How Many Nations Follow the FAA?

[Charles Talleyrand]

In the US we have a set of aviation regulations all made up by the FAA.

In Canada they have a different set of rules all made up by Transport
Canada. They don't blindly follow the American FAA system.

When in Belize I walked through the capital to the general aviation airport
and talked to a pilot. It turns out that Belize uses the FAA regulations.
Pilots in Belize actually refer to "Part 91" which is amazing since that's a
rule made by the American government and the Belize government just tells
they "Do everything you would have to if you were in America".

I also notice that the South African set of rules for general aviation is
called "part 91".

So, how many nations don't make their own aviation rule but instead simply
require the locals to follow the American FAA rules?

And as a follow-up, do any non-European nations require one to follow the
European rules?

[MC]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> In the US we have a set of aviation regulations all made up by the FAA.
>
> In Canada they have a different set of rules all made up by Transport
> Canada. They don't blindly follow the American FAA system.
>
> When in Belize I walked through the capital to the general aviation airport
> and talked to a pilot. It turns out that Belize uses the FAA regulations.
> Pilots in Belize actually refer to "Part 91" which is amazing since that's a
> rule made by the American government and the Belize government just tells
> they "Do everything you would have to if you were in America".
>
> I also notice that the South African set of rules for general aviation is
> called "part 91".
>
> So, how many nations don't make their own aviation rule but instead simply
> require the locals to follow the American FAA rules?

Australia has started rewriting its' rules to 'harmonize' them with
the FAA and JAA systems.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.aviation.piloting MC > wrote:
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>
>> I also notice that the South African set of rules for general aviation is
>> called "part 91".
>>
>> So, how many nations don't make their own aviation rule but instead simply
>> require the locals to follow the American FAA rules?
>
> Australia has started rewriting its' rules to 'harmonize' them with
> the FAA and JAA systems.

How does this fit in and live with ICAO and the standards they
lay out?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBsq3hyBkZmuMZ8L8RAiTIAJ9DBEhIPNZP7hWBcfhbML 2FuWzFBgCg8oP7
IO3XnD88+So404b7Kb8QF4g=
=Fl/i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Blueskies]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message ...
> In the US we have a set of aviation regulations all made up by the FAA.
>
<snip>

> And as a follow-up, do any non-European nations require one to follow the
> European rules?
>
>

The FAA is rewriting some regs to fall in line with the JAA, believe it or not. Way back when, the European regs used to
follow the FAA regs pretty closely, but now they are starting to set the standards and impose them on US operators...

[James]

MC wrote:
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>
>> In the US we have a set of aviation regulations all made up by the FAA.
>>
>> In Canada they have a different set of rules all made up by Transport
>> Canada. They don't blindly follow the American FAA system.
>>
>> When in Belize I walked through the capital to the general aviation
>> airport
>> and talked to a pilot. It turns out that Belize uses the FAA
>> regulations.
>> Pilots in Belize actually refer to "Part 91" which is amazing since
>> that's a
>> rule made by the American government and the Belize government just tells
>> they "Do everything you would have to if you were in America".
>>
>> I also notice that the South African set of rules for general aviation is
>> called "part 91".
>>
>> So, how many nations don't make their own aviation rule but instead
>> simply
>> require the locals to follow the American FAA rules?
>
>
> Australia has started rewriting its' rules to 'harmonize' them with
> the FAA and JAA systems.

Australia just "rolled back" quite a few of the changes, mainly due to
opposition from air traffic control unions, who might lose some jobs.
They were trotting out safety, that with much emptier skies, which do
not have that much radar coverage that a US style system would not work.
Also some airline pilots did not like the changes as they might have to
look out the window for VFR planes. There was actually talk (from
airline pilots) of establishing "Professional Airspace." where those
pesky general aviation people would not be able to fly. For more
infomation about this debate do a google search on google.com.au and
select the search option of Australia only, and search for New Airspace
system.


James.

[Bill Denton]

How does the ICAO fit into all of this?

I was under the impression that they were a multi-national organization that
dealt with "coordinating" aviation activities among nations.

From what I understand, the ICAO puts forth a set of rules from which
individual nations could extract subsets, or create supersets of, with the
essential idea being to create a "core" set of rules that all signatory
nations would abide by.

Among many things I don't know is what the scope and depth of these rules
is. I know they cover stuff like runway designs and things like that, but do
they also cover such things as required aircraft equipment, pilot training,
and similar issues. And do they go down to the "Section 1.2.3.4.5" level?

Also, do they apply only to commercial aviation, or is all GA covered?

If anyone has any additional info, TIA!




