Awaiting Natalie's "interpretation of what he meant

[Tarver Engineering]

So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly says?

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as Experimental.
> >
> No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates. What they
> have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under 21.191.There
> is no type certification of experimentals.

You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on that one,
Ron. :)

[Tarver Engineering]

Ooops, missed the close quotes.
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly says?
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >
> > > No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as Experimental.
> > >
> > No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates. What they
> > have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under 21.191.There
> > is no type certification of experimentals.
>
> You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on that one,
> Ron. :)
>
>
>
>

[Gig Giacona]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly says?
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >
> > > No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as Experimental.
> > >
> > No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates. What they
> > have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under 21.191.There
> > is no type certification of experimentals.
>
> You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on that one,
> Ron. :)
>

With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere in 21.191?


Subpart H -- Airworthiness Certificates

Source: Docket No. 5085, 29 FR 14569, Oct. 24, 1964, unless otherwise noted.

§21.191 Experimental certificates.

Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:

(a) Research and development. Testing new aircraft design concepts, new
aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating
techniques, or new uses for aircraft.

(b) Showing compliance with regulations. Conducting flight tests and other
operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including
flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type
certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to
show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the
regulations.

(c) Crew training. Training of the applicant's flight crews.

(d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance,
or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and
similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency,
including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air
shows and productions.

(e) Air racing. Participating in air races, including (for such
participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from racing
events.

(f) Market surveys. Use of aircraft for purposes of conducting market
surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training only as provided
in §21.195.

(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major
portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook
the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

(h) Operating kit-built aircraft. Operating a primary category aircraft that
meets the criteria of §21.24(a)(1) that was assembled by a person from a kit
manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit, without
the supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder
under §21.184(a).

[Amdt. 21-21, 38 FR 6858, May 7, 1968, as amended by Amdt. 21-57, 49 FR
39651, Oct. 9, 1984; Amdt. 21-70, 57 FR 41369, Sept. 9, 1992]

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly says?
> >
> > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as Experimental.
> > > >
> > > No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates. What
they
> > > have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
21.191.There
> > > is no type certification of experimentals.
> >
> > You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on that
one,
> > Ron. :)
> >
>
> With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
> amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere in 21.191?

Non-sequitur.

[Gig Giacona]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly
says?
> > >
> > > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as
Experimental.
> > > > >
> > > > No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates. What
> they
> > > > have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
> 21.191.There
> > > > is no type certification of experimentals.
> > >
> > > You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on that
> one,
> > > Ron. :)
> > >
> >
> > With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
> > amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere in
21.191?
>
> Non-sequitur.
>

JTarver

You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in the rec.aviation.*
groups. I that is saying something.

You keep telling Ron that amateur-built aircraft have a type certificate.
Yet NO where in the FAR are the words "amateur-built" and "type" ever in the
same paragraph. What the regs clearly show is that amateur-built aircraft
are flown under an experimental AIRWORTHINESS certificate.

To when your side of the argument all you have to do is cut and paste the
damn reg you think you are quoting.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly
> says?
> > > >
> > > > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as
Experimental.
> > > > > >
> > > > > No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates.
What they
> > > > > have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
21.191.There
> > > > > is no type certification of experimentals.
> > > >
> > > > You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on
that one,
> > > > Ron. :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
> > > amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere in
21.191?
> >
> > Non-sequitur.
> >
>
> JTarver
>
> You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in the rec.aviation.*
> groups. I that is saying something.

I am sorry you get upset when your newsgroup consensus turns out to be
wrong.

> You keep telling Ron that amateur-built aircraft have a type certificate.
> Yet NO where in the FAR are the words "amateur-built" and "type" ever in
the
> same paragraph. What the regs clearly show is that amateur-built aircraft
> are flown under an experimental AIRWORTHINESS certificate.

Geeze, when the idiots make a mistake, they really take it to the limit.

The village idiot Knoyle trolled me with an archive troll for three years,
relying solely on his own ignorance of pitot static systems. Now this is
the way it works, you either roll over and ****, or keep making a fool of
yourself, Giacona.

[Michael 182]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
.... or keep making a fool of yourself, Giacona.

