My beautiful 2-32 has been totally destroyed by a severe thunderstorm here in Arizona. It had 3 chains, and two strong ropes to 4 different tie downs on the glider. I suspect that a hangar door that blew off upwind hit my glider and knocked it from it's tie downs, but that is going to be very hard to prove to the satisfaction of the airport's insurance company. I have started a Gofundme account to help me recover and continue being able to sell rides to the public.
https://gofund.me/ed12c2ef
Thank you for considering a donation.
Gary Boggs
www.nwskysports.com
My beautiful 2-32 has been totally destroyed by a severe thunderstorm here in Arizona. It had 3 chains, and two strong ropes to 4 different tie downs on the glider. I suspect that a hangar door that blew off upwind hit my glider and knocked it from it's tie downs, but that is going to be very hard to prove to the satisfaction of the airport's insurance company. I have started a Gofundme account to help me recover and continue being able to sell rides to the public.
https://gofund.me/ed12c2ef
Thank you for considering a donation.
Gary Boggs
www.nwskysports.com
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 9:15:55 AM UTC-7, Waveguru wrote:it's tie downs, but that is going to be very hard to prove to the satisfaction of the airport's insurance company. I have started a Gofundme account to help me recover and continue being able to sell rides to the public.
My beautiful 2-32 has been totally destroyed by a severe thunderstorm here in Arizona. It had 3 chains, and two strong ropes to 4 different tie downs on the glider. I suspect that a hangar door that blew off upwind hit my glider and knocked it from
https://gofund.me/ed12c2ef
Thank you for considering a donation.
Gary BoggsGary,
www.nwskysports.com
Did you check both glider and hangar door for paint transfer that quite often occurs in situations like that?
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 8:31:57 PM UTC-7, bumper wrote:it's tie downs, but that is going to be very hard to prove to the satisfaction of the airport's insurance company. I have started a Gofundme account to help me recover and continue being able to sell rides to the public.
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 9:15:55 AM UTC-7, Waveguru wrote:
My beautiful 2-32 has been totally destroyed by a severe thunderstorm here in Arizona. It had 3 chains, and two strong ropes to 4 different tie downs on the glider. I suspect that a hangar door that blew off upwind hit my glider and knocked it from
https://gofund.me/ed12c2ef
Thank you for considering a donation.
Gary BoggsGary,
www.nwskysports.com
Did you check both glider and hangar door for paint transfer that quite often occurs in situations like that?No chance of a claim here - there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the hangar owner (the weather caused the accident and try suing the weather).
Tom
I come from a family of lawyers, get a good one, the right one and you can sue the tide for going out and the sun for going down.
I come from a family of lawyers, get a good one, the right one and you can sue the tide for going out and the sun for going down.In encapsulated form, this is one of the main things wrong in the US vs. the rest of the world. My opinion.
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:41:28 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:from it's tie downs, but that is going to be very hard to prove to the satisfaction of the airport's insurance company. I have started a Gofundme account to help me recover and continue being able to sell rides to the public.
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 8:31:57 PM UTC-7, bumper wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 9:15:55 AM UTC-7, Waveguru wrote:
My beautiful 2-32 has been totally destroyed by a severe thunderstorm here in Arizona. It had 3 chains, and two strong ropes to 4 different tie downs on the glider. I suspect that a hangar door that blew off upwind hit my glider and knocked it
house last year which resulted in a house fire, weather related for sure but my insurance paid off nicely. I have to give my insurance company credit, they handled it very well. I could not have written that repair writeup like my adjuster did, I'd havehttps://gofund.me/ed12c2ef
Thank you for considering a donation.
Gary BoggsGary,
www.nwskysports.com
Did you check both glider and hangar door for paint transfer that quite often occurs in situations like that?No chance of a claim here - there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the hangar owner (the weather caused the accident and try suing the weather).
TomI come from a family of lawyers, get a good one, the right one and you can sue the tide for going out and the sun for going down. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. You mean you didn't have your own insurance? I had a lightning strike on my
Walt Connelly
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:49:49 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:from it's tie downs, but that is going to be very hard to prove to the satisfaction of the airport's insurance company. I have started a Gofundme account to help me recover and continue being able to sell rides to the public.
