend your support.

    Thank-you.
    Last edited by Hal Bryan; 04-15-2012 at 09:17 PM.

  6. #96
    EAA Staff / Moderator Hal Bryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    1,296
    REMINDER: No personal attacks guys (the previous post has been trimmed.)

    Hal Bryan
    EAA Lifetime 638979
    Vintage 714005 | Warbirds 553527
    Managing Editor
    EAA—The Spirit of Aviation

  7. #97
    A&P still has to annual it though.

  8. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by David Darnell View Post
    Not entirely sure that it's a good idea- have seen too many pilots whose mechanical knowledge is (in generous terms) extremely limited at best
    Having seen some of the lousy work done in shops by A&Ps I'd hate to think everyone relies on them as gospel.......

  9. #99

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    I am skeptical as the goverment rarely does anything without a long term hidden agenda.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •