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
  #61  
Old August 15th 03, 08:05 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 16th 03, 03:43 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 16th 03, 03:55 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old August 17th 03, 06:32 AM
Mary Shafer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #65  
Old August 17th 03, 06:40 AM
Mary Shafer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:49:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:13:04 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

snip

The FAA regulates private (civil) aviation and public (government)
passenger-carrying operations, but no other public operations. NASA
flies fighters without FAA regulation but not the KingAirs carrying
managers around (new FAA rule, which was justified by a couple of
passenger-carrying charter-like flights, I think by state agencies,
that had serious accidents).


Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last
decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for
those present that think like Tarver).


Late in the decade, I think.

Was seriously under the impression that no pax still meant no regs for
"public use" aircraft.


No regular pax. It's OK to haul someone in the back very
occasionally, like on the Orbiter ferry flights on the 747.

We charter-hauled a Federal grant-funded duck-counter (I **** you not)
around in an Aztec for awhile a few years back, 'cause she couldn't do
the "mission" legally in a "public use" aircraft.


If the duck counting were part of the mission of the agency, it should
have been OK. The rule isn't against carrying people, it's against
running a charter airline in disguise. Local flights with pax doing
something agency-charter-related are OK.

In other words, carrying engineers on a KingAir while doing research
with a helmet-mounted display doesn't make that KingAir into a
passenger airplane under FAA regulation. Running a KingAir full of
managers up to the Bay Area and back twice a week does.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

  #66  
Old August 17th 03, 04:21 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old August 18th 03, 05:02 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old August 18th 03, 05:54 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 18th 03, 06:34 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old August 18th 03, 07:37 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

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 07:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.