If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote: 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.,? Where in any part of 14 CFR does it say that I *can't* attach a fully auto gun to my aircraft? If it doesn't say I can't, then the FARs allow it (BATF is another issue, however). Doesn't some combination of part 43 and 91 require that the aircraft be maintained iaw the type certificate? And all modifications (useful, useless, or silly) to the aircraft have to be made using acceptable methods, right? I suppose if someone is prepared to go thru the safety analysis for the gun, then there might be a chance that the FAA would approve the modification. -- Bob Noel |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:57:27 -0400, "Dennis O'Connor"
wrote in Message-Id: : And I agree with you totally - Irrational beliefs DO lead to irrational acts... Neoconservative high priest Norman Podhoretz wrote: "... as a born-again Christian, it is said, he [GWB] believes he was chosen by God to eradicate the evil of terrorism from the world." The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz that baby Bush made the following pronouncement during a recent meeting between the two: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." -- Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera, |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Noel wrote: I suppose if someone is prepared to go thru the safety analysis for the gun, then there might be a chance that the FAA would approve the modification. Just re-certify the Maule as experimental. I still have my eye on that little mini-gun that someone brought up in another thread. :-) George Patterson Brute force has an elegance all its own. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:17:44 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Mary Shafer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:23:24 -0400, "Ron Natalie" wrote: 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. When where? I think one of them was a university in the midwest somewhere, one of the state schools. They had a flight department, all unregulated, and crashed a plane in the KingAir class, maybe in bad weather, with a bunch of high-level folks on board. This was probably within the last ten years. I don't even know where to look to find the records of accidents like this. They're not investigated by FAA or NTSB, so they're not in either database. Maybe googling? I don't know how far back such things go, since the WWW was only invented eight years ago. Or maybe you can dig up some of the stuff that was going around when the NPRM came out. There was something in AvWeek, I know. 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. Are you sure this is not just a result of Drydens misbehavior in modifying that Lear? Yes, absolutely. That Lear wasn't used for pax; it was a science airplane. The hard landing happened well after the new rule was established. Anyway, the mods (which were done at Ames, long before the airplane came down to Dryden) and maintenance didn't have anything to do with the hard landing. It had no more to do with the rule than did the MLG failure on the F-18 that ended in a barrier arrestment a month or two earlier. No, the cause was the kind of adjunct passenger operations run by governmental bodies, not the research operation of modified aircraft. Passenger operations that were totally unregulated by anyone with any aviation experience. Say what you will about NASA or FAA or NOAA or even the CHP, but you have to admit they know how to operate and maintain aircraft professionally. It's the little three commuter aircraft operations, run on-demand, by folks who don't have to constantly justify what they're doing to IGs and advisory councils and other outside reviews, that ended up being regulated by the FAA. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary Shafer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:17:44 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: snip Are you sure this is not just a result of Drydens misbehavior in modifying that Lear? Yes, absolutely. Still, this was an N registered Lear that was incompetently and illegally modified. I know that kind of misbehavior would have caused the Type Certificate to be pulled, if the aircraft had been modified outside the USA. Some sort of additional regulation of ryden's activities were in order. That Lear wasn't used for pax; it was a science airplane. Thayt doesn't matter, Mary, Dryden did what would have canceled the Type Certificate anywhere else. I know you didn't intend to buy the airplane. The hard landing happened well after the new rule was established. I am refering to the battery exploding and setting the aircraft on fire. Anyway, the mods (which were done at Ames, long before the airplane came down to Dryden) and maintenance didn't have anything to do with the hard landing. It had no more to do with the rule than did the MLG failure on the F-18 that ended in a barrier arrestment a month or two earlier. Mary, stop obfuscating. The incompetent wire mods on that Lear are a matter of public record. The mod that caused the fire was done in Fresno. No, the cause was the kind of adjunct passenger operations run by governmental bodies, not the research operation of modified aircraft. I guess that is why EG&G has an airline now. Passenger operations that were totally unregulated by anyone with any aviation experience. Say what you will about NASA or FAA or NOAA or even the CHP, but you have to admit they know how to operate and maintain aircraft professionally. I already showed you that is not the case for NASA. When you lease an N registerd airplane, the Type Certificate must be maintained. As far as FAA goes, thye have no cert requirements at all for their aircraft, or parts. It's the little three commuter aircraft operations, run on-demand, by folks who don't