Recent content by Stevel

That would be Brian with a "Y", right?

Hang on a minute guys. I gotta make some more popcorn.

I don't think you have posted enough information to identify yourself, so just stop posting under this account name.

I don't see any hint of an omission. I read it as the FAA already having that information.

A couple of SLSA planes that I have flown (same model) would return to near center but not all the way. Most pilots of that model reported that theirs did not exhibit that problem. I suspect that there may have been something out of adjustment.

My girth, heft, and curmudgeonly disposition. (2008-present)

I bought a 20 YO Challenger II kit that had very little work done on it. If you account for general inflation in the economy, or compare to the current price for one from the factory, I paid pennies on the dollar. I am the third owner of that kit and know a little bit about both that came...

There is also the issue of expensive cutting-edge tech becoming the inexpensive old stuff on your dime.

I get that. As long as you intend to elaborate when you get the opportunity, I don't see that I have any reason to worry about it right now.

Ryan, APOLOGIES FOR WHAT I POSTED. I TRIED TO START A PM CONVERSATION, BUT INITIATED CHAT INSTEAD. Please clarify what you meant, whether it is for the first time, or a duplicate.

I resemble those remarks.

I was just confused about why you would quote my post to say something about changing Basic Med, as it was not part of that discussion.

These back and forth posts came from the night flying part seeming to require Basic Med in the language of the section, but the discussion part of the document about that subject seeming to point to granting the ability to earn that privilege to SP in general. Basic Med comes up a lot in the...

What I am seeing is a discussion that says they are going to do one thing and the proposed addition doing something else. I am specifically referring to the language about conflicts in each.

Thank you. That changes things. The problem is that the language here didn't make it into the proposed 61.329. Now I'm thinking that this is just a proofreading failure and should be resolved quickly in the comments process.