USAF = US Amphetamine Fools

[RT]

Following an investigative teev program it appears US military pilots are
unable to stay awake for more than a few minutes after t/o so are regularly
dosed to the eyeballs on speed (Dexadrine/amphetamine).

This has the somewhat embarrassing side effect of giving them the total lack
of discriminination between their buddies and 'Ole Nick' himself,
unsurprisingly leading to mulltiple brassing up of assorted
colleagues/allies (aka "friendly fire") - accompanied by the entirely
unsurprising: "Huh? Whadded I do?" when being advised they'd just taken out
a few dozen allies........

Lissen you lot. The Cold War is finished. If you are too terrified to fly
military aircraft without being spaced out, subcontract the job to the
Russians, eh?

Hmmmm - or maybe ultralight pilots.

And there's no real reason to keep on with the 30% friendly fire losses rule
you initiated in Vietnam.

In the meantime stay well away from our mob so there will be some of us left
to save your sorry arses (asses) again the next time you dozy *******s land
a bunch of choppers in a well known ambush site ( Afghanistan).....

(Ferkin 'ell - allies like this - who needs enemies...... <sigh> :-(

[John E. Carty]

<Bull**** snipped>

Oh, guess that leaves nothing left to discuss :-)

[Ron Natalie]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...

> The US Pentagon is becoming a nation unto itself with its own set of
> laws above the laws of the land. What's next?

The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the civilian government itself).
Any compliance with the FAR's the military services mandates is purely at their own
discretion.

[Greg Esres]

<<The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military >>

Then why do the FARs contain certain exemptions for military aircraft,
if the regs don't apply to them in the first place?

[C.D. Damron]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military >>
>
> Then why do the FARs contain certain exemptions for military aircraft,
> if the regs don't apply to them in the first place?

In the interest of safety, the military respects and adheres to the FARs, in
most every instance. The military pilot, who is not required to even hold a
license, answers to his/her command, not the FAA.

There is some legal ambiguity, as the FAA has been given regulatory
authority in certain areas where they have not asserted their original legal
mandate. Over decades, this ambiguity has been resolved consistently - the
military is not governed by FARs.

There have been some interesting cases over the years. In a couple of cases
where military pilots have held licenses, the FAA has initiated action to
pull licenses, which would affect the military pilot's non-military or
post-military flying. These cases are rare. I wonder if the FAA has
actually pulled licenses of military pilots based on their military flying
behavior. Any ideas?

The FAR's contain certain exemptions for military aircraft primarily to
alert everybody involved that the military is likely to be acting outside of
the FAR's, in certain areas. A GA pilot might be interested in what can be
expected in the pattern when military aircraft are present! Thus, there is
great value to publish such exemptions.

The relationship between the military and FAA has been a model of
cooperation and communication compared to other inter-agency relationships.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:32:20 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:03:09 +1000, "RT" > wrote
>in Message-Id: >:
>
>>Following an investigative teev program it appears US military pilots are
>>unable to stay awake for more than a few minutes after t/o so are regularly
>>dosed to the eyeballs on speed (Dexadrine/amphetamine).
>
>Here's a link to an article exposing the USAF on drugs:
>http://www.acftv.com/archive/article.asp?archive_id=19
> Amphetamines, sedatives, anti-nerve agents, adrenaline and a whole
> variety of vaccines, including anthrax, make up a cocktail of
> chemicals banned by civilian authorities in the ordinary
> workplace, yet forced upon pilots flying multi-million dollar jets
> into combat and Special Forces soldiers operating behind enemy
> lines.
>
>The US Pentagon is becoming a nation unto itself with its own set of
>laws above the laws of the land. What's next?


Here are additional links to the video:

Demand for our streaming video has been high, meaning on occasions the
server is too busy to serve all requests. We are working on a solution
to increase capacity.

Some corporate firewalls also block ports used for streaming content.
Contact your network administrator to check this.