have to constantly justify what they're doing to IGs and advisory councils and other outside reviews, that ended up being regulated by the FAA. Considering how dangerous unregulated scheduled service is, that is probably a good idea. Revenue leads to "gotta get there". John P. tarver, MS/PE Electrical Engineer |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"John Hairell" wrote in message ... On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:53:17 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: it also allows for "other documentation acceptable to the Administrator." It is entirely possible NASA and the military services have had their medical certificates deemed as "acceptable to the Administrator." Now you are just being silly, Weiss. Following is a bunch of NASA policy documentation excerpted from NPG7900.3A which governs the use of NASA aircraft and the aircrew standards - you should read it, you might get an education. from Chapter 2: 2.2.3.5. Pilots of mission management (management and staff transport) aircraft shall comply with the requirements contained in Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 65, Medical Standards and Certification. NASA is an extra Constitutional entity, just like US DOT and they are identical in being Congressional authority delegated to the Executive. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
NASA is an extra Constitutional entity, just like US DOT and they are identical in being Congressional authority delegated to the Executive. Do you stay up late at night making this stuff up? NASA is an agency established by the Executive branch to "execute" under the authorization and appropriations of enabling legislation enacted by the Legislative branch. There's nothing "extra Constitutional" about it. Congressional "authority", in other words the power of the Legislative branch as described in the Constitution cannot be "delegated" to the Executive. Congress enacts legislation as described in Article I, section 8. The Executive then "executes" the legislation. There's no "delegation" since, by definition the act of delegating implies a subordinate/superior relationship. As for the basic question regarding FAA authority over military aviation operations, except in special use airspace, the military is expected to comply fully with FAA direction. The governing regulation for the USAF (used to be AFM 60-16 "Flight Operating Rules") specifies that operations "will be conducted to the maximum extent practicable, under IFR"--which includes filing of FAA flight plans and compliance with FAA ARTC throughout. Exceptions, such as operating at higher speed under 10,000 feet, are well coordinated with FAA. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message news "Tarver Engineering" wrote: NASA is an extra Constitutional entity, just like US DOT and they are identical in being Congressional authority delegated to the Executive. Do you stay up late at night making this stuff up? NASA is an agency established by the Executive branch to "execute" under the authorization and appropriations of enabling legislation enacted by the Legislative branch. There's nothing "extra Constitutional" about it. Yes Ed, Congress delegates much of its authority to the Executive. That way Administrative Law can enable the spending of money which otherwise would have to be allocated by Congress directly. Congressional "authority", in other words the power of the Legislative branch as described in the Constitution cannot be "delegated" to the Executive. LOL Ed, go fly an airplane and forget about trying to understand how the system works. John p. Tarver, MS/PE Electrical Engineer |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message news "Tarver Engineering" wrote: NASA is an extra Constitutional entity, just like US DOT and they are identical in being Congressional authority delegated to the Executive. Do you stay up late at night making this stuff up? NASA is an agency established by the Executive branch to "execute" under the authorization and appropriations of enabling legislation enacted by the Legislative branch. There's nothing "extra Constitutional" about it. Yes Ed, Congress delegates much of its authority to the Executive. That way Administrative Law can enable the spending of money which otherwise would have to be allocated by Congress directly. Administrative "Law" is simply the power of "regulation" rather than "legislation" and is well within the existing Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch. The "enabling" to spending money is more than adequately covered by the passage of appropriation bills. That's the whole of idea of an "Executive" branch--it executes the policy legislated by the Congress. Congressional "authority", in other words the power of the Legislative branch as described in the Constitution cannot be "delegated" to the Executive. LOL Ed, go fly an airplane and forget about trying to understand how the system works. John p. Tarver, MS/PE Electrical Engineer John, since you brandish your MS/PE in your sig, it indicates an educational accomplishment. Similarly, but not brandished, my educational accomplishments include MPS (Master of Political Science--Auburn U. 1978) and MSIR (Master of International Relations--Troy State U. 1981). I teach Political Science in Colorado Springs and you are welcome any time you pass through to visit the college and audit my classes. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USAF axes the bicycle aerobics test | S. Sampson | Military Aviation | 22 | August 10th 03 03:50 AM |
FS Books USAF, Navy, Marine pilots and planes | Ken Insch | Military Aviation | 0 | July 20th 03 02:36 AM |
NZ plane lands safely with help from USAF | Jughead | Military Aviation | 0 | July 6th 03 10:23 PM |
From Col.Greg Davis USAF (ret) | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | July 3rd 03 07:56 PM |