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:41:28 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 8:31:57 PM UTC-7, bumper wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 9:15:55 AM UTC-7, Waveguru wrote:
My beautiful 2-32 has been totally destroyed by a severe thunderstorm here in Arizona. It had 3 chains, and two strong ropes to 4 different tie downs on the glider. I suspect that a hangar door that blew off upwind hit my glider and knocked it
house last year which resulted in a house fire, weather related for sure but my insurance paid off nicely. I have to give my insurance company credit, they handled it very well. I could not have written that repair writeup like my adjuster did, I'd havehttps://gofund.me/ed12c2ef
Thank you for considering a donation.
Gary BoggsGary,
www.nwskysports.com
Did you check both glider and hangar door for paint transfer that quite often occurs in situations like that?No chance of a claim here - there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the hangar owner (the weather caused the accident and try suing the weather).
TomI come from a family of lawyers, get a good one, the right one and you can sue the tide for going out and the sun for going down. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. You mean you didn't have your own insurance? I had a lightning strike on my
Walt ConnellyYour insurance paid because it covered the hazard (you did not sue the weather). The hangar was not the cause of the damage, the weather was. Here is a similar situation:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/my-tree-fell-neighbors-garage-who-pays.html
Also, I said NOTHING about the insurance I carry and it is irrelevant in any case.
Tom
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:42:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:it from it's tie downs, but that is going to be very hard to prove to the satisfaction of the airport's insurance company. I have started a Gofundme account to help me recover and continue being able to sell rides to the public.
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:49:49 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:41:28 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 8:31:57 PM UTC-7, bumper wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 9:15:55 AM UTC-7, Waveguru wrote:
My beautiful 2-32 has been totally destroyed by a severe thunderstorm here in Arizona. It had 3 chains, and two strong ropes to 4 different tie downs on the glider. I suspect that a hangar door that blew off upwind hit my glider and knocked
house last year which resulted in a house fire, weather related for sure but my insurance paid off nicely. I have to give my insurance company credit, they handled it very well. I could not have written that repair writeup like my adjuster did, I'd havehttps://gofund.me/ed12c2ef
Thank you for considering a donation.
Gary BoggsGary,
www.nwskysports.com
Did you check both glider and hangar door for paint transfer that quite often occurs in situations like that?No chance of a claim here - there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the hangar owner (the weather caused the accident and try suing the weather).
TomI come from a family of lawyers, get a good one, the right one and you can sue the tide for going out and the sun for going down. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. You mean you didn't have your own insurance? I had a lightning strike on my
support via a Go Fund me page indicated you were uninsured.Walt ConnellyYour insurance paid because it covered the hazard (you did not sue the weather). The hangar was not the cause of the damage, the weather was. Here is a similar situation:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/my-tree-fell-neighbors-garage-who-pays.html
Also, I said NOTHING about the insurance I carry and it is irrelevant in any case.
TomSo your insurance doesn't cover this particular hazard? Obviously weather can't be sued but hurricane, wind, hale and other forms of weather damage are usually covered under insurance unless specifically omitted. It appeared to me that asking for
WaltPat Costello and I had a discussion about this at one point. Insurance doesn't cover act of god events (weather). Someone is negligent and must attest to that, whether it's failure to use adequate tie-downs or parked under a tree that the wind uprooted.
Pat Costello and I had a discussion about this at one point. Insurance doesn't cover act of god events (weather).
and move to higher ground.Pat Costello and I had a discussion about this at one point. Insurance doesn't cover act of god events (weather).Well, that can't be true in all cases. Seems to be a lot of folks collecting when their house floats away in a flood. And then they rebuild in the same spot. Federal flood insurance is offered at a discount, so there is no incentive to take the hint
And your homeowner's insurance certainly covers you when lightning hits.
and move to higher ground.Pat Costello and I had a discussion about this at one point. Insurance doesn't cover act of god events (weather).Well, that can't be true in all cases. Seems to be a lot of folks collecting when their house floats away in a flood. And then they rebuild in the same spot. Federal flood insurance is offered at a discount, so there is no incentive to take the hint
And your homeowner's insurance certainly covers you when lightning hits.We were discussing aircraft claims. Each insurance pool has different coverages and exclusions, which may change time to time. The government has had some say in which coverages must be offered, especially to homeowners, either as an inclusion or an
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:42:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:it from it's tie downs, but that is going to be very hard to prove to the satisfaction of the airport's insurance company. I have started a Gofundme account to help me recover and continue being able to sell rides to the public.