Please take another look at the site to try watching the video again
or click either of the URL's below - we have found the Real One player
offers better reliability:

Real One Player:
rtsp://streaming.konnex.co.uk/acftv/The_Need_For_Speed_Trail.rm?cloakport=8080,554,707 0

Windows Media Player:
mms://streaming.konnex.co.uk/acftv/The_Need_For_Speed_Trail.wmv

Robin Carpenter
acftv Webmaster

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Ron Natalie]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:08:55 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> <Hgu_a.94174$cF.28808@rwcrnsc53>:
>
>
> >There is some legal ambiguity, as the FAA has been given regulatory
> >authority in certain areas where they have not asserted their original legal
> >mandate.
>
> Can you elaborate on your statement above?
>
> While the information you provided regarding the military not being
> required to adhere to FAA FARs seems consistent with my experience,
> USAF military pilots engaged in peacetime operations are apparently
> required to comply with: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202

Which is exactly what I said. The FAR's do not by themselves apply
to the military, the military mandates their own compliance with them.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:08:55 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<Hgu_a.94174$cF.28808@rwcrnsc53>:


>There is some legal ambiguity, as the FAA has been given regulatory
>authority in certain areas where they have not asserted their original legal
>mandate.

Can you elaborate on your statement above?

While the information you provided regarding the military not being
required to adhere to FAA FARs seems consistent with my experience,
USAF military pilots engaged in peacetime operations are apparently
required to comply with: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202


http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/11/afi11-202v3/afi11-202v3.pdf
BY ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202, VOLUME 3
6 JUNE 2003
Flying Operations
GENERAL FLIGHT RULES
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

It would seem that AF Instruction 11-202 closely follows FAA FARs.

Supplements are here:
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/search.asp?keyword=AFI11-202&page=2
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Greg Esres]

<<the military is not governed by FARs...>>

Here's a copy from a FAA letter of interpretation:

December 9, 1992
Dr. Dietrich Bahls

Dear Dr. Bahls:

....

You are correct that in the U.S. there is only "one" airspace in which
both civil and military aircraft operate. While in U.S. airspace Part
91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
aircraft, both civilian and military. Outside of U.S. airspace,
however, the rules of the appropriate jurisdiction govern both U.S.
civilian and military aircraft operations.

....

[Dennis O'Connor]

yawnnn ...
AGITPROP...
emotionally loaded buzz words....
flat out wrong (or lie) about the chemical family - Dexedrine
(dextroamphetamine sulfate) is not a narcotic...
tens of thousands of children are on amphetamines daily for ADHD and they
don't hallucinate...
essentially zero facts and lots of panting and glaring......

if you don't like what the military does, enlist, work your way up to be
chief of the pentagon, and change the policies....


BTW, coffee is a drug, Pepsi is a drug, Tylenol is a drug, paprika is a
drug, cinnamon is a drug, licorice is a drug, jalapena is a drug, and on and
on...

Denny

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

[Big John]

RT

There are some good blokes in Au land. Your certainly not one of them.
I wonder if you are even a 'bloke"?

Go back to the pub and bend your elbow so you can get the full blown
national disease.

Big John


On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:03:09 +1000, "RT" > wrote:

>Following an investigative teev program it appears US military pilots are
>unable to stay awake for more than a few minutes after t/o so are regularly
>dosed to the eyeballs on speed (Dexadrine/amphetamine).
>
>This has the somewhat embarrassing side effect of giving them the total lack
>of discriminination between their buddies and 'Ole Nick' himself,
>unsurprisingly leading to mulltiple brassing up of assorted
>colleagues/allies (aka "friendly fire") - accompanied by the entirely
>unsurprising: "Huh? Whadded I do?" when being advised they'd just taken out
>a few dozen allies........
>
>Lissen you lot. The Cold War is finished. If you are too terrified to fly
>military aircraft without being spaced out, subcontract the job to the
>Russians, eh?
>
>Hmmmm - or maybe ultralight pilots.
>
>And there's no real reason to keep on with the 30% friendly fire losses rule
>you initiated in Vietnam.
>
>In the meantime stay well away from our mob so there will be some of us left
>to save your sorry arses (asses) again the next time you dozy *******s land
>a bunch of choppers in a well known ambush site ( Afghanistan).....
>
>(Ferkin 'ell - allies like this - who needs enemies...... <sigh> :-(
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<the military is not governed by FARs...>>
>
> Here's a copy from a FAA letter of interpretation:
>
> December 9, 1992
> Dr. Dietrich Bahls
>
> Dear Dr. Bahls:
>
> ...
>
> You are correct that in the U.S. there is only "one" airspace in which
> both civil and military aircraft operate. While in U.S. airspace Part
> 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
> aircraft, both civilian and military.

No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression. A
FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:56:46 -0700, Steve Hix > wrote
in Message-Id:
>:

>Which still doesn't mean that amphetamines are narcotics...they are
>not.

Umm... Who said they were?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Greg Esres]

<<No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's
discression. >>

Well, you're contradicting the FAA's General Counsel's Office.

