totter

I had looked into the 4 place system, from Mountain High, but it was decided to stay with the large bottle and parallel connected manifolds. It wasn't hard to adapt the MH regulators to the large bottles. Those 4 place systems, sold by Mountain High, are truely portable and could never be scrutinized for their legality. Agreed. Always used the small pilot's rig. It could fit behind the seat, the pilot could add O2 when they wanted and the bottle would last 3-4 attempts before re-filling.

PVC pipe, as in plumbing pipe found at Home Depot I agree yes to the statement. But there are other PVC & poly products that are used and sold for the low pressure side of an oxygen system. The link is for the Mountain High website. www.mhoxygen.com Go to hardware, low pressure.

This applies to the temporary installed system most found at DZs. Being one that has rigged aircraft for big ways this is what I would look for: 1) What type of regulator is installed on the tank. Is it one designed for Oxygen breathing use or one purchased from a welding supply store. One that is designed for actual oxygen breathing (i.e. like those sold by Mountain High) will deliver the correct volume of O2 for the entire aircraft with no guess work. A regulator design for welding takes some trial and error to get the flow right. 2) What type of material is the supply manifold made of. Is it just a PVC/ABS plastic plumbing pipe with outlets or is PVC or Aluminum/Copper tubing. And also how many supply lines. The con for the PVC pipe is that most of the O2 goes to the people closest to the regulator. I was always partial to the PVC tubing and in a Skyvan or Otter used 2 supply line per side (one per side that fed the rear seats), so that everyone had the proper supply. 3) How is it installed (used loosly). Is it up out of the way hanging from a side wall/ceiling or is it laying on the benches/floor where things can get pinched. 4) Are there flow meters installed. There should be one per supply line. A simple one is just an In Line device that turns from Red to Green when the proper amount of O2 is flowing. Though there are some that insist that if they can't feel it blowing on them it isn't enough. 5) Are the cannulas new? It isn't that expensive to purchase new cannulas from a medical supply store. I think it ran about $50 for 200 cannula when we had big ways. I would make a hole in the bag just big enough so that I could install the adaptor on the end of the hose and leave the rest in the bag. The jumpers were appriciative when they looked in the aircraft and saw this. There are other things to look for, and I'm sure some will add on, but these i feel are the big ones.

http://airplanegroundschools.com/Seaplane-Skiplane-Float-Airplanes/seaplane-performance.html Here is a good explaination of why Auxillary Fins (or Seafins) are required with a float install taken from the above link.

Actually, pchapman is right. They are required with the install of floats.

Hey John; You can kind of tell that she was a creature of habit. Totally prepared for a normal canopy, but not a reserve ride. She had an issue unstowing the toggles and then when she reached up, not once, but twice and try to collapse the slider. All aside, though, she did save her own life regardless of how ugly it looked on camera. It's probably her first reserve ride and I know that I,myself, always was thinking; "How will I handle it." With the sensory overload the whole cutaway/deployment was probably a blur in real time. Hopefully she will have a quick recovery, be back in the saddle and be able to learn from what is shown on the video

And here I was going to say "Stupidity". I guess that's why there are so few jumpers in Alaska

Learn something new everyday. Never seen a 182 with the handle or porch step (the 180). I, personally, would not see any issue with the handle install; (door frame or fuselage top). Reason being; 1) its not a pressurized aircraft, 2) It is not being asked to support a load. It would still need a 337 Field Approval, but would not require engineering data. http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=E748AA8119D00C248525734F0076663A I'm reposting this link. It is the FAA Inspectors Handbook. If you scroll down almost to the end there is a chart, Figure 4-68, that tells which type of modifications require an STC or Engineering Data or can be a simple Field Approval. I cannot really see where the handle would fit into a STC or Eng category. You may even be able to use the data from one of the Brazillian aircraft to support this install. It would just depend on how thorough the data is. If its just a simple log book sign off "Installed handle", that wouldn't work, but something more detailed may. It would be worth a shot if you cannot find something from the US. Any questions feel free to PM me. I'll see what I can do.

Have to agree with the onlyski. Never heard of a handle on a 182. Camera guy usually toes the step and holds onto the strut. Where are you planning/thinking of mounting the handle?

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1889754_1889752_1889689,00.html Here's Rosanne and some others for watching.

At least he remembered the words. Even worse than Rosanne was Carl Lewis. That made Rosanne sound like Beyonce'

If the aircraft was never listed in the Appendix to AC105-2C, then this is true. This appendix is what lists which aircraft are approved to operate with one door removed. There is also the "Proof of Concept" that comes into play over time. If you are doing a mod to an aircraft that has been done to many others and approved it makes it difficult for the feds to reject the data.

Not sure if I follow you on this? If he has a blanket STC for his fleet, then the FAA FSDO does not even have to be involved. The 337 gets filled out, sign by the A&P who did the install and sign by an IA, who inspected the work and approved for return to service. Then one copy is given to Lance and another gets mailed to Ok City. The local FSDO is a part. Can you clarify this please. Or Lance can answer also.

Lance; Here is a link for the FAA Inspectors Handbook, Form 337 Field Approvals: http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=E748AA8119D00C248525734F0076663A Take a look at 4-1178, B) Data, 1 b), d); and C 6). What the FAA doesn't someone taking a 337 for a 182 and thinking that they can put a swing up door on a U206. Edited to add: A 182A may be structurally different than a 182P, but this is just due to the wider body and higher gross weight. There should be no differentiation between sub-models. They are all on the same Type Certificate Data Sheet. A 182 door is a 182 door. Same with seatbelts and an air deflector. If you are using the same type of installation method (ie, piano hinge) and same type of latch mechanism then the installs are similar. You may have to develop an ICA though, if your 182A 337s are old and don't have one. Just make sure, in the description section you make the statement; "This installation is similar to the installation previously approved on Form 337, for aircraft (the N number), dated (date written in Box 3 of previously approved 337).