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:49:49 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:41:28 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 8:31:57 PM UTC-7, bumper wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 9:15:55 AM UTC-7, Waveguru wrote:
My beautiful 2-32 has been totally destroyed by a severe thunderstorm here in Arizona. It had 3 chains, and two strong ropes to 4 different tie downs on the glider. I suspect that a hangar door that blew off upwind hit my glider and knocked
house last year which resulted in a house fire, weather related for sure but my insurance paid off nicely. I have to give my insurance company credit, they handled it very well. I could not have written that repair writeup like my adjuster did, I'd havehttps://gofund.me/ed12c2ef
Thank you for considering a donation.
Gary BoggsGary,
www.nwskysports.com
Did you check both glider and hangar door for paint transfer that quite often occurs in situations like that?No chance of a claim here - there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the hangar owner (the weather caused the accident and try suing the weather).
TomI come from a family of lawyers, get a good one, the right one and you can sue the tide for going out and the sun for going down. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. You mean you didn't have your own insurance? I had a lightning strike on my
support via a Go Fund me page indicated you were uninsured.Walt ConnellyYour insurance paid because it covered the hazard (you did not sue the weather). The hangar was not the cause of the damage, the weather was. Here is a similar situation:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/my-tree-fell-neighbors-garage-who-pays.html
Also, I said NOTHING about the insurance I carry and it is irrelevant in any case.
TomSo your insurance doesn't cover this particular hazard? Obviously weather can't be sued but hurricane, wind, hale and other forms of weather damage are usually covered under insurance unless specifically omitted. It appeared to me that asking for
Walt
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:57:51 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
This is all interesting from a general, theoretical perspective. I'm going to put my ship in the box more often when storms are possible.
The practical consideration (and the point of this thread) is that Gary is without an airplane that is both his livelihood and enables a service to the sport. I decided to help out.
Andy BlackburnMy take away from this thread is that we should always insure those items which directly impact our livelihood.
9B
This is all interesting from a general, theoretical perspective. I'm going to put my ship in the box more often when storms are possible.
The practical consideration (and the point of this thread) is that Gary is without an airplane that is both his livelihood and enables a service to the sport. I decided to help out.
Andy Blackburn
9B
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 12:01:52 PM UTC-6, Mark Mocho wrote:and move to higher ground.
Pat Costello and I had a discussion about this at one point. Insurance doesn't cover act of god events (weather).Well, that can't be true in all cases. Seems to be a lot of folks collecting when their house floats away in a flood. And then they rebuild in the same spot. Federal flood insurance is offered at a discount, so there is no incentive to take the hint
option.And your homeowner's insurance certainly covers you when lightning hits.We were discussing aircraft claims. Each insurance pool has different coverages and exclusions, which may change time to time. The government has had some say in which coverages must be offered, especially to homeowners, either as an inclusion or an
Flood insurance is optional, but we had it on my father-in-law's home and had a near miss in 2013. It was $800/year. Many years ago, he and his brothers and family successfully sandbagged around the house during one flood. My wife's aunt did not haveit and her house was destroyed in our 2013 flood. Her children built her a new house at their expense. IIRC, there was a recent remapping of flood plains nation wide. Locally, I've known people to be denied building permits to construct a new house to
I received a letter from Safeco one year concerning my Seattle area house advising me that it was no longer covered under their plan for earthquakes and that I would have to seek supplemental earthquake insurance elsewhere. This was shortly after thediscovery the "Seattle Fault" running E-W under Seattle. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Emergency/PlansOEM/SHIVA/2014-04-23_Earthquakes(0).pdf https://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/top10/fault.html
Frank Whiteley
You guys are talking about two different situations: When you have a contract with your insurance company your rights are governed by the contract - so "Act of God" is irrelevant - the contract provides whatever coverage you bought. But when somebodysues somebody else, the matter is governed by the common law of torts - in which "Act of God" is a defense. Stated differently, the law is different when its what we call a hull claim ( which the insurance company must pay per the contract) compared to a
ROY
Correct. We should qualify which insurance we talking about. Hull vs liability.sues somebody else, the matter is governed by the common law of torts - in which "Act of God" is a defense. Stated differently, the law is different when its what we call a hull claim ( which the insurance company must pay per the contract) compared to a
Costello’s hull insurance would have covered this scenario.
