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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... No John, the FSDO has it right. The certification basis for most small aircraft is FAR 23. No, Bill, all Type Certificates are Part 21. Part 23 can only change an existing Type Certificate, that is to say, the is no Law through which a Type certificate can be issued under Part 23. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Look at any modern small aircraft type certificate data sheet and note
the certification basis. You will not find a single one that is certified under FAR 21 They are all FAR 23. The original FSDO letter you slammed mentioned "certified under FAR 23" You said he was wrong. The certification basis IS FAR 23. Cite me one aircraft (small) that has a certification basis of FAR21, as shown on it's TCDS. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:03:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message .. . No John, the FSDO has it right. The certification basis for most small aircraft is FAR 23. No, Bill, all Type Certificates are Part 21. Part 23 can only change an existing Type Certificate, that is to say, the is no Law through which a Type certificate can be issued under Part 23. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... Look at any modern small aircraft type certificate data sheet and note the certification basis. You will not find a single one that is certified under FAR 21 They are all FAR 23. That is impossible, perhaps you are confusing changes to a type certificate with the type certificate. A Part 21 entity has Authority well in excess of what can be done under Part 23. The original FSDO letter you slammed mentioned "certified under FAR 23" You said he was wrong. Nope, what I corrected is a referece to a "Type Certificate" issued under Part 23, which is impossible. The certification basis IS FAR 23. Cite me one aircraft (small) that has a certification basis of FAR21, as shown on it's TCDS. Non-sequitur. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
John, you either have not or cannot provide me with an aircraft type
that is certificated under FAR 21. Why is this? Could it be that perhaps, you are mistaken? Current small aircraft certification is being done under FAR 23. The TCDS of modern aircraft confirms this. Sorry to burst your bubble. Non-sequitur is not a valid way out. I have provided the citation, you provide only your mouth. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:27:11 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message .. . Look at any modern small aircraft type certificate data sheet and note the certification basis. You will not find a single one that is certified under FAR 21 They are all FAR 23. That is impossible, perhaps you are confusing changes to a type certificate with the type certificate. A Part 21 entity has Authority well in excess of what can be done under Part 23. The original FSDO letter you slammed mentioned "certified under FAR 23" You said he was wrong. Nope, what I corrected is a referece to a "Type Certificate" issued under Part 23, which is impossible. The certification basis IS FAR 23. Cite me one aircraft (small) that has a certification basis of FAR21, as shown on it's TCDS. Non-sequitur. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... John, you either have not or cannot provide me with an aircraft type that is certificated under FAR 21. Why is this? All aircraft are Type Certificated under Part 21, there is no other means to do so. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Well then John, why don't you look at any modern type cetificate data
sheet, note the certification basis, and report back to me how many you find type certificated under FAR 21 vs. FAR 23, as I have told you a couple of times already is the only current basis, for small aircraft. Afraid to look, or don't know how to find a TCDS? If there is no other means to TC an aircraft under, then the FAA needs to be told, as there are hundreds certified under FAR 23. Just look. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:55:31 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message .. . John, you either have not or cannot provide me with an aircraft type that is certificated under FAR 21. Why is this? All aircraft are Type Certificated under Part 21, there is no other means to do so. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... Well then John, why don't you look at any modern type cetificate data sheet, note the certification basis, and report back to me how many you find type certificated under FAR 21 vs. FAR 23, as I have told you a couple of times already is the only current basis, for small aircraft. No, but you are welcome to be so deluded. Now, the rules of Part 23 can be used as a basis of certification, but there is no way to issue a Type Certificate except under Part 21. In fact, as a help for you to find a number of Part 21 only issued Type Certificated aircraft, I'll refer you to RAH. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
... I think the issue is one of what constitutes known icing. Is it from a pirep, weather balloon, etc., that has actually seen/encountered the icing or is a forecast from some weather guy on the ground who thinks ice might occur sufficient to constitute known icing. Most pilots of light aircraft know it is both dumb and illegal to fly into a location where icing is REALLY know to exist. However, to me, a forecast isn't "known", it is "possible", maybe even "likely", but hardly known. Are there really any AOMs that refer to "known icing"? The Cessna 152/172 AOMs I've seen prohibit flight in "known icing conditions". That's most plausibly parsed as known icing-conditions, that is, known conditions that are conducive to icing. So the icing itself doesn't have to be known, just the conditions. And a forecast tells you of those conditions. --Gary |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Just name one of me, John, show me the certification basis as such in
the TCDS, and quit playing games. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:46:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message .. . Well then John, why don't you look at any modern type cetificate data sheet, note the certification basis, and report back to me how many you find type certificated under FAR 21 vs. FAR 23, as I have told you a couple of times already is the only current basis, for small aircraft. No, but you are welcome to be so deluded. Now, the rules of Part 23 can be used as a basis of certification, but there is no way to issue a Type Certificate except under Part 21. In fact, as a help for you to find a number of Part 21 only issued Type Certificated aircraft, I'll refer you to RAH. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Stutzman wrote in message ...
So my 1949 Bonanza that was certified under CAR 3 (I think that was what it was called before we got part 21 or 23 or what ever it currently is). It has no placards or verbage in the POH mentioning icing anywhere. Therefore I am perfectly legal getting into known icing? It would be rather stupid of me, but according to this referance I would be legal? Maybe not "illegal" with respect to a known icing FAR, but probably at risk of a violation under the infamous 91.13 "careless and reckless" FAR. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
new theory of flight released Sept 2004 | Mark Oliver | Aerobatics | 1 | October 5th 04 10:20 PM |
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP | vvcd | Home Built | 0 | September 22nd 04 07:16 PM |
FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 98 | December 11th 03 06:58 AM |
Sim time loggable? | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 6th 03 07:47 AM |