By what authority are you able to do that?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's
> discression. >>
>
> Well, you're contradicting the FAA's General Counsel's Office.

FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US Military.

> By what authority are you able to do that?

The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the President,
while US DOT is an extra Contitutional entity; with its authority delegated
by Congresss to the Executive. US DOT is not even a part of the chain of
cammand.

[Greg Esres]

<<FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US
Military.>>

We're talking about knowledge of the law.

<<The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the
President, >>

That's silly. Everyone working for the President doesn't have to obey
the law?

FAR 91.1 says that it "prescribes rules governing the operation of
aircraft...within the United States...."

Doesn't say "civil" or "military", so it applies to everyone, unless
the law itself provides the exemption.

Can you provide any supporting evidence at all to justify your
position?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:52:23 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote
> in Message-Id: >:
>
> >in the doses used by US airmen, it's more on the level of "lots of
> >coffee withtout the urination problem."
>
> What dose would that be?

5 mg to 10 mg. Well below the more dangerous doses seen in recreational
users.

Dexedrine is one of the milder amphetamines.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ron Natalie]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> > <<the military is not governed by FARs...>>
> >
> > Here's a copy from a FAA letter of interpretation:
> >
> > December 9, 1992
> > Dr. Dietrich Bahls
> >
> > Dear Dr. Bahls:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > You are correct that in the U.S. there is only "one" airspace in which
> > both civil and military aircraft operate. While in U.S. airspace Part
> > 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
> > aircraft, both civilian and military.
>
> No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression. A
> FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation.
>
The FAA, and even the 14CFR itself refers to 14 CFR as the Federal Aviation
Regulations and uses the abbreviation FAR.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US
> Military.>>
>
> We're talking about knowledge of the law.

Yes, we are.

> <<The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the
> President, >>
>
> That's silly. Everyone working for the President doesn't have to obey
> the law?

Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
Congrsional authority lead to any such regulatory authority?

> FAR 91.1 says that it "prescribes rules governing the operation of
> aircraft...within the United States...."

No, a FAR is a Federal Acquisition Regulation and has nothing to do with
airspace.

> Doesn't say "civil" or "military", so it applies to everyone, unless
> the law itself provides the exemption.

If you mean CFR 14, then that administrative law has only to do with those
individuals and corporations that volentarily submit themselves to FAA's
regulatory authority.

> Can you provide any supporting evidence at all to justify your
> position?

You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the words.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > <<the military is not governed by FARs...>>
> > >
> > > Here's a copy from a FAA letter of interpretation:
> > >
> > > December 9, 1992
> > > Dr. Dietrich Bahls
> > >
> > > Dear Dr. Bahls:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > You are correct that in the U.S. there is only "one" airspace in which
> > > both civil and military aircraft operate. While in U.S. airspace Part
> > > 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
> > > aircraft, both civilian and military.
> >
> > No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression.
A
> > FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation.

> The FAA, and even the 14CFR itself refers to 14 CFR as the Federal
Aviation
> Regulations and uses the abbreviation FAR.

Not anymore. In consent decree FAA agrees to not use the acronym FAR
anymore.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Come on folks, wake up... Despite lip service and soothing sounds offered
> by their spokesman, the military arm of the federal government
demonstrates
> daily that it is not bound by civilian rules, including the FAA rules...
I
> will ask one rhetorical question for those who are not too brain dead to
> think for themselves...
> 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.,?

Military aircraft built after 1959 have little chance of even being
certificated for flight operations under CFR14.

> Obviously it doesn't yet they do - Res Ipsa Loquitor / QED ...
>
>
> Denny
>
> . While in U.S. airspace Part
> > 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
> > aircraft, both civilian and military.
>
> obviously NOT!
>
> D.
>
>

[Big John]

To add a bit of clarity to this part of thread.

Use of Dexedrine by aircrews is prescribed and monitored by Flight
Surgeons. You don't have jocks going off on their own and taking the
'pill'.

Many years of dispensing these 'pills' has shown it to be safe and it
SAVES lives and aircraft.

Following use, a adequate rest period is prescribed to make up for the
lack of sleep prior to further flight.

Works great after a non stop deployment half way around the world in a
fighter.

No pilots are ordered to take the 'pill'. If someone doesn't want to
for any reason, they have the option to not take.