Frank’s comment implied it wouldn’t, but I guess he was referring to liability insurance.
Ramy
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:53:07 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
You guys are talking about two different situations: When you have a contract with your insurance company your rights are governed by the contract - so "Act of God" is irrelevant - the contract provides whatever coverage you bought. But when somebody
ROY
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:53:25 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
I come from a family of lawyers, get a good one, the right one and you can sue the tide for going out and the sun for going down.In encapsulated form, this is one of the main things wrong in the US vs. the rest of the world. My opinion.
On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:01:27 UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:53:25 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:I can assure you that "to sue someone" doesn't even belong vocabulary in most civilized countries. Hiring a lawyer could easily cost more than the hull value? Maybe it's worth it, after all, you get to sue someone.
I come from a family of lawyers, get a good one, the right one and you can sue the tide for going out and the sun for going down.In encapsulated form, this is one of the main things wrong in the US vs. the rest of the world. My opinion.
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:25:29 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:somebody sues somebody else, the matter is governed by the common law of torts - in which "Act of God" is a defense. Stated differently, the law is different when its what we call a hull claim ( which the insurance company must pay per the contract)
Correct. We should qualify which insurance we talking about. Hull vs liability.
Costello’s hull insurance would have covered this scenario.
Frank’s comment implied it wouldn’t, but I guess he was referring to liability insurance.
Ramy
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:53:07 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
You guys are talking about two different situations: When you have a contract with your insurance company your rights are governed by the contract - so "Act of God" is irrelevant - the contract provides whatever coverage you bought. But when
Those that don't insure their gliders (or anything else for that matter) should be financially prepared for a total loss and not ask others to pay for their lack of preparedness.ROY
Tom
Correct. We should qualify which insurance we talking about. Hull vs liability.sues somebody else, the matter is governed by the common law of torts - in which "Act of God" is a defense. Stated differently, the law is different when its what we call a hull claim ( which the insurance company must pay per the contract) compared to a
Costello’s hull insurance would have covered this scenario.
Frank’s comment implied it wouldn’t, but I guess he was referring to liability insurance.
Ramy
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:53:07 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
You guys are talking about two different situations: When you have a contract with your insurance company your rights are governed by the contract - so "Act of God" is irrelevant - the contract provides whatever coverage you bought. But when somebody
Ramy,ROY
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:25:29 PM UTC-6, Ramy wrote:somebody sues somebody else, the matter is governed by the common law of torts - in which "Act of God" is a defense. Stated differently, the law is different when its what we call a hull claim ( which the insurance company must pay per the contract)
Correct. We should qualify which insurance we talking about. Hull vs liability.
Costello’s hull insurance would have covered this scenario.
Frank’s comment implied it wouldn’t, but I guess he was referring to liability insurance.
Ramy
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:53:07 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
You guys are talking about two different situations: When you have a contract with your insurance company your rights are governed by the contract - so "Act of God" is irrelevant - the contract provides whatever coverage you bought. But when
settlement of the claim. Three substantial claims due to an owner's negligence will likely result in becoming uninsurable or significantly higher premiums. This happens at both the individual and organizational level. Insisting that the weather wasRamy,ROY
No, I was talking about negligence. A tied out glider that blows away is a result of negligence, that is, failure to adequately secure it against that happening or otherwise protecting it against the elements. The owner has to own and accept that in
FrankI was also referring to the SSA Group Hull & Liability Plan. The language has changed in recent years also. At one time, club insurance explicitly stated that for scenic rides, a current commercial or higher rated pilot must be the sole manipulator of
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:25:29 PM UTC-6, Ramy wrote:somebody sues somebody else, the matter is governed by the common law of torts - in which "Act of God" is a defense. Stated differently, the law is different when its what we call a hull claim ( which the insurance company must pay per the contract)
Correct. We should qualify which insurance we talking about. Hull vs liability.
