Military flight operations and the FAA

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:05:15 GMT, "John R Weiss"
wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

You just quoted the "national security" exception, Weiss.

You must be delusional. There was no mention of "security" or "exception,"
either expressed or implied.

He is delusional - this has been argued ad-nauseam this year, last
year, and the prior year, and Tarver always argues from the same
position, namely that the military is not at all subject to FAA
jurisdiction.

Do you expect Tarver to ever admit he's wrong about anything?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:05:15 GMT, "John R Weiss"
wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

You just quoted the "national security" exception, Weiss.

You must be delusional. There was no mention of "security" or
"exception,"
either expressed or implied.

He is delusional - this has been argued ad-nauseam this year, last
year, and the prior year, and Tarver always argues from the same
position, namely that the military is not at all subject to FAA
jurisdiction.

Do you expect Tarver to ever admit he's wrong about anything?

Only when I'm wrong.

Posters confusing Part 91 for ATC and Type Certification is a major
contributor to those posters' confusion.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Posters confusing Part 91 for ATC and Type Certification is a major
contributor to those posters' confusion.

I haven't seen any evidence in this thread (or elsewhere in this forum) that
anyone has been confused regarding Part 91 and Type Certification, excepting the
possibility of confusion that might arise from your posts broaching the subject.

Also, nobody has made any assertion to the effect that "Part 91 is ATC" or
anything similar. The topic at hand does, however, include the fact that
military aircraft operations in US airspace are subject to ATC; and that fact is
supported by 49 USC, 14 CFR, and various military regulations.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:js9%a.118426$cF.32710@rwcrnsc53...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Posters confusing Part 91 for ATC and Type Certification is a major
contributor to those posters' confusion.

I haven't seen any evidence in this thread (or elsewhere in this forum)
that
anyone has been confused regarding Part 91 and Type Certification,
excepting the
possibility of confusion that might arise from your posts broaching the
subject.

Then you may have achieved a level of cognitive dissonance we seldom see
here at ram.

Also, nobody has made any assertion to the effect that "Part 91 is ATC" or
anything similar. The topic at hand does, however, include the fact that
military aircraft operations in US airspace are subject to ATC; and that
fact is
supported by 49 USC, 14 CFR, and various military regulations.

Military regulations are not in any way an indication that FAA has control
of military flight operations in the US. In fact, FAA Orders to ATC
indicate that ATC has a legal obligation to protect MOAs and an additional
obligation to respond immediately where special military operations are
under way. All this was well in evidence on 9-11, from a real world
operational standpoint.

I can tell from your postings that you have some emotional investment in
what you are writting Weiss, but that won't make it true. ATC is
consolidated under FAA control for safety and cost reasons, but that in no
way changed the Military's ability to operate in US airspace however and
whenever they need to. There was no intention in this consolidation to
imply FAA control of military operations.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

Do you expect Tarver to ever admit he's wrong about anything?

Only when I'm wrong.

Considering you have never admitted being wrong about anything in this or any
other NG it's safe to assume you think you are always correct.

Shall we go back to your assertions about pitot tubes?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Do you expect Tarver to ever admit he's wrong about anything?

Only when I'm wrong.

Considering you have never admitted being wrong about anything in this or
any
other NG it's safe to assume you think you are always correct.

That is not true.

Shall we go back to your assertions about pitot tubes?

If you like, NASA Dryden has added the screened over static port to their
website since we began the discussion. Where would you like to start, Dan?
Keep in mind that it was an air data conceptual error that Dudley stepped on
his dick over.

Got TSOA c-106 Dan?

But now we see the real problem is that Dan has trouble admitting when he is
wrong. Or perhaps Dan believes that an archive troll from the village idiot
of the aviation newsgroups is somehow relevent.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

Shall we go back to your assertions about pitot tubes?

If you like, NASA Dryden has added the screened over static port to their
website since we began the discussion.

snip

I said "pitot tube" not "static port."

But now we see the real problem is that Dan has trouble admitting when he is
wrong. Or perhaps Dan believes that an archive troll from the village idiot
of the aviation newsgroups is somehow relevent.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

And once again you resort rather rapidly to personal attacks and name calling.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Shall we go back to your assertions about pitot tubes?

If you like, NASA Dryden has added the screened over static port to their
website since we began the discussion.

snip

I said "pitot tube" not "static port."

Right, you don't have a clue how a transport is instrumented for air data,
Dan.

A pitot tube provids both static and pitot ports, but the pitot tube is
unreliable, so 40 years ago most transports switched to static ports and
pitot ports.

So Dan, what did you do in the Air force? I hope it was some job where you
might have at least some knowledge of avionics; otherwise, you mostly speak
out of turn.

John p. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

Right, you don't have a clue how a transport is instrumented for air data,
Dan.

A pitot tube provids both static and pitot ports, but the pitot tube is
unreliable, so 40 years ago most transports switched to static ports and
pitot ports.

So Dan, what did you do in the Air force? I hope it was some job where you
might have at least some knowledge of avionics; otherwise, you mostly speak
out of turn.

John p. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

No such thing as a pitot port, never has been. A pitot tube only provides pitot
pressure. A pitot-static tube provides both.

So clue me, where, pray tell, would a "pitot port" be intsalled on an aircraft?
Name one aircraft that has "pitot ports."

I worked on pitot-static systems for many years.

Do you know what MB-1, TTU-229 and TTU-205 test sets are with out looking them
up?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...

Right, you don't have a clue how a transport is instrumented for air
data,
Dan.

A pitot tube provids both static and pitot ports, but the pitot tube is
unreliable, so 40 years ago most transports switched to static ports and
pitot ports.

So Dan, what did you do in the Air force? I hope it was some job where
you
might have at least some knowledge of avionics; otherwise, you mostly
speak
out of turn.

No such thing as a pitot port, never has been.

Poor Dan, off into denial.

A pitot tube only provides pitot
pressure. A pitot-static tube provides both.

My goodness, Dan, you really are clueless.

Say again what you did in the air force, Dan.

john P. Tarver, MS/PE