Big John


On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:52:23 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:00:43 -0400, "Dennis O'Connor"
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>>
>> >flat out wrong (or lie) about the chemical family - Dexedrine
>> >(dextroamphetamine sulfate) is not a narcotic...
>>
>> Dextroamphetamine sulfate is a Schedule II controlled substance.
>> http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/902/055/095.htm
>
>It is not, however, a narcotic.
>
>It is, more specifically, the opposite of a narcotic.
>
>And in the doses used by US airmen, it's more on the level of "lots of
>coffee withtout the urination problem."

[Greg Esres]

<<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.,?>>

There doesn't need to be an authorization. There is no prohibition.

There are numerous exemptions in the FARs for military aircraft, and
there are a number of other blanket exemptions such as "Unless
authorized by the administrator".

The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.

[Greg Esres]

<<Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
Congressional authority lead to any such regulatory authority?>>

Here's a quote from the Cornell web page on military law:

<-----snip-------->
Congress's control over formation, organization and government of the
national armies is plenary and exclusive.
<-----snip-------->

<<You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the
words.>>

I've given you the following
1) Statement by the FAA's general counsel's office
2) References to the FARs which contain military exemptions
3) FAR statements as to the applicability of the regs

All you've given me is statements based on your own authority.

[Greg Esres]

>Military aircraft built after 1959 have little chance of even being
>certificated for flight operations under CFR14.

Part 91 only requires that "Civil" aircraft have an airworthiness
certificate.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
> Congressional authority lead to any such regulatory authority?>>
>
> Here's a quote from the Cornell web page on military law:
>
> <-----snip-------->
> Congress's control over formation, organization and government of the
> national armies is plenary and exclusive.
> <-----snip-------->

Congress' power is limited to funding and declaration of war. Any claim of
Congressional primacy over the military seems childish, in light of the past
30 years of American history. Even the enabling order giving DoD authority
over the military has been resinded, during this Administration.

> <<You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the
> words.>>
>
> I've given you the following
> 1) Statement by the FAA's general counsel's office
> 2) References to the FARs which contain military exemptions
> 3) FAR statements as to the applicability of the regs
>
> All you've given me is statements based on your own authority.

I'll refer you to Article II section 2:

"The President shall be Commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into
the actual service of the United States;"

Historically, this section of Article II is the explicit price George
Washinton required to become the first President of the Republic; no George
Washington, no Republic. Washington, commander of the Army of Virginia, was
the most powerful man in America at the time and refused to relinquish power
in order to be President.

I suggest that in the future, you post items you are capable of
understanding, Esres. As has been pointed out by other posters, the
Military has their own regulation bringing them into compliance with some
sections of CFR14, but this document is controlled by the military and is in
no way subject to FAA review.

[Ron Natalie]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message ...
-
> There are numerous exemptions in the FARs for military aircraft, and
> there are a number of other blanket exemptions such as "Unless
> authorized by the administrator".

Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in part 91.
The only part that even pretends to play military and civilian together.

>
> The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
> every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
> Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.

The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
only civil aviation.

[Greg Esres]

<<The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public
aircraft, only civil aviation.>>

You have not yet offered any support for that allegation.

[Greg Esres]

<<That fact only seems to erode your other assertion, Esres.>>

How so?

[Ron Natalie]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message ...
> <<The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public
> aircraft, only civil aviation.>>
>
> You have not yet offered any support for that allegation.
>
Geez, I didn't realize people were going to be so thick about things.
The enabling legislation that gives the FAA regulationss authority is the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958. It's found in 49 USC 40101.

[Greg Esres]

<<As has been pointed out by other posters, the Military has their own
regulation bringing them into compliance with some sections of CFR14,
but this document is controlled by the military and is in no way
subject to FAA review.>>

This law you speak of was created by the Congress that you say has no
power over the military.

# U.S. Code:

* 10 U.S.C. - Armed Forces
* 18 U.S.C. § 1024 - Purchase or Receipt of Military, Naval, or
Veteran's Facilities Property
* 32 U.S.C. - National Guard
* 37 U.S.C. - Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
* 38 U.S.C. - Veterans' Benefits
* 50 U.S.C. - War and National Defense


The President being Commander-in-Chief in no way reduces the ability
of Congress to make laws governing the military.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<As has been pointed out by other posters, the Military has their own
> regulation bringing them into compliance with some sections of CFR14,
> but this document is controlled by the military and is in no way
> subject to FAA review.>>
>
> This law you speak of was created by the Congress that you say has no
> power over the military.

