USAF = US Amphetamine Fools

As has been pointed out by other posters, the Military has their own
regulation bringing them into compliance with some sections of CFR14,
but this document is controlled by the military and is in no way
subject to FAA review.

This law you speak of was created by the Congress that you say has no
power over the military.

# U.S. Code:

* 10 U.S.C. - Armed Forces
* 18 U.S.C. § 1024 - Purchase or Receipt of Military, Naval, or
Veteran's Facilities Property
* 32 U.S.C. - National Guard
* 37 U.S.C. - Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
* 38 U.S.C. - Veterans' Benefits
* 50 U.S.C. - War and National Defense


The President being Commander-in-Chief in no way reduces the ability
of Congress to make laws governing the military.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
As has been pointed out by other posters, the Military has their own
regulation bringing them into compliance with some sections of CFR14,
but this document is controlled by the military and is in no way
subject to FAA review.

This law you speak of was created by the Congress that you say has no
power over the military.

I never wrote that Congress has no power over the Military. Please do try
to keep the voices in your head from taking over your side of the debate.

# U.S. Code:

* 10 U.S.C. - Armed Forces
* 18 U.S.C. § 1024 - Purchase or Receipt of Military, Naval, or
Veteran's Facilities Property
* 32 U.S.C. - National Guard
* 37 U.S.C. - Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
* 38 U.S.C. - Veterans' Benefits
* 50 U.S.C. - War and National Defense


The President being Commander-in-Chief in no way reduces the ability
of Congress to make laws governing the military.

All these are funding issues Esres; an issue I explicitly pointed out
Congress controls.

You see Esres, these united States operate under a three branch system of
Government. Each of these branches has explicit power granted under the
Constitution and then Congress has delegated some powers to the Executive.
Congress, having delegated powers to the Excutive, does not increase the
Constitutional powers of Congress.

Esres, you are persueing a false premise.

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.

All these are funding issues Esres;

There are not. You haven't scanned through Title 10. Covers the
whole gamut of issues.

you are persueing a false premise.

My premise is you don't know what you're talking about. That doesn't
preclude you from being right; you know the saw about a stopped
clock....

But you need to offer evidence, and you haven't.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
snip I
will ask one rhetorical question for those who are not too brain dead to
think for themselves...
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.,?
Obviously it doesn't yet they do - Res Ipsa Loquitor / QED ...

I know it was rhetorical, but I can't help myself :-)

Generally speaking, the FARs tell you what you are not authorized to
do, rather than what you are authorized to do. If there's no reg
prohibiting it, go for it. You can't violate a reg that doesn't
exist.

I know that Cessna has made versions of the 172 equipped with rocket
pods and Piper has a version of the PA32 equipped with bomb racks.
Assuming that those versions were built under a valid type cert.,
there is nothing in the FARs that would prevent you from loading up
and heading out. Failing that, you could go the experimental route
and build your RV-10 with machine guns in the wings. No FAR covering
that either.

I'm sure doing the above would result in quite a bit of attention
from the ATF, since it is probably a violation of numerous laws to
possess those kinds of weapons, but I don't think you'd be in trouble
with the FAA. Part 91 definetly does not apply.

FWIW - Most government aircraft are exempt from the FAR requirements
that you and I must adhere to(i.e. type cert., annual inspections,
etc...). This applies not only to military aircraft, but also to
aircraft operated by government agencies like the FAA, BLM and USDA.


John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180, sans bomb racks)

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
All these are funding issues Esres;

There are not. You haven't scanned through Title 10. Covers the
whole gamut of issues.

I'll go with title 49, when it comes to FAA authority.

You are very confused about how the system works, Esres. I have filed and
had executed a First Amendment petitioin WRT FAA. That petition provided
FAA ACOs with 99 people and later with $250 million; Tom Mc Sweeny was the
only FAA management survivor in DC. Now he is off on a golden parachute
ride with Boeing and for a little listening, US common carriers can now
boast of two zero killed years. Ken Mean also assisted me in my seeking
regulatory Relief and so my Congressman placed him in the Inspector
General's position at US DOT. The reform of FAA was a very effective
political issue for Republicans and my Congressman is now Chair of Ways and
Means.

"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?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
US common carriers can now
boast of two zero killed years

Two zero? Did the kaiser steal your word twenty?

They added one back in on the other zero year, but I think it was political.

"Ron Natalie" wrote

Two zero? Did the kaiser steal your word twenty?

Ron, I think that the phrase was intrnded to be read
as two (2) zero-killed years. In other words, no deaths
for two years.

Bob

In article ,
(John Galban) wrote:

I know that Cessna has made versions of the 172 equipped with rocket
pods and Piper has a version of the PA32 equipped with bomb racks.
Assuming that those versions were built under a valid type cert.,
there is nothing in the FARs that would prevent you from loading up
and heading out.

and there's the challenge... to do the mod in a manner that
is consistent with the valid type cert.


FWIW - Most government aircraft are exempt from the FAR requirements
that you and I must adhere to(i.e. type cert., annual inspections,
etc...). This applies not only to military aircraft, but also to
aircraft operated by government agencies like the FAA, BLM and USDA.

e.g., State aircraft or Public aircraft as opposed to civilian aircraft.

--
Bob Noel