Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Unit74, Nov 6, 2015.
Depends on the elevation he's overflying. The hemispheric rule doesn't kick in until 3,000' AGL.
Yeah, I don't believe that people are digging into FAA files and looking for excuses to rat him out because they're genuinely concerned that parts of his airplane are going to fall on them. Some inspector at a FSDO signed off on his ops limits, and if they're at all concerned, they can watch the same Youtube videos as everyone else.... And if ADBS is accurate, he's on the ground.
You think someone at a FSDO signed off on his OpLim's? Why would you assume that? Did you see the document with an inspector's stamp on it?
Of curiosity, if you saw some guy overloading a 182 every weekend with people, barely getting off the ground before the end of the runway, dragging the landing gear through the treetops while wallowing around trying to gain altitude... you wouldn't say anything? To anybody?
I agree. I just hope he doesn’t hurt himself.
I might say something to the guy. But I wouldn't call the FAA over it. Would you? Peter isn't flying with anyone but himself, and we're talking about him violating ops limits, not nearly crashing with passengers. And people here are actually seeking out reasons to play narc, going out of their way and spending their own money to be junior ASIs. It's just a weird obsession.
I'm the one I can think of in this thread who spent any money. I did so to satisfy curiosity about how an R&D certificate compares to an E-AB one. I also hoped it would settle some of the debates in this thread regarding whether the FAA actually lets people do what he is doing or not.
What about a guy driving down the road unable to stay in his lane? Other drivers having to get out of his way when one of the sudden lane changes happen? No call to 911 then? Just none of your business?
Reminds me of the old lady who call the police when the Beatles were performing their rooftop concert at Abby Road Studio. It was a magnificent performance enjoyed by many. The dumb video of the Bobby pushing through the crowd up the stairs to pull the plug was ridiculous.
Little people on a power trip to drop a dime like that. Same goes for the guy who called the FSDO. Hope the FSDO found a circular file cabinet to appropriately file it.
Someone acting dangerously over your house in an aircraft? Call the FSDO. Don’t like Peter’s test flight plan second hand over the internet? Snitching & Narc’ing is a grade school activity.
@Lindberg had the right idea.
End of rant.
I wouldn't report him, but I really don't care if anyone else does. It's not on the snitch for reporting, but on the guy doing the violating. We're aviators, not the freakin mafia.
If you want to be in the airplane business, learn the rules and follow them. His violating of the ops limits is just one more indicator that he doesn't know what he's doing and didn't bother to consult with those who do know. He did ask his DAR, who maybe should know better, but an aviation attorney would have been a more prudent choice. It is a business he's supposedly operating, not just an homebuilt personal aircraft.
But at least this one isn't a matter of physics potentially biting him in the hind end, just bureaucracy. Of all the things he's gotten wrong, screwing up the paperwork isn't in the top 20. And yet, it's one of the few things the FAA has any interest in....
I'm decidedly anti-government on lots of things, but... yeah, I would, if I saw him doing it repeatedly with passengers onboard. (And I hope someone would call them on me if I was doing anything that reckless.) Good to try speaking with him first, but odds are the sort of personality able to justify such behavior to himself in the first place wouldn't be swayed by an informal chat on the ramp.
Whether PM should be elevated to that level is debatable - I'll let the chips settle where they may there - but it does seem rather unlikely he'd be able to secure FAA approval to fly from VLD to 2A2 after 40 hours of mostly low-level figure-8s in an obviously performance-challenged aircraft.
Well. I’ve been that guy before. Talked to a pilot I observed taking risks I thought were excessive with passengers in tow. He got ****ed and cussed me out. After watching a few more of his antics I called the fsdo. The response was basically “I didn’t see it so I can’t do anything”. The pilot in question and his unfortunate passenger are dead.
PM’s life is in his hands. Whoever signed his ops limits should be monitoring his activity. If they are not… we’ll that’s just how it is. Call if you want to but don’t hold your breath waiting for any action to take place.
..do people call the authorities when they see someone jay walk?
...what about run a red light?
....what about pass them on the highway above the speed limit?
.....what about swerving and likely driving drunk?
......what about after witnessing a crime where someone was injured?
There's a spectrum there somewhere, all of the above are dangerous but most would agree they're not ratting out jay walkers, most would also agree that if they witness a crime, or even suspect someone of drunk driving, they're likely to report it
and what motivates it..? an actual desire to save someone's life and others, or really deep down is it driven by a darker "he's not allowed to get away with that!" type of thing? If the former, the cause is noble.. if the latter, well worry about yourself. I think for some PM falls in the latter category
More like reading about someone from another state having a hangover on the internet and calling his local bars to find out how much he had to drink the night before and how he got home so you can report him to the cops.