I never wrote that Congress has no power over the Military. Please do try
to keep the voices in your head from taking over your side of the debate.
>
> # U.S. Code:
>
> * 10 U.S.C. - Armed Forces
> * 18 U.S.C. § 1024 - Purchase or Receipt of Military, Naval, or
> Veteran's Facilities Property
> * 32 U.S.C. - National Guard
> * 37 U.S.C. - Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
> * 38 U.S.C. - Veterans' Benefits
> * 50 U.S.C. - War and National Defense
>
>
> The President being Commander-in-Chief in no way reduces the ability
> of Congress to make laws governing the military.

All these are funding issues Esres; an issue I explicitly pointed out
Congress controls.

You see Esres, these united States operate under a three branch system of
Government. Each of these branches has explicit power granted under the
Constitution and then Congress has delegated some powers to the Executive.
Congress, having delegated powers to the Excutive, does not increase the
Constitutional powers of Congress.

Esres, you are persueing a false premise.

[Greg Esres]

<<Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in
part 91. The only part that even pretends to play military and
civilian together.>>

What difference does it make how many? Even if there were only one
exemption, you would still have to explain why there would be an
exemption in a set of laws that didn't apply to the military in the
first place.

<<Geez, I didn't realize people were going to be so thick about
things.>>

Yes, I should accept uncritically anything I read over the internet,
because people would NEVER talk about things they didn't understand.

<<The enabling legislation that gives the FAA regulationss authority
is the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. It's found in 49 USC 40101.>>

Well, that's a little too much for me to study right now. I didn't
find anything that explicitly stated one way or the other.

[Greg Esres]

<<All these are funding issues Esres; >>

There are not. You haven't scanned through Title 10. Covers the
whole gamut of issues.

<<you are persueing a false premise.>>

My premise is you don't know what you're talking about. That doesn't
preclude you from being right; you know the saw about a stopped
clock....

But you need to offer evidence, and you haven't.

[John Galban]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message >...
<snip> I
> will ask one rhetorical question for those who are not too brain dead to
> think for themselves...
> 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.,?
> Obviously it doesn't yet they do - Res Ipsa Loquitor / QED ...

I know it was rhetorical, but I can't help myself :-)

Generally speaking, the FARs tell you what you are not authorized to
do, rather than what you are authorized to do. If there's no reg
prohibiting it, go for it. You can't violate a reg that doesn't
exist.

I know that Cessna has made versions of the 172 equipped with rocket
pods and Piper has a version of the PA32 equipped with bomb racks.
Assuming that those versions were built under a valid type cert.,
there is nothing in the FARs that would prevent you from loading up
and heading out. Failing that, you could go the experimental route
and build your RV-10 with machine guns in the wings. No FAR covering
that either.

I'm sure doing the above would result in quite a bit of attention
from the ATF, since it is probably a violation of numerous laws to
possess those kinds of weapons, but I don't think you'd be in trouble
with the FAA. Part 91 definetly does not apply.

FWIW - Most government aircraft are exempt from the FAR requirements
that you and I must adhere to(i.e. type cert., annual inspections,
etc...). This applies not only to military aircraft, but also to
aircraft operated by government agencies like the FAA, BLM and USDA.


John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180, sans bomb racks)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<All these are funding issues Esres; >>
>
> There are not. You haven't scanned through Title 10. Covers the
> whole gamut of issues.

I'll go with title 49, when it comes to FAA authority.

You are very confused about how the system works, Esres. I have filed and
had executed a First Amendment petitioin WRT FAA. That petition provided
FAA ACOs with 99 people and later with $250 million; Tom Mc Sweeny was the
only FAA management survivor in DC. Now he is off on a golden parachute
ride with Boeing and for a little listening, US common carriers can now
boast of two zero killed years. Ken Mean also assisted me in my seeking
regulatory Relief and so my Congressman placed him in the Inspector
General's position at US DOT. The reform of FAA was a very effective
political issue for Republicans and my Congressman is now Chair of Ways and
Means.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in
> part 91. The only part that even pretends to play military and
> civilian together.>>
>
> What difference does it make how many? Even if there were only one
> exemption, you would still have to explain why there would be an
> exemption in a set of laws that didn't apply to the military in the
> first place.

Letters of agreement are a polite way of dealing with egotistical asses?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> > US common carriers can now
> > boast of two zero killed years
>
> Two zero? Did the kaiser steal your word twenty?

They added one back in on the other zero year, but I think it was political.

[Robert Moore]

"Ron Natalie" wrote

> Two zero? Did the kaiser steal your word twenty?

Ron, I think that the phrase was intrnded to be read
as two (2) zero-killed years. In other words, no deaths
for two years.

