Jump to content
Kent Ashton

hangar electricity and other rants

Recommended Posts

A couple of rants:  

 

#1  My airport has separate electric meters.  I calculated that all 30 hangars use about $600 worth of electricity per year but we pay over $5040/year just to have meters.  For example, it costs me $22/month to have a meter but I only use about 1 or 2 KWH per month to run a dehydrator or AM radio when I'm working at 10 cents/KWH, i.e., 20 cents/mo.  Over about 13 years, I've paid about $3600 for maybe $20 worth of electricity.

 

So I presented this situation to the county and proposed that they rewire each row of hangars to one meter and charge us about $40/year for electricity.  It wouldn't matter that a few people use a few KWH more than others.  Tenants would save thousands.  Here are the answers I got

 

- It would cost $5000-7000 to rewire the hangars. [Doubtful. might have pull one large cable down the spine of each hangar]

- If rewired, they would have to be brought up to code. [They are pretty new.  Probably meet code]

- The power company would have to disconnect all the meters.  [That's their job]

- The county has some hangars on long-term leases and would have to renegotiate their contracts.

- It wouldn't be fair; some people use more power than others [and we can't handle the math or make adjustments].

- It would increase the county's administrative cost

- You have the choice now to have power or not.

 

So I disconnected my power today and will get by with battery tools.  If I have any big projects, I can get it reconnected for a $15 fee. 

----------

 

#2  Nothwithstanding that here in N.C., nobody heats an airport hanger and such hangar would leak heat like an open door, the county installed natural gas plumbing to all the hangars.   There is only 1 hangar out of 30 (a semi-business) that has a gas meter installed. 

 

----------

 

#3 When they built these hangars, I asked them "Please use bifold hangar doors."  No response.  So if I am working in my hangar and my neighbor comes out to fly, we have to close my 2 sliding doors which are blocking his access, open his 2 doors (which blocks my access), close his doors, and re-open my doors.  Rinse and repeat when he comes back from flying.

 

----------

 

#4  They built 30 T-hangars planning to sell them to tenants but the sale would've required that in 25-30 years, the hangars revert to county ownership.  We'd pay $35-$40K but in 25 years we'd have nothing.  As expected, nobody took this deal.  Big surprise.  A few older T-hangars are owned outright by tenants who pay a modest ground lease.  Those are never empty and get sold and resold.

 

-----------

 

#5 And yet, we have it better than some.  At least we have hangars whereas at some of the nearby public airports, airplanes are sitting on the ramp in the rain and sun with acres of vacant ground available.  (pic)

 

I am sure you have your own stories.

 

 

 

post-126542-0-90846500-1529076898_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1

-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have given them the old "I'm on a fixed income and ………"

LOL. You're starting to sound like the retired guys in my EAA Chapter.


T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I bought my VariEze in Wyoming, the hangar had no power, but he had a battery, solar panel, and inverter. It was good enough to run power tools, a vacuum, lights, and a radio as required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I bought my VariEze in Wyoming, the hangar had no power, but he had a battery, solar panel, and inverter. It was good enough to run power tools, a vacuum, lights, and a radio as required.

 

Yep, I could mostly get by on battery power.  I was thinking I needed my compressor for airing up tires but you reminded me that I carry a little battery-operated compressor on my bike.

 

I  ordered this little DC pump to run my dehydrator off a solar cell.    Die Duke Energy!


-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could form a group to pay for the rewiring of the hangars.

 

My reaction, as I read this, is that your monthly hangar costs are probably much lower than here in the Northeast. I still haven't figured out how to afford a hangar of any quality that's close, and there are always long waiting lists.

 

In other words, I would be fine with having your $22/month problem if the hangar rent wasn't outrageous. Regardless, I get your rant -- at least you're able to offset your electric costs.


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could form a group to pay for the rewiring of the hangars.

 

I still haven't figured out how to afford a hangar of any quality that's close, and there are always long waiting lists.