Costello’s hull insurance would have covered this scenario.
Frank’s comment implied it wouldn’t, but I guess he was referring to liability insurance.
Ramy
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:53:07 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
You guys are talking about two different situations: When you have a contract with your insurance company your rights are governed by the contract - so "Act of God" is irrelevant - the contract provides whatever coverage you bought. But when
settlement of the claim. Three substantial claims due to an owner's negligence will likely result in becoming uninsurable or significantly higher premiums. This happens at both the individual and organizational level. Insisting that the weather wasRamy,ROY
No, I was talking about negligence. A tied out glider that blows away is a result of negligence, that is, failure to adequately secure it against that happening or otherwise protecting it against the elements. The owner has to own and accept that in
Frank
Just to clarify again, we need to qualify which type of insurance.your policy would address.”
The Costello hull insurance that most private owners carry will cover damages to your glider even if it wasn’t tied down well enough. Negligence or not you are covered. Of course too many claims may eventually result in becoming uninsured.
To be sure I asked Costello and received the following answer:
“ your coverage includes both ground and flight loss exposures. Examples of ground losses would be things like storm damage, highway accidents, fire, vandalism, etc. If your glider is tied out and it sustains weather damage, that would be an exposure
My beautiful 2-32 has been totally destroyed by a severe thunderstorm here in Arizona. It had 3 chains, and two strong ropes to 4 different tie downs on the glider. I suspect that a hangar door that blew off upwind hit my glider and knocked it from it's tie downs, but that is going to be very hard to prove to the satisfaction of the airport's insurance company. I have started a Gofundme account to help me recover and continue being able to sell rides to the public.
https://gofund.me/ed12c2ef
Thank you for considering a donation.
Gary Boggs
www.nwskysports.com
The law suit is a way for a wrong to be corrected.
Walt Connelly
On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 13:56:54 UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
The law suit is a way for a wrong to be corrected.
Walt Connelly
I love the idea hear that some poor guy owning hangar is guilty of severe storm blowing hangar door away, and some expensive layer is needed to correct this "wrong". Let's not pretend that this makes any sense in any country other than US.
On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 13:56:54 UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
The law suit is a way for a wrong to be corrected.
Walt Connelly
I love the idea hear that some poor guy owning hangar is guilty of severe storm blowing hangar door away, and some expensive layer is needed to correct this "wrong". Let's not pretend that this makes any sense in any country other than US.
On 8/21/2022 1:45 AM, krasw wrote:
On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 13:56:54 UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
The law suit is a way for a wrong to be corrected.
Walt Connelly
I love the idea hear that some poor guy owning hangar is guilty of
severe storm blowing hangar door away, and some expensive layer is
needed to correct this "wrong". Let's not pretend that this makes any
sense in any country other than US.
Lots of assumptions here: we don't know if the hangar owner, or the
hangar user (may not be the same person) took adequate precautions, or
if there was liability insurance that could/should cover damage to
others in a case like this, or that it's going to take an "expensive"
lawyer to get restitution.
I agree with Walt: the USA is definitely not the worst. Here's an
anecdote from 28 years ago: Tug Wilson, British airline pilot and
motorglider pilot, had lived in many countries around the world while
flying for the airlines. He said the US had the best bureaucracies of
any of those countries he'd lived in, from local officials, state
officials, post office, even the FAA, and the legal system was the
easiest to deal with. Government and legal corruption was the lowest,
and he compared it to Spain (where he was living at the time), saying
you needed a lawyer to get many things done that you could do with a
phone call to city hall in the US, and sometimes needed to hire a lawyer
to sue the first lawyer.
I've heard Spain has significantly improved, but I believe what Tug said
is still true: "If you don't like US bureaucracies, you're going to hate
them everywhere else".
Try to get a pilot's license in Australia when you have a US ATP and
you're only in the country on business for three weeks. But that's
another story.
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 08:39:46 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
Try to get a pilot's license in Australia when you have a US ATP andWell...
you're only in the country on business for three weeks. But that's
another story.