You seem to have that capability locked up. Try private posts if you have to
follow up on this this silly vendetta

Michael

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly
> > says?
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> > > > > m...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as
> Experimental.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates.
> What they
> > > > > > have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
> 21.191.There
> > > > > > is no type certification of experimentals.
> > > > >
> > > > > You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on
> that one,
> > > > > Ron. :)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
> > > > amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere in
> 21.191?
> > >
> > > Non-sequitur.
> > >
> >
> > JTarver
> >
> > You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in the rec.aviation.*
> > groups. I that is saying something.
>
> I am sorry you get upset when your newsgroup consensus turns out to be
> wrong.
>
> > You keep telling Ron that amateur-built aircraft have a type
certificate.
> > Yet NO where in the FAR are the words "amateur-built" and "type" ever in
> the
> > same paragraph. What the regs clearly show is that amateur-built
aircraft
> > are flown under an experimental AIRWORTHINESS certificate.
>
> Geeze, when the idiots make a mistake, they really take it to the limit.
>
> The village idiot Knoyle trolled me with an archive troll for three years,
> relying solely on his own ignorance of pitot static systems. Now this is
> the way it works, you either roll over and ****, or keep making a fool of
> yourself, Giacona.
>
>
Hi Splaps,
How about section 40, aluminum generator wiring, DC gens. on 777s
etc, etc, etc...
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html

Jimmy

[[email protected]]

Come on guys, GROW UP -- all of you!

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:41:55 GMT, "Jim Knoyle"
> wrote:

>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it clearly
> > > says?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> > > > > > m...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as
> > Experimental.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates.
> > What they
> > > > > > > have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
> > 21.191.There
> > > > > > > is no type certification of experimentals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association" on
> > that one,
> > > > > > Ron. :)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
> > > > > amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere in
> > 21.191?
> > > >
> > > > Non-sequitur.
> > > >
> > >
> > > JTarver
> > >
> > > You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in the rec.aviation.*
> > > groups. I that is saying something.
> >
> > I am sorry you get upset when your newsgroup consensus turns out to be
> > wrong.
> >
> > > You keep telling Ron that amateur-built aircraft have a type
> certificate.
> > > Yet NO where in the FAR are the words "amateur-built" and "type" ever in
> > the
> > > same paragraph. What the regs clearly show is that amateur-built
> aircraft
> > > are flown under an experimental AIRWORTHINESS certificate.
> >
> > Geeze, when the idiots make a mistake, they really take it to the limit.
> >
> > The village idiot Knoyle trolled me with an archive troll for three years,
> > relying solely on his own ignorance of pitot static systems. Now this is
> > the way it works, you either roll over and ****, or keep making a fool of
> > yourself, Giacona.
> >
> >
> Hi Splaps,
> How about section 40, aluminum generator wiring, DC gens. on 777s
> etc, etc, etc...
> http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html
>
> Jimmy
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

Nothing wrong with Ron's perspective, but John is being his usual
"foot-in-mouth and then evade and spin the English language" self.

> wrote in message
...
> Come on guys, GROW UP -- all of you!
>
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:41:55 GMT, "Jim Knoyle"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, Ron, wht did you mean by this post, other than what it
clearly
> > > > says?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > m...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, homebuilts are type certificated under Part 21 as
> > > Experimental.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No John, they are not. They do not have type certificates.
> > > What they
> > > > > > > > have are individual airworthiness certificates issued under
> > > 21.191.There
> > > > > > > > is no type certification of experimentals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You had best get with the "experimental aircraft association"
on
> > > that one,
> > > > > > > Ron. :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the exception of paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with
> > > > > > amateur-built aircraft where the hell is the word TYPE anywhere
in
> > > 21.191?
> > > > >
> > > > > Non-sequitur.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > JTarver
> > > >
> > > > You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in the
rec.aviation.*
> > > > groups. I that is saying something.
> > >
> > > I am sorry you get upset when your newsgroup consensus turns out to be
> > > wrong.
> > >
> > > > You keep telling Ron that amateur-built aircraft have a type
> > certificate.
> > > > Yet NO where in the FAR are the words "amateur-built" and "type"
ever in
> > > the
> > > > same paragraph. What the regs clearly show is that amateur-built
> > aircraft
> > > > are flown under an experimental AIRWORTHINESS certificate.
> > >
> > > Geeze, when the idiots make a mistake, they really take it to the
limit.
> > >
> > > The village idiot Knoyle trolled me with an archive troll for three
years,
> > > relying solely on his own ignorance of pitot static systems. Now this
is
> > > the way it works, you either roll over and ****, or keep making a fool
of
> > > yourself, Giacona.
> > >
> > >
> > Hi Splaps,
> > How about section 40, aluminum generator wiring, DC gens. on 777s
> > etc, etc, etc...
> > http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html
> >
> > Jimmy
> >
> >
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> Nothing wrong with Ron's perspective, but John is being his usual
> "foot-in-mouth and then evade and spin the English language" self.

A homebuilt is an experimental.

Where do you see a flaw in my statement, Tom?

As to my comments on the FAA chief counsel's office, I refer you to the
affect of my First Amendment petition; which left Tom McSweeney the only
person at Washington FAA standing. Then I had Karillo move Ken Mead from
GAO to USDOT. My friend Mead got a nice raise out of that.

[Casey Wilson]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>

PLONK!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> PLONK!

Who are you Casey and why would I care?