 

Airport officials have to be willing to work with a group or you're just wasting your time and making them mad.  I've made my arrangements here: battery powered tools and air pump, solar powered engine dehydrator.

 

One day an aviation study group will conclude that the inability to build, lease or own a hangar at reasonable cost is a significant factor in the decline of general aviation and a contributing reason for the current pilot shortage. 

 

Jon, I would get some copies of those waiting lists and present them to municipal officials.  Say "If you can't build hangars, let us build our own."


-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kent,

 

Probably a silly question on my part but here it goes

 

what or why do you use/need a  dehydrator for at the hangar?

Edited by James Bailey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what or why do you use/need a  dehydrator for at the hangar?

 

 

What!? You haven't memorized all my threads?  :-)

 

http://www.canardzone.com/forum/topic/31359-de-watering-an-engine/?p=59231

 

It's hard to judge just how anal to get about it but I am pretty anal after replacing a cam and a handful of lifters and having cylinders lose their hone in 300-400 hours.  When I had an engine sitting during construction, I hooked up a pop-bottle of dessicant to the breather and tried to keep the dessicant sparkplugs fresh.  No moisture, no rust.  It is hard to keep cylinders dry with open valves but if you are storing an engine, it's a good idea to unload the valve springs on the pair with open valves; the dessicant plugs will stay pretty fresh.  The silica can be dried fairly quickly but it's a PIA to refill those plugs.


-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rust never sleeps!


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little discussion of airport law:  My nearby public federally-assisted municipal airport requires a Storage Permit that prohibits any maintenance in leased hangars.  This prohibition is illegal but I am not based there so it doesn't affect me.  Nevertheless, this sort of prohibition is not unusual at federally assisted airports.  Last year I read of a McKinney, Texas RV builder who encountered the same prohibition at KTKI.   A private airport owner can do what he wants.

 In 2016, the FAA published a rule that aircraft maintenance and aircraft construction are aeronautical activities that must be reasonably accommodated in federally-assisted airport hangars.  Read the rule yourself at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/06/15/2016-14133/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars    These rules eventually become part of the Grant Assurances that obligate airports built with federal funds.  Violating the rule violates one or more of the Assurances, usually #22 or 23.  See Assurances here  https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airport-sponsor-assurances-aip.pdf

If you encounter this sort of prohibition, first bring the illegal prohibition to the attention of the airport sponsor (municipal owner) in writing.  Then you have the choice of making an informal complaint to the applicable FSDO under 14 CFR § 13 or a formal complaint under 14 CFR §16.

Next, these airports often use a storage permit clause that says "you agree that we can terminate your lease with or without cause" or "for any reason"  (i.e., at will).  This too is illegal.  Nearly every state has a law that says a municipality is allowed to operate an airport so long as the public is granted the "rightful, equal, and uniform use of airport space, area, equipment and improvements."  Here in North Carolina it is N.C.G.S. § 63-53.  Google "airport" and "rightful, equal and uniform use" and your state and you will usually pull up your own statute or search your state's aviation statutes.  In Florida, for example, it is Florida statute 332.08(1)(c).  When an airport requires you agree that you can be terminated at will as a condition to granting you a storage permit, the airport is compelling you to give up your "rightful use" of the airport space, area, equipment or improvements [i.e. hangars].   The law calls it an "unconstitutional condition".

If you encounter this sort of rule, you will have to seek relief in a state venue--usually a district court.  The FAA does not enforce state laws.


-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kent Ashton said:

 In 2016, the FAA published a rule that aircraft maintenance and aircraft construction are aeronautical activities that must be reasonably accommodated in federally-assisted airport hangars.  Read the rule yourself at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/06/15/2016-14133/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars    These rules eventually become part of the Grant Assurances that obligate airports built with federal funds.  Violating the rule violates one or more of the Assurances, usually #22 or 23.  See Assurances here  https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airport-sponsor-assurances-aip.pdf

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but the policy you point to above specifically say, in Section II(d):

"While sponsors may adopt more restrictive rules for use of hangars, the FAA will generally not consider items to interfere with the aeronautical use of the hangar unless the items:"

blah, blah, blah. So the FAA allows sponsors to be MORE restrictive, as long as you're not interfering with aeronautical use, with 5 "unless the items" definitions of interfering, none of which mention maintenance.