Those of us with experimental aircraft have a new hoop to jump through.
Lots of complaining about it. Does it accomplish anything? Not in my opinion.
What happens if PM creates a smoking hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere? Probably not much. What happens if that hole is in the middle of a road in the middle of nowhere that just happens to have a car under it? Or maybe in the middle of a town? Then a lot of people are going to be looking closely at this collection of parts that was flying through the air and ask "why was it allowed to fly over our children!" There will be all sorts of "experts" that will show clips of the many hours of video that PM has posted which show some of his "fixes" that he's "okay with" which don't come anywhere close to standard practices let alone common sense.
Then we'll see some new rules and regulations regarding those "dangerous" experimental aircraft. Then those who own the planes they built and have been flying anywhere they want will discover that they aren't allowed to fly within 30 miles of any populated area or some other nonsense. They will have to be inspected by an FAA inspector once a year (because you can't trust a mechanic being paid by the owner). The inspection won't be cheap. And you can't schedule it more than one month before it's due but because there are only so many inspectors, the wait list is 6 months long.
Have poorly built planes crashed because the builders didn't follow standard practice before? Absolutely. But this one has 100's of hours of video documenting it. The lawyers and politicians will have an absolute field day.
Guess he better not crash it then.
Valdosta is 203' msl and M95 is 357'. That first leg he was 3500-3800. Regardless of the hemispheric rule, who wants to fly a cross country at that altitude? His aviating and his fabricobbling skills mirror one another.
Does anyone remember the aviation criminal Dave Riggs? Perhaps the most hated airplane builder will follow in his footsteps. Those that are not aware of the aviation criminal can use google!
An important note regarding this test plan is that this is what the cert holder said they planned toi do, not what the FAA said must be done. Ex/AB Phase 1 typically (always, in my experience) *requires* stall and climb speeds be tested and recorded to complete phase 1. Ex/R&D typically do not, leaving it instead to the certifier ('certificator'?) to determine what needs to be done to successfully complete a test program. There is no penalty and usually no reward for not completing every step of an Ex/R&D test plan not related to production certification, although it does seem to cause a lot of hurt feelings among many with no skin in the game.
and that Rolling Stones song
Whenever I hear one going by overhead, I tell my wife "There goes our Piaggio", and about half the time I run outside to see them speeding along.
Why have it be part of the Faa record if it has no meaning? Don’t you think it was used as part of the justification to grant the cert? Don’t you think that doing virtually none of it is problematic?
There’s a thread on this over on SportPilotTalk.com: http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=5818&sid=93dd4b6c108365207ba05fea567da002
I remain fuzzy in the need for a LODA, but I applied for one for my E-LSA Sky Arrow yesterday, using the format in that thread. As I understand it, I may need one in order to get Flight Reviews in my own plane. I got an automated reply: “Thank you for your LODA request. We have received your application and will process it in the order it was received.” Pilots seem to have been getting the requested LODA fairly quickly. If it’s a hoop, it seems like a small but unnecessary one.
Congratulations, you are now a deviant.
Thanks. It does appear the hemispheric rule should have applied.
It's part of the FAA record because he submitted it with his program letter and they don't just throw things away. It certainly was part of the justification to grant the certificate, but no plan survives contact with the enemy and, as @nauga pointed out, following the test plan is not an operating limitation of the R&D certificate. Getting a type certificate or kit approval would probably require documented completion of a defined testing plan.
Doing virtually none of the test plan is certainly problematic. It's problematic because he is planning a cross-country trip that will require him to greatly exceed the known envelope of the airplane and is probably contrary to his operating limitations, and it's problematic because he wants to sell kits and will need a lot more information about how the thing flies before he can sell the first kit.
Was that a real question?
*In a cobbled together aircraft with a suspect engine conversion that has already quit once. Altitude is your friend if you've got to glide it somewhere. Especially not knowing its best glide
Peter is a lot of things, but this is ridiculous. Riggs was a maniac who deliberately did many dangerous things and intentionally committed outright fraud. Peter's judgment is not great and he takes some risks he probably shouldn't, but nothing in the ballpark of Riggs' antics and there's no reason to believe he will in the future.
@pilotrick falsely assumes everyone hates Peter. He hasn’t figured out he is the only one.