Type certificates

[Tarver Engineering]

Knowing what Part 21 Type Certificate you have matters because that is how
the other Parts of CFR 14 are tied together. Say one doesn't know they have
an experimental type certificate, then how can they know that Part 23 and 43
are not applicable? Additional regulatory requirements are made for Normal
Catagory airplanes that may be an undue burden for someone building their
own airplane, that they are intending to operate themselves. Even if later
some of these are sold, it is my estimation that a homebuilt with 200 hours
on it is an order of magnitude safer than a green one.

[Ron Natalie]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...
> Knowing what Part 21 Type Certificate you have matters because that is how
> the other Parts of CFR 14 are tied together. Say one doesn't know they have
> an experimental type certificate, then how can they know that Part 23 and 43
> are not applicable?

There's no such thing as an experimental type certificate. There are experimental
AIRWORTHINESS certificates. The entire discussion of experimental certificates
occurs in 21.191. It is a term that applies to airworthiness certificates. There is
no type certificate.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> > Knowing what Part 21 Type Certificate you have matters because that is
how
> > the other Parts of CFR 14 are tied together. Say one doesn't know they
have
> > an experimental type certificate, then how can they know that Part 23
and 43
> > are not applicable?
>
> There's no such thing as an experimental type certificate. There are
experimental
> AIRWORTHINESS certificates. The entire discussion of experimental
certificates
> occurs in 21.191. It is a term that applies to airworthiness
certificates. There is
> no type certificate.

There is no production certificate for an experimental, but it is a tpye of
airplne in Part 21 and Part 43.

[Ron Natalie]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...
> There is no production certificate for an experimental, but it is a tpye of
> airplne in Part 21 and Part 43.
>
It is a type, but there is no "TYPE CERTIFICATE." You are correct that
without a type certificate, there is also no production certificate.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> > There is no production certificate for an experimental, but it is a tpye
of
> > airplne in Part 21 and Part 43.
> >
> It is a type, but there is no "TYPE CERTIFICATE." You are correct that
> without a type certificate, there is also no production certificate.

Now Ron, the reason the 337 is not applicabl is because the homebuilt is an
experimental, as is written explicitly in Part 43. Or do you have an
additional "red queen" finding from FAA Chief counsel?

The 100 hour inspection exception you quoted the FAA chief counsel as
finding is a change to engineering, on no basis; just like Kelly got the
MIDO to chang the lubrication scedule for DC-9s on "no basis".

Perhaps the FAA chief counsel would do well to review some of these "good
buddy" word games. I know engineers that say, "just because I said that
before does not mean I say that now". The rest of FAA gave up most of that
"good buddy" type thinking with the FY97 budget.

[Casey Wilson]

WARNING! PLONK MODE IMMINENT!

Mssrs. Tarver and Natalie:

I've had enough of this personal diatribe. Please, take it off the
newsgroup and onto your personal emails. Yes, I can execute the delete
button but my finger is getting tired.

[Maule Driver]

It's like watching a slow motion car wreck. Can't take my eyes off of it
even though I know it is a bad thing that can only end badly. Jeez!

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> WARNING! PLONK MODE IMMINENT!
>
> Mssrs. Tarver and Natalie:
>
> I've had enough of this personal diatribe. Please, take it off the
> newsgroup and onto your personal emails. Yes, I can execute the delete
> button but my finger is getting tired.
>
>
>