I'm not arguing that they're not being assholes by prohibiting maintenance - I certainly believe they are - but it's not a slam dunk that you'd win any argument in court, given the statement that the sponsor can adopt MORE restrictive rules. I think an argument can be made that you're interfering with aeronautical use by prohibiting maintenance, but I also believe that an argument can be made that you're allowed to prohibit it. Don't know who wins that argument.

Now, section 22 of the sponsor assurances document is stronger - paragraph (f) says:

"It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own employees [including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueling] that it may choose to perform."

Which seems pretty clear, BUT, paragraph (i) gives them an out, by saying:

"The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public."

So all the sponsor has to do is claim (wrongfully, but they can claim it) that the activity will prevent the airport from being safe.

Uggghhh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Marc Zeitlin said:

it's not a slam dunk that you'd win any argument in court, given the statement that the sponsor can adopt MORE restrictive rules. I think an argument can be made that you're interfering with aeronautical use by prohibiting maintenance, but I also believe that an argument can be made that you're allowed to prohibit it. Don't know who wins that argument.

Yep, nothing is a slam dunk with the FAA but I believe the intent of the rule, as expressed in the opening summary, was to stop the use of hangars as public storage facilities, cheap office spaces, or storage for cars and boats, etc, and to open up hangars to aircraft repair and construction (see the initial Summary).  With that in mind, I think the language "the sponsor may adopt more restrictive rules" was mainly intended to mean "may adopt more restrictive rules about things that interfere with aeronautical use".  Also, although the Summary specifically says that aircraft repair and construction are recognized aeronautical uses, a more restrictive rule that would likely pass FAA muster might prohibit welding and spray painting in a hangar or restrict maintenance to daylight hours.

Anyway, it was a striking change for me to see this new rule in 2016 because in 1999 the FAA held in a complaint I filed that homebuilding and simple repairs were NOT aeronautical uses and I could be booted off the airport for complaining about it.

What I want to do is make people aware that there is a rule in their favor that can be cited when airports just flat say "no work in hangars."   

 


-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our local airport rules state that nothing other than X, Y, and Z can take place on airport property.... the list of accepted activities does not include aircraft building, and limits maintenance to employees of the company owning the aircraft or a contracted mechanic.  I presented the recent (2016?) FAA statement to our local airport authority, with the hope that they would change the rules to include aircraft building.  They say they would, and assigned the re-writing task to 2 board members.  I helped those two write the new rule, but [they] never would finish up and present the new rules.  Finally, the board said "OK, Andrew, we're not gonna re-write the rules.... but just ask us in writing when you are ready to move your project to a hangar, and we'll respond in writing that you can finish your build at the airport... But NO PAINTING on airport property."  I think the no painting rule is fine.  I don't think homebuilders should be able to put other aircraft at risk of paint overspray (if that is actually a real possibility, which it may or may not be).

I must keep peace with the board, and they actually said they'd let a fresh project get started at the airport depending on hangar availability.  They like to sell fuel, and projects don't buy fuel.

I think any local airports should encourage homebuilding on aircraft property if they want to grow aviation at that airport.

My local EAA chapter [removed by moderator] just went defunct.  I am the only builder here, and the other guys just liked to plan a Veterans event every other year.  There was no real interest in composite construction presentations from me, and nobody ever came out to see the Cozy project.  I don't miss it...  now I'm not a member of EAA any more either.  Every EAA magazine is focused on Oshkosh... Kitplanes and CSA is much better.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jon Matcho
Redacted text based on original poster's request.

