A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

USAF = US Amphetamine Fools



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 14th 03, 07:31 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"B2431" wrote in message
...
Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.


Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the acronym.


Cite your source.


FAA DER Standardization Seminar, Long Beach California.


Ads
  #32  
Old August 14th 03, 07:35 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

You have not yet offered any support for that allegation.

  #33  
Old August 14th 03, 07:36 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That fact only seems to erode your other assertion, Esres.

How so?
  #34  
Old August 14th 03, 07:39 PM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

...
Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.

Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the acronym.


Cite your source.


FAA DER Standardization Seminar, Long Beach California.

OK, now take a look at the FAA web page. They still use FAR as Federal Aviation
Regulation.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired



  #35  
Old August 14th 03, 07:45 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #36  
Old August 14th 03, 07:45 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #37  
Old August 14th 03, 08:08 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #38  
Old August 14th 03, 08:10 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"B2431" wrote in message
...
...
Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.

Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the

acronym.

Cite your source.


FAA DER Standardization Seminar, Long Beach California.

OK, now take a look at the FAA web page. They still use FAR as Federal

Aviation
Regulation.


It doesn't matter that FAA has not completed the removal of the term "FAR"
from their website. Did you expect that a Court decision would have instant
global effect?

Now stop being silly, Dan and run along.


  #39  
Old August 14th 03, 08:36 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #40  
Old August 14th 03, 08:41 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.