molding plexiglas websites?

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The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.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

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.

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The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.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

That doesn't HAPPEN to be true, but I'll let you deal with your FSDO any way
you want.

Nobody ever said that "willy nilly" (whatever the hell that means) was an
option. You spend a deuce of a lot of time as an apprentice learning what
looks like airplane and what doesn't.

Jim



"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
. com...
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.



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

Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...2002/Parts.htm

Carl Ellis wrote:

Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...2002/Parts.htm

You can draw lots of conclusions from this, but you can't draw a
conclusion that allowing owner produced parts is bad ... which is
clearly the intent of your post. An improperly made part is bad, but a
properly made part would have been just fine.


Matt

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:25:21 -0500, Matt Whiting wrote:

You can draw lots of conclusions from this, but you can't draw a
conclusion that allowing owner produced parts is bad ... which is
clearly the intent of your post. An improperly made part is bad, but a
properly made part would have been just fine.


Matt

No, that is not the intent of my post. I just provided the article for
other to see what the FAA has to say about this.

In fact, I am in the process of making an owner manufactured part of my own
following the guidelines in the article.

Owner produced parts are a good thing for those of us with orphaned
aircraft. You just need to be aware of the requirements for it to be
legal.

- Carl -

Carl Ellis wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:25:21 -0500, Matt Whiting wrote:


You can draw lots of conclusions from this, but you can't draw a
conclusion that allowing owner produced parts is bad ... which is
clearly the intent of your post. An improperly made part is bad, but a
properly made part would have been just fine.


Matt


No, that is not the intent of my post. I just provided the article for
other to see what the FAA has to say about this.

Ok, good.


In fact, I am in the process of making an owner manufactured part of my own
following the guidelines in the article.

Owner produced parts are a good thing for those of us with orphaned
aircraft. You just need to be aware of the requirements for it to be
legal.

Yes, and even more important, for it to be safe.


Matt

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!


"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.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:58:15 -0800, "RST Engineering"
wrote:

That doesn't HAPPEN to be true, but I'll let you deal with your FSDO any way
you want.

Nobody ever said that "willy nilly" (whatever the hell that means) was an
option. You spend a deuce of a lot of time as an apprentice learning what
looks like airplane and what doesn't.

Jim

And you spend more time justifying doing something that isn't right.
Gotta go, I'm curing some rubber for my airplane tires and it'll go
bad if I don't get right on it!




"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
.com...
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.



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

Geezus! What's this group coming to? Pretty soon it;ll turn out to
be a good and accurate source of info!



On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:13:40 -0800, Carl Ellis
wrote:

Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...2002/Parts.htm