Andrew Anunson

I work underground and I play in the sky... no problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, if you can get most of what you need without complaints, feds, and lawyers, that’s the way to go, I believe.  Still, it’s good to have the rule on your side.  The FAA publishes these Assurances and rules but does not want to jeopardize an airport’s federal grants in order to enforce them for one aviator.  So you can show a blatent case for illegal airport rules and the FAA will blow you off.   They can invent excuses you can’t even imagine.

For example, In my case the FAA approved of my eviction from KJQF because I complained  under 14 CFR §16 and by exercising that 1st Amendment right to “petition for redress of grievances” the FAA held that I constituted a “litigious financial burden on the airport sponsor”.  When I told them the Constitution guarantees a person’s right to complain without suffering airport retaliation, the FAA said “we can’t address Constitutional questions”.  Grrrr.

I have heard horror stories about folks painting in hangars and getting paint mist on their neighbors’ airplanes.  I painted two airplanes in my driveway and they look pretty decent.  Pick a calm Fall morning, get out there early before the winds pick up and have some tweezers ready to pick off the occasional bug.   Actually, my spraying skills are a bigger problem than dust and bugs.

Glad you are making good progress.  I will come see your project sometime.  Not far away.

Edited by Kent Ashton

-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that Lonesome Pine allows maintenance in hangars if approved in writing.  Point them to the FAA rule (above).  If you don't get satisfaction, think about making an informal complaint to the FSDO.  see http://lonesomepineairport.com/uploads/3/5/5/7/35570129/airport_rules_and_regulations-09222011.pdf

Quote

7.1.3 Nothing contained herein shall restrict or limit the right of individual users to conduct maintenance and repairs on their own aircraft that are allowed by FAA or these regulations and standards. However, all such repairs and maintenance shall be conducted strictly in accordance with Federal, State, and County regulations, circular, airworthiness directives and requirements and such maintenance and repairs shall be conducted within the area designated by the FBO or hangars leased by individual users of the Airport or by authorized repair facility. The CAC must approve aircraft maintenance conducted in hangars in writing. It is understood that this approval will be withheld due to violations of these Regulations and Standards, or other safety related practices identified by the CAC; and

Many of these public airports are operating under old FAA rules and guidance that limit self-maintenance.


-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received this email from Sun N Fun (pic) after complaining today about homebuilders being run off the flightline for the airshow.   Last year, there were very few canards on the days I was there.    Maybe this will draw more homebuilders.  SnF has not yet updated their website map but here's the URL for the new plan  https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aptoc20RXr0bhZNFOxAs4SBs-btqQA

Watch for updates at Sun n Fun's map page:   https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aptoc20RXr0bhZNFOxAs4SBs-btqQAhttps://www.flysnf.org/guest-services/maps/

SNF.png


-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just talking to my friend who has a new-to-him airplane parked on the ramp at a local federally-assisted airport.  He has asked repeatedly about the airport's waiting list for T-hangars: how long is the list, who's on it, how can he get on it, etc.  The airport manager blows him off.  Meanwhile, he observes that a politician from a nearby town recent moved into one of the precious T-hangars.

Friends,  airport waiting lists are like Chicago politics.  I have fought this B.S. since 1996 until it gave me a heart attack and I had to chill out.  Sometime you can get results by asserting your rights under state law ("Rightful, equal and uniform use of airport facilities") or under FAA Grant Assurances.  It helps if pilots with expensive aircraft sitting out in the rain, hail, and dust will join together and demand transparent, equal treatment.    It is also helpful to assert yourself via a lawyer.  One lil' 'ol' homebuilder will not get much respect from corrupt officials but they will pay attention when they get a letter from a lawyer.