"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> In the US we have a set of aviation regulations all made up by the FAA.
>
> In Canada they have a different set of rules all made up by Transport
> Canada. They don't blindly follow the American FAA system.
>
> When in Belize I walked through the capital to the general aviation
airport
> and talked to a pilot. It turns out that Belize uses the FAA regulations.
> Pilots in Belize actually refer to "Part 91" which is amazing since that's
a
> rule made by the American government and the Belize government just tells
> they "Do everything you would have to if you were in America".
>
> I also notice that the South African set of rules for general aviation is
> called "part 91".
>
> So, how many nations don't make their own aviation rule but instead simply
> require the locals to follow the American FAA rules?
>
> And as a follow-up, do any non-European nations require one to follow the
> European rules?
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Blueskies wrote:

> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message ...
>
>>In the US we have a set of aviation regulations all made up by the FAA.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>And as a follow-up, do any non-European nations require one to follow the
>>European rules?
>>
>>
>
>
> The FAA is rewriting some regs to fall in line with the JAA, believe it or not. Way back when, the European regs used to
> follow the FAA regs pretty closely, but now they are starting to set the standards and impose them on US operators...
>
>

It will be pretty funny when they each look like the other's regulations
USED to be and are still different from each other. :-)


Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Charles,

do a google search on ICAO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> do a google search on ICAO.

The vast majority of the hits will be for an accountants' organization. Search
for the full name.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[SkyRacerD14001]

From an American living in Australia the past 10 years....CASA's writing of the
new regulations only resembles the FARs as far as the numbering system...any
other part is not recognisable as FAA regs. IE: CASA began rewriting the regs
(CARs) with the intention of bringing the Oz regs in line with the FARs and
JARs. Only that has not even come close to happening. It looks like the same
old system only worst. Read Paul Phelan's articles in Australian Flying Mag to
get an accurate picture.

[Chris]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>
>> do a google search on ICAO.
>
> The vast majority of the hits will be for an accountants' organization.
> Search
> for the full name.

No need Google puts the right ICAO at the top

[Blueskies]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message ...
> How does the ICAO fit into all of this?
>
> I was under the impression that they were a multi-national organization that
> dealt with "coordinating" aviation activities among nations.
>
> From what I understand, the ICAO puts forth a set of rules from which
> individual nations could extract subsets, or create supersets of, with the
> essential idea being to create a "core" set of rules that all signatory
> nations would abide by.
>
> Among many things I don't know is what the scope and depth of these rules
> is. I know they cover stuff like runway designs and things like that, but do
> they also cover such things as required aircraft equipment, pilot training,
> and similar issues. And do they go down to the "Section 1.2.3.4.5" level?
>
> Also, do they apply only to commercial aviation, or is all GA covered?
>
> If anyone has any additional info, TIA!
>
>

I recently saw an article that described changes to the FARs for SIC pilots; required that they have a SIC type rating
or similar to fly in ICAO countries, Needed to be done ASAP, or the flight crews were going to be cited.

[Brian Burger]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> In the US we have a set of aviation regulations all made up by the FAA.
>
> In Canada they have a different set of rules all made up by Transport
> Canada. They don't blindly follow the American FAA system.

No, but Transport Canada will consult w/ the FAA, and FAA ADs & similar
seem to be applied by TC as well.

There was a short article in the recent TC "Air Safety Letter" about
Canadian pilots busting the Washington, DC TFR - those lucky folks have
not one, but TWO regulatory agencies on their case for those busts...

> When in Belize I walked through the capital to the general aviation airport
> and talked to a pilot. It turns out that Belize uses the FAA regulations.

That makes sense, for a small country. Belize's Air Regs probably say
something like, "Follow the FAA Regs, except in certain cases as laid out
below..." or similar.

Brian
www.warbard.ca/avgas/index.html

[Kyler Laird]

Brian Burger > writes:

>That makes sense, for a small country. Belize's Air Regs probably say
>something like, "Follow the FAA Regs, except in certain cases as laid out
>below..." or similar.

'seems like it would make even more sense to follow ICAO.

--kyler

[Stefan]

Kyler Laird wrote:

> 'seems like it would make even more sense to follow ICAO.

The ICAO publishes general rules but these are not directly applicable laws.

Stefan

[Kyler Laird]

Stefan > writes:

>Kyler Laird wrote:

>> 'seems like it would make even more sense to follow ICAO.

>The ICAO publishes general rules but these are not directly applicable laws.

But at least they could follow the laws of a nation which follows ICAO.

--kyler

[[email protected]]

The ICAO requirements for a Comercial are what the FAA now uses.
Explain to me the logic of requiring the comercial to be done in a
complex aircraft when most of GA training is done in fixed gear. All
any one needed was an endorsement for complex... But now the test must
be in a complex.

Then, explain why you need 3 landings on the 250NM straight, 300NM
total. By the time you are working on a comercial you should know how
to land, right? ICAO says you have to have the 3 landings and this must
be SOLO.

Wanna ask the FAA why? Have fun, because they will quote you ICAO.
So yes, the ICAO even specifies training.

Later.
Steve.T