On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:01:34 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote:

wrote

I sincerely hope that you are merely misinformed and willing to search
for further information/education on this subject.

In another post, I have supplied MEL references for all to read.
Aside from a couple of Part 121 MELs that I have had a part in
preparing, that is all that I know.
I now await documented references from those that maintain that
the FAA has issued MELs to operators of Cessna 172 aircraft.

WTP/F, you've talked me into another roll in the mud.

I offer no such "references" because I have no need/desire to do so.

If I did, I wouldn't use an FAA "document" with absolutely no
referenced data, nor would I offer up a handout from the University of
North Dakota. A little of your concern with Jay's 141 operation's
alleged shortcomings should be directed in UND's direction.

I really possibly couldn't care less whether you believe me or not. As
the self-proclaimed wart on the ass that is GA maintenance (and very
occasionally ops) on Usenet, I have no credentials other than the
dementia honestly gained from 20+ years tilting with the FAA. Then
again, perhaps I've imagined it all.

However, it's entirely possible that I have written and edited (and
edited, and revised, and revised again) Pt 135 Ops Specs and both Pt
135 & Pt 91 MEL/O&M's, seen them through from the first header on the
first page to an "approved" signature on a Pt 91 MEL/LOA, with
initials on every pocking page.

It's also possible that I've inspected and maintained aircraft
operating under these documents-day after day, month after month, year
after year-and had more pocking face time with FAA "airworthiness"
personnel than you can possibly imagine.

"I now await" yet another chance to roll in the mud.

The FAA taught me how to enjoy it.

TC