-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A word on why I dropped my EAA membership:    When the Concord-Regional Airport booted me off the airport years ago, I asked the Government Affairs folks at EAA to support me by writing to the FAA.  I was the President of my Chapter at the time;  all I wanted to do was simply tinker on my Cozy in my hangar.  For complaining about the airport's prohibition under 14 CFR §16, the airport evicted me and admitted quite brazenly that they evicted me because I exercised my First Amendment right to complain ("petition the government").  I expected EAA to support me.  After all, the airport also said "no work of any kind in T-hangars",  "no experimental Phase I testing on this airport", and a bunch of other stuff obnoxious to homebuilders.  EAA wouldn't even write a letter; so I dropped my membership.  It has been hard because I really enjoyed EAA but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.   I still do the occasional Tech Counselor visit and send in the forms because it pleases me to do that and I want to support homebuilders.  EAA has never sent the forms back even though I am not a member anymore.  Bureaucracy!

Then there is the EAA requirement to prove I'm not a pedophile; an additional reason why I never rejoined EAA.  I'm amazed that pilots will submit to that in order to be acceptable to EAA for flying Young Eagles.  Does EAA think we are going to feel the girls up during the taxi-back, or begin "grooming" with a friendly flight?   How often has that happened?  Yet good people--men mostly--will submit to this exam to do something that is good for kids and aviation.  If we wanted to molest children, there are better venues than in your Long-ez at 5000'

Lately, my local chapter has started a Facebook page--also at the urging of EAA.   It does not bother EAA that lyin' Mark Zuckerberg, along with Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat have turned a nation into porn-watching zombies that feel free to tell anyone, anywhere, anytime, to f--- off.  Most of FB is drivel but--thank goodness--drivel that sinks to the bottom of the newsfeed and is never seen again.  Yes, I had a FB placeholder page for a while but now I'm stickin' it to the MAN!

OK nurse, I'm ready now.


-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 11:15 AM, Kent Ashton said:

all I wanted to do was simply tinker on my Cozy in my hangar

Why not just tinker discretely with the hangar door shut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ron Springer said:

Why not just tinker discretely with the hangar door shut?

The question is moot because the FAA requires airports to accommodate work in hangars now (at federally-assisted airports), however in the summer, a closed hangar gets hot and  working in it with the doors closed is just asking for trouble from airport management.

 


-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just talking to a gent who was severely afraid of liability on the experimental he bought and was taking extraordinary measures to "protect his family".  Briefly, he was reluctant to ask his relative with an A&P to complete his condition inspection because it might make the A&P/relative liable for something.  Let's think about this:

First:  An A&P is only certifying that on the date he inspected the airplane, it was an a safe condition for flight.   Thus a plaintiff would have to prove it WAS NOT in a safe condition on the inspection date and the A&P KNEW or should have known that it was not.  How the heck can anyone prove that without overwhelming evidence?!   An A&P who takes ordinary care and checks potential AD's can easily avoid that.  Further, a plaintiff would also have to prove that the "unsafe" condition caused the accident,  show why the condition was unsafe, why the A&P should have known it was unsafe and that the A&P knew all that at the time he certified the inspection.   If the unsafe condition was subsequently caused by something the pilot/owner did to the aircraft after the inspection, the A&P is not responsible for that.  And the plaintiff would have to prove this on a aircraft that is built by amateurs,  not required to meet any particular FAA standards, not required to use any particular TSO's parts, not required to be built to any particular plans and was probably maintained by other amateurs over the years.  IMO it is virtually unprovable which is why such lawsuits are almost never brought and the few times they were, the plaintiff lost.

Second:  If you are NOT worth several million dollars, it isn't worth a lawyer's time to investigate an aircraft accident, educate himself about experimentals, then try to prove the almost-impossible-to-prove.   Lawyers are after big fish or the easy slip-and-fall.  They do not want to spend weeks preparing for a case they could easily lose, or earn 1/3rd of a $5000 award.  Nor do they want to pursue a case against a person who cannot pay.

Third:  If you have liability insurance, that entitles you to a defense by your insurance company.  The insurance company's lawyers will fight hard or settle at the company's expense (up to the limit of the policy).    Also most professional A&Ps also have their own liability insurance.   Moreover, if you have no liability insurance, and very little money, you are virtually assured that no lawyer will take a case against you.  

