USAF = US Amphetamine Fools

Where in 14 CFR, Part 91, et. al., does it authorize you to attach a
fully automatic machine gun on the aircraft, or a nuclear weapon, or
napalm, etc.,?

There doesn't need to be an authorization. There is no prohibition.

There are numerous exemptions in the FARs for military aircraft, and
there are a number of other blanket exemptions such as "Unless
authorized by the administrator".

The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message ...
-
There are numerous exemptions in the FARs for military aircraft, and
there are a number of other blanket exemptions such as "Unless
authorized by the administrator".

Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in part 91.
The only part that even pretends to play military and civilian together.


The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.

The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
only civil aviation.

The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public
aircraft, only civil aviation.

You have not yet offered any support for that allegation.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message ...
The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public
aircraft, only civil aviation.

You have not yet offered any support for that allegation.

Geez, I didn't realize people were going to be so thick about things.
The enabling legislation that gives the FAA regulationss authority is the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958. It's found in 49 USC 40101.

Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in
part 91. The only part that even pretends to play military and
civilian together.

What difference does it make how many? Even if there were only one
exemption, you would still have to explain why there would be an
exemption in a set of laws that didn't apply to the military in the
first place.

Geez, I didn't realize people were going to be so thick about
things.

Yes, I should accept uncritically anything I read over the internet,
because people would NEVER talk about things they didn't understand.

The enabling legislation that gives the FAA regulationss authority
is the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. It's found in 49 USC 40101.

Well, that's a little too much for me to study right now. I didn't
find anything that explicitly stated one way or the other.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in
part 91. The only part that even pretends to play military and
civilian together.

What difference does it make how many? Even if there were only one
exemption, you would still have to explain why there would be an
exemption in a set of laws that didn't apply to the military in the
first place.

Letters of agreement are a polite way of dealing with egotistical asses?

"Webidence" is defined as: "Using unproven evidence gathered from the
Web to prove your silly point".

"Ron Natalie" wrote...

The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
only civil aviation.

Actually, he does, per 49 USC 40101, par. (d)(4) and (d)(6).

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:04:17 GMT, "John R Weiss"
wrote in Message-Id:
1rV_a.146530$Ho3.17545@sccrnsc03:

"Ron Natalie" wrote...

The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
only civil aviation.

Actually, he does, per 49 USC 40101, par. (d)(4) and (d)(6).


Actually, she does if you consider "Public interest" to be authority:

"...the Administrator shall consider the following matters, among
others, as being in the public interest"




http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/40101.html

(d) Safety Considerations in Public Interest. -

In carrying out subpart III of this part and those provisions of
subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart III, the
Administrator shall consider the following matters, among others,
as being in the public interest:

(1)

assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the
highest priorities in air commerce.

(2)

regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety and
fulfills national defense requirements.

(3)

encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new
aviation technology.

(4)

controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil
and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the
safety and efficiency of both of those operations.

(5)

consolidating research and development for air navigation
facilities and the installation and operation of those facilities.

(6)

developing and operating a common system of air traffic control
and navigation for military and civil aircraft.

(7)

providing assistance to law enforcement agencies in the
enforcement of laws related to regulation of controlled
substances, to the extent consistent with aviation safety.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:23:24 -0400, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:

The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.

The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
only civil aviation.

This is no longer entirely true. Within the past few years, the FAA
acquired jurisdiction over public aircraft used primarily for the
transport of personnel on a commuter- or charter-like basis. I think
it took a couple of accidents involving planes full of pax to do this.

That is, the NASA KingAirs that haul managers around have to be
maintained and operated to FAA standards. Actually, Dryden got the
FAA to accept the NASA maintenance standards as conforming to FAA
requirements. The operations and pilot licensure issues were minor
compared to that.

On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer