Awaiting Natalie's "interpretation of what he meant

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly
says?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as
Experimental.

No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates.
What they
have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
21.191.There
is no type certification of experimentals.

You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on
that one,
Ron.


With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere in
21.191?

Non-sequitur.


JTarver

You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in the rec.aviation.*
groups. I that is saying something.

I am sorry you get upset when your newsgroup consensus turns out to be
wrong.

You keep telling Ron that amateur-built aircraft have a type certificate.
Yet NO where in the FAR are the words "amateur-built" and "type" ever in
the
same paragraph. What the regs clearly show is that amateur-built aircraft
are flown under an experimental AIRWORTHINESS certificate.

Geeze, when the idiots make a mistake, they really take it to the limit.

The village idiot Knoyle trolled me with an archive troll for three years,
relying solely on his own ignorance of pitot static systems. Now this is
the way it works, you either roll over and ****, or keep making a fool of
yourself, Giacona.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
.... or keep making a fool of yourself, Giacona.

You seem to have that capability locked up. Try private posts if you have to
follow up on this this silly vendetta

Michael

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly
says?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as
Experimental.

No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates.
What they
have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
21.191.There
is no type certification of experimentals.

You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on
that one,
Ron.


With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere in
21.191?

Non-sequitur.


JTarver

You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in the rec.aviation.*
groups. I that is saying something.

I am sorry you get upset when your newsgroup consensus turns out to be
wrong.

You keep telling Ron that amateur-built aircraft have a type
certificate.
Yet NO where in the FAR are the words "amateur-built" and "type" ever in
the
same paragraph. What the regs clearly show is that amateur-built
aircraft
are flown under an experimental AIRWORTHINESS certificate.

Geeze, when the idiots make a mistake, they really take it to the limit.

The village idiot Knoyle trolled me with an archive troll for three years,
relying solely on his own ignorance of pitot static systems. Now this is
the way it works, you either roll over and ****, or keep making a fool of
yourself, Giacona.


Hi Splaps,
How about section 40, aluminum generator wiring, DC gens. on 777s
etc, etc, etc...
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html

Jimmy

Come on guys, GROW UP -- all of you!

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:41:55 GMT, "Jim Knoyle"
wrote:


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly
says?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as
Experimental.

No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates.
What they
have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
21.191.There
is no type certification of experimentals.

You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on
that one,
Ron.


With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere in
21.191?

Non-sequitur.


JTarver

You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in the rec.aviation.*
groups. I that is saying something.

I am sorry you get upset when your newsgroup consensus turns out to be
wrong.

You keep telling Ron that amateur-built aircraft have a type
certificate.
Yet NO where in the FAR are the words "amateur-built" and "type" ever in
the
same paragraph. What the regs clearly show is that amateur-built
aircraft
are flown under an experimental AIRWORTHINESS certificate.

Geeze, when the idiots make a mistake, they really take it to the limit.

The village idiot Knoyle trolled me with an archive troll for three years,
relying solely on his own ignorance of pitot static systems. Now this is
the way it works, you either roll over and ****, or keep making a fool of
yourself, Giacona.


Hi Splaps,
How about section 40, aluminum generator wiring, DC gens. on 777s
etc, etc, etc...
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html

Jimmy

Nothing wrong with Ron's perspective, but John is being his usual
"foot-in-mouth and then evade and spin the English language" self.

wrote in message
...
Come on guys, GROW UP -- all of you!

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:41:55 GMT, "Jim Knoyle"
wrote:


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it
clearly
says?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as
Experimental.

No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates.
What they
have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
21.191.There
is no type certification of experimentals.

You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association"
on
that one,
Ron.


With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere
in
21.191?

Non-sequitur.


JTarver

You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in the
rec.aviation.*
groups. I that is saying something.

I am sorry you get upset when your newsgroup consensus turns out to be
wrong.

You keep telling Ron that amateur-built aircraft have a type
certificate.
Yet NO where in the FAR are the words "amateur-built" and "type"
ever in
the
same paragraph. What the regs clearly show is that amateur-built
aircraft
are flown under an experimental AIRWORTHINESS certificate.

Geeze, when the idiots make a mistake, they really take it to the
limit.

The village idiot Knoyle trolled me with an archive troll for three
years,
relying solely on his own ignorance of pitot static systems. Now this
is
the way it works, you either roll over and ****, or keep making a fool
of
yourself, Giacona.


Hi Splaps,
How about section 40, aluminum generator wiring, DC gens. on 777s
etc, etc, etc...
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html

Jimmy

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
Nothing wrong with Ron's perspective, but John is being his usual
"foot-in-mouth and then evade and spin the English language" self.

A homebuilt is an experimental.

Where do you see a flaw in my statement, Tom?

As to my comments on the FAA chief counsel's office, I refer you to the
affect of my First Amendment petition; which left Tom McSweeney the only
person at Washington FAA standing. Then I had Karillo move Ken Mead from
GAO to USDOT. My friend Mead got a nice raise out of that.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news


PLONK!

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news


PLONK!

Who are you Casey and why would I care?