Search results

It is great to see that the DOT is finally acting to end all the death, maiming, and property destruction we've had to suffer from these drones! Just because it is imagined doesn't make it any less real!

For about $45,000 the other option is a Savannah T kit that is a metal tailwheel with a Rotax 912 UL engine. Build time is claimed to be about 350 hours, though if you add another $10,000 the build time is allegedly reduced to about 110 hours. (Actually the numbers I used are for the Savannah...

Flightaware has basically been doing that for years with data supplied by government agencies, among other sources. And here is one web site that appears to be attempting to aggregate ADS-B data into a web based map: http://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works

Just FYI I believe the Germans require UL airplanes to have whole plane parachutes.

Engine out over favorable terrain during daylight. You really had to narrow the premise to a single favorable scenario to get the result (barely) that you were looking for.

I think maybe PoA needs a "Useless Aviation Minutiae" subforum.

Um, is there some reason no link has been posted to the story? http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/crime/marshall-city-prosecutor-mulls-whether-to-charge-columbia-cop-with/article_6f2b25d2-37c1-52fd-8c51-9bad5b8d9c57.html Edit; also here with other details...

It shouldn't get ugly, but...

I don't blame you, considering who and what you had to train with:

Not necessarily: The AD offers two options for compliance: installation of a rudder-stop modification kit or placarding the airplane. The placard must say, “Intentional spins and other acrobatic/aerobatic maneuvers prohibited per AD 2009-10-09.” All of the C-152s at the FBO I rent from are...

68 inches tall, bath scale this morning indicated ~148 lbs. Typically I'm ~152 lbs dressed. In years gone by I had gotten to over 180 lbs.

As he stated, he was given a raft of redundant laws that merely extended the verbiage of California statutes without actually making anything a crime that wasn't already a crime. It is already a violation of the law to fly drones in TFRs that explicitly prohibit them. The idea that he is...

They'd have to issue a subpoena. And before that they'd have to start an investigation, which they wouldn't do without some cause justifying it.

You're probably thinking of FAA v Cooper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration_v._Cooper "The district court held that the Government violated the Privacy Act, but that the Act only allows recovery for pecuniary damages." The case went to the Supreme court, which didn't...

And for good measure slap a RICO lawsuit on the OP. I think the MC has plenty of legal beagle expertise to know how to get that done. :rofl:

I found a picture that explains why the OP owns a white tux:

"What do you desire? What makes you itch? ... what would you like to do if money were no object?" ~Alan Watts Warning, there is aviation content in this video of one philosophy on life that claims to answer the op's question:

No contradiction. The regulation has to explicitly state no certifications are required lest someone thinks that the certifications of parts 91, 119, 121, or 135 are required. Not requiring certifications does not equate to not requiring knowledge of the law, so no contradiction involved.

That is a subclause of paragraph (b), so that says nothing of the sort. The whole subsection in context basically says that ultralights may fly during civil twilight in class G airspace. They can't fly in class A through E airspaces during civil twilight.