Bob

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(John Galban) wrote:

> I know that Cessna has made versions of the 172 equipped with rocket
> pods and Piper has a version of the PA32 equipped with bomb racks.
> Assuming that those versions were built under a valid type cert.,
> there is nothing in the FARs that would prevent you from loading up
> and heading out.

and there's the challenge... to do the mod in a manner that
is consistent with the valid type cert.


> FWIW - Most government aircraft are exempt from the FAR requirements
> that you and I must adhere to(i.e. type cert., annual inspections,
> etc...). This applies not only to military aircraft, but also to
> aircraft operated by government agencies like the FAA, BLM and USDA.

e.g., State aircraft or Public aircraft as opposed to civilian aircraft.

--
Bob Noel

[John R Weiss]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote...
>
> The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
> only civil aviation.

Actually, he does, per 49 USC 40101, par. (d)(4) and (d)(6).

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:23:24 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

> > The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
> > every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
> > Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.
>
> The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
> only civil aviation.

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.

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.

On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:23:24 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
> wrote:
>
> > > The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
> > > every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
> > > Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.
> >
> > The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public
aircraft,
> > only civil aviation.
>
> 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?

> 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?

> On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
> pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
> FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.

Sure.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:04:17 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<1rV_a.146530$Ho3.17545@sccrnsc03>:

>"Ron Natalie" > wrote...
>>
>> The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
>> only civil aviation.
>
>Actually, he does, per 49 USC 40101, par. (d)(4) and (d)(6).


Actually, she does if you consider "Public interest" to be authority:

"...the Administrator shall consider the following matters, among
others, as being in the public interest"




http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/40101.html

(d) Safety Considerations in Public Interest. -

In carrying out subpart III of this part and those provisions of
subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart III, the
Administrator shall consider the following matters, among others,
as being in the public interest:

(1)

assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the
highest priorities in air commerce.

(2)

regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety and
fulfills national defense requirements.

(3)

encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new
aviation technology.

(4)

controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil
and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the
safety and efficiency of both of those operations.

(5)

consolidating research and development for air navigation
facilities and the installation and operation of those facilities.

(6)

developing and operating a common system of air traffic control
and navigation for military and civil aircraft.

(7)

providing assistance to law enforcement agencies in the
enforcement of laws related to regulation of controlled
substances, to the extent consistent with aviation safety.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Richard Lamb]

"Webidence" is defined as: "Using unproven evidence gathered from the
Web to prove your silly point".

[[email protected]]

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).

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

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.

TC

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dennis O'Connor 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).

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<I have filed and had executed a First Amendment petitioin WRT FAA.>>
>
> What you're saying is I should take your word for it.

There are "responsible engineers" at Boeing now, in response. (ie DER that
is PE)

> Well, I don't.

Who are you that I would care what you believe, Esres?

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer
California E14066
Washington 31553

[John R Weiss]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote...
> >
> > The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
> > only civil aviation.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
> pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
> FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.


The FAA certainly has authority over military "aviation" -- flight OPERATIONS,
even if it does not have total authority over military or public AIRCRAFT.

In 14 CFR 61, the language (sometimes clearly, sometimes not so clearly)
differentiates between "civil aircraft," "public aircraft," and the requirements
of the pilots flying them. For example, 61.3(a) specifically says a "Pilot
Certificate" is required to pilot a "civil aircraft" -- public aircraft are
specifically excepted. While 61.3(c)(1) requires a "Medical Certificate" for
operation of "an aircraft" (with certain exceptions delineated in 61.3(c)(2)),
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."

In 14 CFR 91, however, "the operation of aircraft" -- which includes both civil
and public aircraft -- is explicitly included in 91.1(a).

[John R Weiss]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote...
>
> 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).

If, by "operations" you mean the aircraft equipment and certifications, pilot
requirements, etc., you are correct. However, the FAA DOES regulate
"operations" to the extent those aircraft use US airspace. Most of the flight
rules in 14 CFR 91 (nee FAR Part 91) apply to civil and public aircraft
operations alike.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > 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).
>
> For those of us who obey the consent decree.

Where is that elusive consent decree? Who is subject to it? Nobody ever
delivered one to me...

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:yL9%a.118658$cF.32328@rwcrnsc53...
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote...
> > >
> > > The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public
aircraft,
> > > only civil aviation.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
> > pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
> > FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.
>
>
> The FAA certainly has authority over military "aviation" -- flight
OPERATIONS,
> even if it does not have total authority over military or public AIRCRAFT.