The US is the only place I've been escorted to the FAA examiners desk by
an armed guard when I wanted to get a US glider licence by grandfathering
my UK license.
However, that was just a week after 9/11, in Denver, and the guy with the
gun faded as I sat down at the examiner's desk.
Ya, and what did you have to do to get a US license? Show them your UK licence? (Did you notice the spelling?)
In Oz, I had to pay A$150 or thereabouts and then take a written test on
the Air Regulations. They gave me a stack of books that was, literally
4 feet high, maybe more. Anyway, I passed the closed book test which
covered such things as altitudes, distances, light gun signals, etc.,
but I failed the closed book test. There just wasn't time to dig
through all those documents which were written in the King's finest
legalese.
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 12:56:07 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
Ya, and what did you have to do to get a US license? Show them your UKYes, pretty much just that, and then go to Boulder for a check ride.
licence? (Did you notice the spelling?)
The only downer in the whole deal was a few years later, when you guys all switched to plastic licenses some years later - not an option for me
because I'd have needed to go stateside just to pick up plastic, and for
some reason - probably not enough unused holiday time left - it couldn't
be tied in with anything else I'd have liked to do while on your side of
the pond.
In Oz, I had to pay A$150 or thereabouts and then take a written test onGetting an NZ ticket a year or two later was equally easy. That was done
the Air Regulations. They gave me a stack of books that was, literally
4 feet high, maybe more. Anyway, I passed the closed book test which
covered such things as altitudes, distances, light gun signals, etc.,
but I failed the closed book test. There just wasn't time to dig
through all those documents which were written in the King's finest
legalese.
on the spot when I visited the Wellington club, took a check ride in a
Twin Astir followed by a solo in the Twin Astir, got the ticket and then
took flights in their PW-5 and Std Libelle. The Astir was easy - my club
here had a G103 Twin Acro, so really only the PW-5 and Libelle were new
types to me.
Maybe I should go to NZ, it looks absolutely beautiful! My trips to Oz (5 times) were
business related.
My former club in Colorado had a Twin Astir and it was nice to fly.
Another member (Tom Serkowski) and I test flew a newly imported PW-5 for
its owner. The guidance from the FSDO was that only documented
maneuvers from the test flights would be authorized so Tom and I did
stalls, spins, all sorts of aerobatics, opened the airspeed envelope,
and air and winch tows. It was a nice flying aircraft, but ugly as a
pug dog in a mud hole.
I've never had the pleasure of flying a Libelle.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 13:26:13 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
My former club in Colorado had a Twin Astir and it was nice to fly.One of our instructors here described the PW-5 as flying a bit like a
Another member (Tom Serkowski) and I test flew a newly imported PW-5 for
its owner. The guidance from the FSDO was that only documented
maneuvers from the test flights would be authorized so Tom and I did
stalls, spins, all sorts of aerobatics, opened the airspeed envelope,
and air and winch tows. It was a nice flying aircraft, but ugly as a
pug dog in a mud hole.
paper bag, and I must say I agreed with him, but apart from that it was
nice enough.
BTW, in Wellington they warned me about PIO at the start of the tow - apparently some if you're a bit ham-fisted and raise the nose too fast,
too soon you can lift off and stall it before the tow plane has rotated:
this can cause a nosewheel-main-wheel-pitch-up-and-stall cycle. I
carefully raised the nose a little and ran on the main until it lifted off with quire smoothly - just like you expect an ASK-21 do it.
Its certainly not a pretty aircraft.
I've never had the pleasure of flying a Libelle.Its about the nicest handling glider I've flown, nicely free of gotchas
and certainly has the best all-round vision of anything I've flown: I can just see the rudder waggle if I kick the pedals, even with my straps
tight, so very nice in a busy thermal. I've yet to fly anything nicer,
though a Pegase 90 comes close (MUCH better rear viz than Juniors and
Discii) and I like the soft ride from its bendy wings. Plus the '90 has
fully self-connecting controls - no nasty Hoteliers to connect by feel!
If you go to NZ you can do nice things like fly into Auckland, drive to Wellington via Waitomo, Rotorua and Taupo, catch a ferry across Cook
Strait to Picton, check out the wine, and then either pick up another
rental there or ride the train to Christchurch (a nice run down the coast) before picking up a car to visit Akaroa, Queenstown and Omarama (for a
spot of mountain flying), and maybe use the Hast Pass to visit the West
Coast on the way back to Christchurch before flying out from there.