Just to let you know, it doesn't have to be a P model. It can be any 182, from A-Z. Footnote: I know there are know Z models.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUak_N6Mugg&NR=1&feature=endscreen So here is another decent video from Eloy. He uses his foot to open the plexi, but does not use it to kick the handle. The bungee is on the one (handle) side and ONLY the guy working the handle is stepping on the door. Little problem latching it in the up position, but help is asked for and with the additional hand the door is secured in the up position.

I posted this on the "Incident" thread already, but this is a pretty clear video showing the door operation. This is not intended to be instructional, since it is showing a full size door with no bungees, which is the exception to most skyvans out there. The one thing that should be pointed out in this is that even though the jumper uses his foot to open the latch, he doesn't kick it or force it over. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmeUyKECCsQ

Very good coverage of door operation. You hit all the essentials and were very clear in the explainations.

SHE LOOKS LIKE A HOOF -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know its an insult to Joey, but she could? be him.

This is the primary reason for Hot Fueling. You know that with a Garrett engine (Skyvan, Casa) you can start it in the morning fly 35 loads in it, shut it down at the end of the day it it only counts as 1 (one) engine cycle. Makes a big difference when you don't have to shut down for fueling. That would be 6 cycles otherwise. The earlier model PT6s, like the -6 and -20s, have an inner hot section that is made up of numerous smaller peices that are assembled together before install in the engine. It is due to this why a -20 Otter, Porter or King Air needs at least 20 minutes to cool down, so that all sections of the hot section can cool down evenly. The combustion area of the GG case may be just warm to the touch, but inside the core is still 100-200C. Uneven heating and cooling lead to warpage which then leads to premature failure. -21, 27, 28, 34, 135 and 114s don't have this issue, but it is still a good idea to have the engine temp as cool as possible before light off since 85% of hot section wear is from starts. The pilot can also "Motor' the engine to draw cool air thru the engine. If you see a pilot pulling the blades thru (by hand) after shut down then that engine is a Garrett and it requires a cool down period for another reason (shaft bow).

That's her!!! I thought that was Joey Ramone!

Hi again TK; When it comes to General Aviation I agree. I posted that in an earlier comment. The quote of mine that you posted was in response to a question of "What If" the FAA required fueling procedures and approval like 135 and 121 operators. As part of the operator's OPs Spec and GOM they need to show procedures for fueling, which then have to be approved by the FAA. And, I feel that, even if the local and state goverments allowed Hot Fueling the FAA would not approve someones procedure if the aircraft was not Single-Point equipped just do to the liabilty issue. Single point is inherently safer. And we all know that the FAA does not like to go out on a limb.

Hey TK, I guess I should have been more area specific and stated; "In New Jersey". I seem to remember when we operated in Sebastian not being able to Hot Fuel due to fire regs, so I just associated it with Fire Marshall. In New Jersey, however, it is (was) up to the Fire Marshall to grant us permission to Hot Fuel. He would make a Yearly Inspection and Spot checks of the fuel farm, safety equipement and observe. Not that they don't due this on a regular basis at other places, but his good graces were all part of us being able to hot fuel. And if it was approved by the Fire Marshall it was OK with the local and state authorities. If he said NO, then we would not have been able to. Also, just so we are speaking apples to apples, I am not implying to the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief, I agree, would probably not be fully versed on all the fire regs and laws. The Fire Marshall, though, is responsable for enforcement of the local and state codes, regs and laws. (At least in New Jersey).

I'll agree with you on one point and that is that safety is priority one. Beyond that if you were to tone down your extremitizm people may be more reluctant to listen. Myself included. Many post ago you asked Ron how Hot Fueling was done. I answered for him. Sarcasm was added because anyone who has Hot Fueled a King Air knows that that is what happens. It hot, dirty, smelly and YES dangerous. But I've done it so many times its second nature. I'll agree with you also about not having people in the aircraft while Hot fueling. Or with the pilot being the one to Hot Fuel. But that is where I'll stop. The procedure I and the other people at the DZ used was approved by the Fire Marshall as meeting the necessary safety requirements. Between myself and ace Hot Fueler Dennis, a.k.a. Toast, we would pump 3000 gallons of Jet A on a busy weekend, 98% of it by Hot Fueling. More when we had big ways going on. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't except your hardline stance as something that is imparative and needs to implimented immediately. Just flat out stating that ALL Hot Fueling is dangerous is just going a step to far for me. Hot Fueling a piston aircraft - Not necessary and just plain stupid and dangerous. Having the pilot Hot Fuel with no one at the controls - Not necessary and just plain stupid. Having a fuel farm with no fire extinguisher or ground wire. Stupid. Not using the ground. Stupid Laying the fuel nozzle on the ground when done - Stupid Those things above are being complacent. If you witness such things than of course spreak up. As many posters have agreed Hot Fueling has been going on for years at DZs with no accident or incidents and it safe if done properly. Does this mean that it could never happen, No. But that is the case with EVERYTHING in life.

Most likely it would not be allowed. Without single point re-fueling the FAA would most likely say NO.