No Weiss, FAA's ATC authority WRT the Military arises from cost and safety
considration and does not in any way imply FAA control though any other Part
of CFR 14.

> In 14 CFR 61, the language (sometimes clearly, sometimes not so clearly)
> differentiates between "civil aircraft," "public aircraft," and the
requirements
> of the pilots flying them. For example, 61.3(a) specifically says a
"Pilot
> Certificate" is required to pilot a "civil aircraft" -- public aircraft
are
> specifically excepted. While 61.3(c)(1) requires a "Medical Certificate"
for
> operation of "an aircraft" (with certain exceptions delineated in
61.3(c)(2)),
> 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.

> In 14 CFR 91, however, "the operation of aircraft" -- which includes both
civil
> and public aircraft -- is explicitly included in 91.1(a).

And in no way applicable to the military. Wrong Part of CFR 14, Weiss.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > 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).
> >
> > For those of us who obey the consent decree.
>
> Where is that elusive consent decree? Who is subject to it? Nobody ever
> delivered one to me...

Why would you matter WRT what FAA agrees to, Weiss?

Outside, perhaps, some large pilot giveback to fund missile defense systems
for transports.

[Bob Noel]

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

[Larry Dighera]

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,

[G.R. Patterson III]

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.

[Big John]

HOAX --- HOAX --- HOAX --- HOAX

Big John


On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:43:28 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>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."

[Mary Shafer]

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

[Mary Shafer]

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"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

[Big John]

Dennis

I guess that your saying because it went through three interpreters
and a couple of secreterys it's not true?

That's like the circle where you tell a story at one point and what
comes back to you around the circle is mish mash.

The whole thing (wording) looks and sounds like a typical Democratic
put down of the President.

Their continued passing falsehoods off as the truth has already bit
them and will contiue to do so in '04.

Big John


On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:47:02 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> HOAX --- HOAX --- HOAX --- HOAX
>>
>> Big John
>>
>It's not a "hoax", but it went through three interpreters and a couple
>secretaries (during transcription). As far as anyone can tell, he might have
>been talking about Arnold Palmer.
>
>
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:43:28 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >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."
>>
>

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:49:26 -0400, wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:40:53 -0700, Mary Shafer
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> 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.
>
> This person wasn't a federal employee, just a professorial-type that
> had gotten a grant to count ducks from the air. She had tried to find
> a public use ride, and had been told that it wasn't possible/legal.

We not only flew contractors in Dryden research aircraft, we even sent
them for training in experimental aircraft. You wouldn't believe the
trouble that caused, mostly because of life insurance and liability,
so we had to have them sign a waiver. As if these young engineers (or
us older engineers) thought they were mortal....

I even managed to put a couple of United pilots into F-18s, looking at
unusual attitude recovery. No contract, no agreement, no nothing. A
duck counter would have been (forgive me, I can't resist) duck soup.

Did I ever tell you guys about bug collecting with the Jetstar? Or
how we simulated dead bug bodies when getting the real thing didn't
work? Nothing to do with ducks or contractors or pax operations,
although I have a story about pax-like operations in turbulence with
the Jetstar.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Eric Chevalier]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:32:01 -0700,
Mary Shafer > wrote:

>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.

[Snip]

Might you be thinking about the crash of a Super King Air 200 on
January 27, 2001? This was a flight carrying 8 members of the OSU
basketball team back to Stillwater, OK after a game in Colorado. The
two pilots and 8 passengers were all killed in that accident. During
the investigation, it was found that the university's Flight
Department had not exercised proper oversight over the operation of
this flight. However, the NTSB determined that this was not "causal to
the accident," see:

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2003/030123a.htm

The NTSB did investiage this particular accident; the synopsis of the
accident report can be found at:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010208X00421&key=1

Eric Chevalier

--
Eric Chevalier
www.tulsagrammer.com

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:31:05 -0700, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

snip

>I even managed to put a couple of United pilots into F-18s, looking at
>unusual attitude recovery. No contract, no agreement, no nothing. A
>duck counter would have been (forgive me, I can't resist) duck soup.

Crap ma'am, sign me up!

>
>Did I ever tell you guys about bug collecting with the Jetstar? Or
>how we simulated dead bug bodies when getting the real thing didn't
>work? Nothing to do with ducks or contractors or pax operations,
>although I have a story about pax-like operations in turbulence with
>the Jetstar.

Sounds like a good story to me. Am within driving distance of a NASA
research facility, but it's near the north (instead of a ways from the
left) coast.

