On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:58:51 -0600, wrote:
I would, but you obviously reject what you can't believe. Why not
read the regs again, and if you missed it, read it again and so on
until it sinks in.

Tell you what. YOU show ME the "reg" and all of it, where it says
that an owner can just slap something together and call it an owner
produced part for his airplane. Don't just list it, text it all ( and
that means all of it) so that I can show you the error of your ways.



Jon A. wrote:

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:10:47 GMT, "Dan Thompson"
wrote:


An owner produced part is not airworthy unless it matches the blueprints the
manufacturer supplied to the FAA when the aircraft was certificated.

Or a 337 with and STC is used.

Or a field approval is obtained.


Holy Crap! Someone else that reads the entire passage, not just what
they want to see! Hope you have your armor on. The pseudo lawyers
are going to get you!


What your indicating is that owner produced parts need to have a 337 to
install. SHOW ME THE REGS!!

The fabricated part does not have to match the origial blueprints. If it
does, SHOW ME THE REGS!!

Lets have anytime someone makes a statement or somebody questions a
statement about what you can do and what you can't do, provide the
regulations to back up that statement.


SHOW ME THE REGS!!

Dave



"Jon A." wrote in message
news
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:39:30 -0800, "RST Engineering"
wrote:


The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.

Jim



"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

Jon A. writes:


Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
it to be true?

What myth is this?

-jav

No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
his own.