USAF = US Amphetamine Fools

"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

"B2431" wrote in message
...
I have filed and
had executed a First Amendment petitioin WRT FAA.

Translation: he filed a Freedom of Information Act request?

No Dan, I filed and got action on a First Amenedment petition. I got my guy
from GAO installed as Inspector General of US DOT and helped McSweeny become
Associate Administrator of FAA.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

"Ron Natalie" wrote...

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

Actually, he does, per 49 USC 40101, par. (d)(4) and (d)(6).

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:23:24 -0400, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:

The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.

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

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.

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.

On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:23:24 -0400, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:

The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.

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

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?

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?

On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.

Sure.