On 8/22/2022 2:27 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 13:26:13 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
My former club in Colorado had a Twin Astir and it was nice to fly.One of our instructors here described the PW-5 as flying a bit like a paper bag, and I must say I agreed with him, but apart from that it was nice enough.
Another member (Tom Serkowski) and I test flew a newly imported PW-5 for >> its owner. The guidance from the FSDO was that only documented
maneuvers from the test flights would be authorized so Tom and I did
stalls, spins, all sorts of aerobatics, opened the airspeed envelope,
and air and winch tows. It was a nice flying aircraft, but ugly as a
pug dog in a mud hole.
BTW, in Wellington they warned me about PIO at the start of the tow - apparently some if you're a bit ham-fisted and raise the nose too fast, too soon you can lift off and stall it before the tow plane has rotated: this can cause a nosewheel-main-wheel-pitch-up-and-stall cycle. I carefully raised the nose a little and ran on the main until it lifted off with quire smoothly - just like you expect an ASK-21 do it.
Its certainly not a pretty aircraft.
I've never had the pleasure of flying a Libelle.Its about the nicest handling glider I've flown, nicely free of gotchas and certainly has the best all-round vision of anything I've flown: I can just see the rudder waggle if I kick the pedals, even with my straps tight, so very nice in a busy thermal. I've yet to fly anything nicer, though a Pegase 90 comes close (MUCH better rear viz than Juniors and Discii) and I like the soft ride from its bendy wings. Plus the '90 has fully self-connecting controls - no nasty Hoteliers to connect by feel!
If you go to NZ you can do nice things like fly into Auckland, drive to Wellington via Waitomo, Rotorua and Taupo, catch a ferry across Cook Strait to Picton, check out the wine, and then either pick up another rental there or ride the train to Christchurch (a nice run down the coast) before picking up a car to visit Akaroa, Queenstown and Omarama (for a spot of mountain flying), and maybe use the Hast Pass to visit the West Coast on the way back to Christchurch before flying out from there.
And the penguins! that are as cute as the PW5, and in many sizes (S to XL). And
albatrosses - huge!
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
And the penguins! that are as cute as the PW5, and in many sizes (S to
XL). And albatrosses - huge!
I've bought houses in FL, TX, CO, NY, and NM and only in NY was a layer needed for the transaction. In fact THREE lawyers were required to buy
a house in New York. Seemed excessive to me so I asked our realtor who
said, "There are a lot of law schools in NY."
Try to get a pilot's license in Australia when you have a US ATP and
you're only in the country on business for three weeks. But that's
another story.
Dan
5J
On 8/21/22 07:36, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 8/21/2022 1:45 AM, krasw wrote:
On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 13:56:54 UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
The law suit is a way for a wrong to be corrected.
Walt Connelly
I love the idea hear that some poor guy owning hangar is guilty of
severe storm blowing hangar door away, and some expensive layer is
needed to correct this "wrong". Let's not pretend that this makes any
sense in any country other than US.
Lots of assumptions here: we don't know if the hangar owner, or the
hangar user (may not be the same person) took adequate precautions, or
if there was liability insurance that could/should cover damage to
others in a case like this, or that it's going to take an "expensive" lawyer to get restitution.
I agree with Walt: the USA is definitely not the worst. Here's an
anecdote from 28 years ago: Tug Wilson, British airline pilot and motorglider pilot, had lived in many countries around the world while flying for the airlines. He said the US had the best bureaucracies of
any of those countries he'd lived in, from local officials, state officials, post office, even the FAA, and the legal system was the
easiest to deal with. Government and legal corruption was the lowest,
and he compared it to Spain (where he was living at the time), saying
you needed a lawyer to get many things done that you could do with a
phone call to city hall in the US, and sometimes needed to hire a lawyer
to sue the first lawyer.
I've heard Spain has significantly improved, but I believe what Tug said
is still true: "If you don't like US bureaucracies, you're going to hate them everywhere else".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:15:06 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,193 |