Looked into using one of our singles for duck-counting, but the
paperwork for low-altitude twin stuff was bad enuff. But man,
compared to the F-18 deal...

And I do really need to know how to make "simulated dead bug bodies".

TC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the
> civilian government itself). Any compliance with the FAR's the
> military services mandates is purely at their own discretion.
>

I don't know where you got that idea but it is simply not correct. We don't
have civil aviation regulations in the US, we have Federal Aviation
Regulations, and they apply to all; military, civilian, and civilian
government.

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 gave the FAA sole responsibility for
developing and
maintaining a common civil-military system of air navigation and air traffic
control. The
Act contained an exception for military emergencies and procedures for use
in the event
of war, but outside of those situations, the military and the civilian
government complies with applicable FARs because they are required to do so.



FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958

TITLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

DECLARATION OF POLICY: THE ADMINISTRATOR

Sec. 103 [49 U.S. Code 1303]. In the exercise and performance of his
powers and duties under this Act the Administrator shall consider the
following, among other things, as being in the public interest:

(a) The regulation of air commerce in such manner as to best promote its
development and safety and fulfill the requirements of national defense;

(b) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil aeronautics;

(c) The control of the use of the navigable airspace of the United
States and the regulation of both civil and military operations in such
airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both;

(d) The consolidation of research and development with respect to air
navigation facilities, as well as the installation and operation thereof;

(e) The development and operation of a common system of air traffic
control and navigation for both military and civil aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Which is exactly what I said. The FAR's do not by themselves apply
> to the military, the military mandates their own compliance with them.
>

You make it sound like they have an option. The military is required to
follow applicable FARs by higher civilian authority.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Come on folks, wake up... Despite lip service and soothing sounds offered
> by their spokesman, the military arm of the federal government
demonstrates
> daily that it is not bound by civilian rules, including the FAA rules...
I
> will ask one rhetorical question for those who are not too brain dead to
> think for themselves...
> 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.,?
> Obviously it doesn't yet they do - Res Ipsa Loquitor / QED ...
>

So anything that's not authorized is prohibited?

[Newps]

> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the
>>civilian government itself). Any compliance with the FAR's the
>>military services mandates is purely at their own discretion.

That's correct. Government agencies do not have to abide by the FAR's.
However a lot of them have written into their regs that they have to
follow certain regs, because it is easier than coming up with their own.
A friend of mine flies for the USDA ADC(Animal Damage Control). He
hunts coyotes from the goverments Piper Cubs. Their regs say they must
follow for hire regs with respect to 100 hour inspections and annuals.
They do not worry about 337's and field approvals for mods to the
aircraft.

[C.D. Damron]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> You make it sound like there's an option. The military adheres to
> applicable FARs because they are required to do so.

Military pilots adhere to FAR's because they are ordered to adhere to FAR's.
They are held accountable by their command, not the FAA.

While there is some statutory ambiguity, in practice, there is no ambiguity.
You can't just cite the law and ignore how it has been interpreted by
government agencies, the military, and administrative law courts over a
number of decades. If you ignore how the law has been applied, you can
reach some stupid conclusions, based on the letter of the law.

Only in a couple of cases where the FAA threatened to pull the tickets of
military pilots has the FAA asserted itself in this area. Even in these
cases, the FAA backed down.

[Tarver Engineering]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
news:RqV0b.213070$uu5.38577@sccrnsc04...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > You make it sound like there's an option. The military adheres to
> > applicable FARs because they are required to do so.
>
> Military pilots adhere to FAR's because they are ordered to adhere to
FAR's.
> They are held accountable by their command, not the FAA.
>
> While there is some statutory ambiguity, in practice, there is no
ambiguity.

Even the Statute refers only to ATC. Not some "applicable FARs".

> You can't just cite the law and ignore how it has been interpreted by
> government agencies, the military, and administrative law courts over a
> number of decades. If you ignore how the law has been applied, you can
> reach some stupid conclusions, based on the letter of the law.
>
> Only in a couple of cases where the FAA threatened to pull the tickets of
> military pilots has the FAA asserted itself in this area. Even in these
> cases, the FAA backed down.

FAA is now prohibited, by adminstrative law, from sanctioning Miilitary
pilots in any way.

[Chip Jones]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
[snipped]
>
> > The FAA, and even the 14CFR itself refers to 14 CFR as the Federal
> Aviation
> > Regulations and uses the abbreviation FAR.
>
> Not anymore. In consent decree FAA agrees to not use the acronym FAR
> anymore.
>

Somebody better tell the FAA...

Chip, ZTL