X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:19:36 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mtao03.charter.net ([209.225.8.188] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.7f) with ESMTP id 950327 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:37:30 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.8.188; envelope-from=farnsworth@charter.net Received: from mxip22-10.charter.net ([10.20.202.72]) by mtao03.charter.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.04 201-2131-123-105-20051025) with ESMTP id <20060123143642.PSLI3657.mtao03.charter.net@mxip22-10.charter.net> for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:42 -0500 Received: from 71-12-160-183.dhcp.gwnt.ga.charter.com (HELO Farnsworth) ([71.12.160.183]) by mxip22-10.charter.net with SMTP; 23 Jan 2006 09:36:43 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAA+k= From: "Farnsworth" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Runway checks, passes, flybys. X-Original-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:37:22 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C62000.9C68F1D0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C62000.9C68F1D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeff, I think you have a bit of a case of having your "hair on fire" here. You cite several regulations that support limiting what a person can or can not do with an airplane. I know that you know that the FAA's definition of aerobatic flight is fairly restrictive ( have you ever exceeded 60 degrees of bank with a passenger on board, without parachutes? ). If you have, was that in and of itself unsafe? It was in violation of the rule. I didn't see where George advocated being unsafe. I think both he and I have done a great deal of flying where "speed is life" was the rule of the day. The FAA rules allow 200 KTS in the airspace around an airport. Since you were quoting rules to show that he is unsafe, I guess if he doesn't exceed 200 KTS he is within the rules and by definition, safe. Would flying an ILS low approach followed by an acceleration to 200 KTS to a closed pattern to a full stop landing be considered unsafe? I don't think so. Stupid is stupid, but speed does not itself make stupid. Lynn Farnsworth Super Legacy #235 TSIO-550 Race #44 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C62000.9C68F1D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jeff,

I=20 think you have a bit of a case of having your "hair on fire" here.=20

You=20 cite several regulations that support limiting what a person can or can = not do=20 with an airplane. I know that you know that the FAA's definition of = aerobatic=20 flight is fairly restrictive ( have you ever exceeded 60 degrees of bank = with a=20 passenger on board, without parachutes? ). If you have, was that in and = of=20 itself unsafe? It was in violation of the = rule.

I=20 didn't see where George advocated being unsafe. I think both he and = I have=20 done a great deal of flying where "speed is life" was the rule of = the=20 day.

The=20 FAA rules allow 200 KTS in the airspace around an airport. Since = you were=20 quoting rules to show that he is unsafe, I guess if he doesn't = exceed 200=20 KTS he is within the rules and by definition, safe.

Would=20 flying an ILS low approach followed by an acceleration to 200 KTS to a = closed=20 pattern to a full stop landing be considered unsafe? I don't think=20 so.

Stupid=20 is stupid, but speed does not itself make stupid.

Lynn=20 Farnsworth

Super=20 Legacy #235

TSIO-550

Race=20 #44

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C62000.9C68F1D0--