Fourth:  IMO, you are more liable to have a serious liability problem by trying to land on a highway and causing a chain reaction accident that kills a bunch of people.  Was that the A&P's fault?  Maybe, but the A&P did not choose to run the airplane out of gas and land on a busy road.  It's probably all on you buddy.

 

  • Haha 1

-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of good news today:  I have mentioned my illegal eviction some years ago, from the Concord Regional Airport.    When I was fighting that I asked my congressional Representative Robert C. ("Robin") Hayes (R-NC) to ask the FAA why the agency was permitting a federally-assisted airport to evict an aircraft operator.  Hayes--an heir to the Cannon Mills fortune--secured millions of dollars in federal grants for this airport and he stored his own twin-engine airplane there but he wouldn't lift a finger to help me.  His assistant told me "We can't [question the FAA]".  Of course, that was a B.S.  Congressmen make inquiries to the administrative agencies all the time.  Hayes went on to become the head of the Republican party in N.C.  His assistant went on to become our current Representative.

Well, imagine my delight to read that Hayes was indicted this week for corruption, bribery, and lying to the FBI in connection to campaign donations.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/us/robin-hayes-nc-indictment.html

It may not have been exactly corrupt for Hayes to funnel federal money to his hometown for a public airport, keep his own personal airplane there, then not give a hoot if the airport complied with its grant obligations, but it danged-sure is close.  His indictment is consistent with what I thought of him.

What is the larger lesson here?  It is that public airports are often corruptly operated.   They receive 1/100th the scrutiny of the average school board.  Concord Regional, for example, does not have an airport advisory board and even as late as a few weeks ago, airport leases did not reflect the latest FAA rule on working in hangars.  The Charlotte-Monroe airport nearby does not publish a waiting list for its limited number of hangars--it is apparently kept in the airport manager's hip pocket.   My own airport does not announce its advisory board meetings.  FAA officials love to make grants but [yawn] its a lot of work to enforce grant obligations.  Thanks to fences and gates, the public doesn't know much about its local airport.  It is only by aircraft owners standing together that we keep the government honest.

I learned a lot in my fight with Concord Regional.  The only reason I gave it up was that the stress gave me a heart attack but I am happy to help anyone who has an airport problem.  PM me.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate your effort Kent. If everyone fought back against corruption when they encounter it, this country would be a better place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's quite the plight you went through.  Taking whatever consolation that the indictment gives and moving on sounds best, or you could make it another "hobby" (I've done that before and don't look back and feel that it was fun).

I'll capture some Sun-n-Fun pics in your honor today!  🙂

Jon


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just reading about the crash of this prototype, killing the head man/designer.  They have a done a lot of work on it--built molds twice and are gearing up for a  builder center.  Now this, the 2nd prototype (pic) crashes just after takeoff and they probably have no idea why.  What is interesting is that the pilot designer only had 370 hours TT and 4.7 hours in 2018.  His last medical was in 1999.  The crashed example had only flown .3 hours previously.  I would guess he felt some pressure to get it ready for SunNFun.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/03/fatal-accident-occurred-march-23-2019.html   https://issuu.com/inflightusa/docs/online_issue_march_faber

https://www.commutercraft.com/features-2

The test pilot who flew prototype #1 reported 

Quote

[Ethen] Chaffin, so far the only pilot with firsthand knowledge of the results of the years-long effort, said the Innovator is an “absolute joy” to fly: responsive, steady, and as docile in a stall as can be. Power off and stick full aft produces a sink rate of 1,100 feet per minute, with no pitching, yawing, or rolling tendencies, he said. He has added turns to that profile, up to about 17 degrees of bank, and the aircraft has yet to spin. These characteristics, he said, will help make the dreaded base-to-final stall-spin scenario nearly impossible, part of the Innovator’s safety package.   https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/january/21/innovator-makes-maiden-flight

I know that when I don't fly for a month or two, I can tell it.  I feel rusty and not as comfortable.  Well, maybe it will go on without him.

1000w.jpeg

Edited by Kent Ashton

-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information