Re: FAA Accuses British Airways of Recklessness

[Sam Whitman]

L Grasso wrote:

> On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS" > wrote:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/business/worldbusiness/08air.html?ex=1110949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS
> >
> >F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
> >By DON PHILLIPS
> >
> >Published: March 8, 2005
> >
> >
> >International Herald Tribune
> >
> >Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they were
> >preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a
> >charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because it
> >allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with one of its
> >four engines inoperable.
> >
> >Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
> >against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
> >Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
> >concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.
> >
> > F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
> >entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was more
> >likely.
> >
> >British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
> >Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British Airways,
> >said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a four-engine
> >airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one engine out.
> >
> >"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said.
> >"There is no requirement to land."
> >
> >British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
> >quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
> >was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air and
> >fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English coast,
> >the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in Manchester.
> >
> >On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three engines
> >when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London.
>
> So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and punish the
> airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is going to stick.

Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when they can't find a clear violation of any rule. Also note that 121.565
permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the destination on 3 engines. So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
FAA's own regs) to do so.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even required to follow 14 CFR 121. It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the recent negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I don't see
what the big deal is.

[Franklin Newton]

Would this be the same FAA that denied the Air Transat flight permission to
land?

"Sam Whitman" > wrote in message
...
>
> L Grasso wrote:
>
> > On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS" > wrote:
> >
> >
>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/business/worldbusiness/08air.html?ex=1110
949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS
> > >
> > >F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
> > >By DON PHILLIPS
> > >
> > >Published: March 8, 2005
> > >
> > >
> > >International Herald Tribune
> > >
> > >Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they were
> > >preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a
> > >charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because it
> > >allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with one of its
> > >four engines inoperable.
> > >
> > >Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
> > >against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
> > >Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
> > >concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.
> > >
> > > F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
> > >entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was more
> > >likely.
> > >
> > >British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
> > >Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British Airways,
> > >said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a four-engine
> > >airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one engine out.
> > >
> > >"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said.
> > >"There is no requirement to land."
> > >
> > >British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
> > >quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
> > >was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air and
> > >fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English coast,
> > >the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in Manchester.
> > >
> > >On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three engines
> > >when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London.
> >
> > So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and punish the
> > airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is going to
stick.
>
> Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when they can't
find a clear violation of any rule. Also note that 121.565
> permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the destination on 3
engines. So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
> FAA's own regs) to do so.
>
> Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
required to follow 14 CFR 121. It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
> probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the recent
negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I don't see
> what the big deal is.
>

[[email protected]]

> Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
required to
> follow 14 CFR 121.

Untrue.
121.1
This part prescribes rules governing--
....
(f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
conducting proving tests.

119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
operate civil aircraft -
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
commerce;

So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to 14
CFR 121.

[Limey]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
> required to
>> follow 14 CFR 121.
>
> Untrue.
> 121.1
> This part prescribes rules governing--
> ...
> (f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
> an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
> conducting proving tests.
>
> 119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
> operate civil aircraft -
> (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
> commerce;
>
> So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
> portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to 14
> CFR 121.
>
You're both wrong.. Part 119 and Part 121 specifically deal with Air
Carriers with an Operating Certificate issued by the FAA (US registered
aircraft). Since the BA fleet, as far as I'm aware are all UK registered
aircraft, operated out of the UK, then ICAO regulations or ANO's apply,
whatever. They *probably* (I don't know) contain something like this, which
incidentally is applicable to US registered aircraft operating under an FAA
issued certificate.
>
§ 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a foreign
country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country concerned and the
local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more restrictive
and may be followed without violating the rules of that country. <

which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91, and
applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.



Limey.

[Robert M. Gary]

I believe 121 is mostly a copy of ICOA, which is reflected by both the
FAA and the JAA.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"Limey" >
:

>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
>> required to
>>> follow 14 CFR 121.
>>
>> Untrue.
>> 121.1
>> This part prescribes rules governing--
>> ...
>> (f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
>> an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
>> conducting proving tests.
>>
>> 119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
>> operate civil aircraft -
>> (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
>> commerce;
>>
>> So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
>> portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to
>> 14 CFR 121.
>>
> You're both wrong.. Part 119 and Part 121 specifically deal with Air
> Carriers with an Operating Certificate issued by the FAA (US
> registered aircraft). Since the BA fleet, as far as I'm aware are all
> UK registered aircraft, operated out of the UK, then ICAO regulations
> or ANO's apply, whatever. They *probably* (I don't know) contain
> something like this, which incidentally is applicable to US
> registered aircraft operating under an FAA issued certificate.
>>
> § 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
> Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a
> foreign country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country
> concerned and the local airport rules, except where any rule of this
> part is more restrictive and may be followed without violating the
> rules of that country. <
>
> which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91, and
> applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.
>

Yep.

Bertie

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Limey]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I believe 121 is mostly a copy of ICOA, which is reflected by both the
> FAA and the JAA.
>
>
I'm sure they're very similar.

Limey.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Thialfi >
:

> In article >
> Sam Whitman > wrote:
>>
>>
>> L Grasso wrote:
>>
>> > On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS"
> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>>htt
> p://
> www.
> nyti
> mes.
> com/
> 2005
> /03/
> 08/b
> usin
> ess/
> worl
> dbus
> ines
> s/08
> air.
> html
> ?ex=1110949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS
>> > >
>> > >F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
>> > >By DON PHILLIPS
>> > >
>> > >Published: March 8, 2005
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >International Herald Tribune
>> > >
>> > >Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday
> that they were
>> > >preparing to take strong action against British Airways,
> including a
>> > >charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft,"
> because it
>> > >allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with
> one of its
>> > >four engines inoperable.
>> > >
>> > >Under normal circumstances, the United States would not
> take action
>> > >against British Airways because such issues would be
> handled by
>> > >Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have
> become
>> > >concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its
> supervisors.
>> > >
>> > > F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right
> to block
>> > >entry to the United States by British Airways but that a
> fine was more
>> > >likely.
>> > >
>> > >British Airways expressed surprise over the developments.
> Steve
>> > >Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with
> British Airways,
>> > >said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a
> four-engine
>> > >airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one
> engine out.
>> > >
>> > >"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three
> engines," he said.
>> > >"There is no requirement to land."
>> > >
>> > >British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on
> Feb. 19 and
>> > >quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline
> said this
>> > >was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the
> mixture of air and
>> > >fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the
> English coast,
>> > >the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in
> Manchester.
>> > >
>> > >On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on
> three engines
>> > >when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to
> London.
>> >
>> > So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and
> punish the
>> > airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is
> going to stick.
>
> It's always stuck in the past.
>
>> Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when
> they can't find a clear violation of any rule.
>
> True.
> And it generally wins those cases.
>
>> Also note that 121.565
>> permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the
> destination on 3 engines.
>
> Read it again, especially pargraph (b). Then read 121.627.
> Continuing flight for several thousand miles and an ocean with a
> catastrophic engine failure may seem reasonable to you, but the
> NTSB has repeatedly ruled that it's not safe to THEM.
> And they get to make that decision; you don't.
>
>> So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
>> FAA's own regs) to do so.
>
> Case law proves you wromg.
>
>> Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not
> even required to follow 14 CFR 121.
>
> British Airways needs a Part 129 certificate to operate in US
> airspace.
> The FAA has every right to revoke British Airways' Part 129
> certificate for this flight.
>
>> It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
>> probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the
> recent negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I
> don't see
>> what the big deal is.
>
> That's because you're not an airline pilot.
>

I am, and I say the FAA won't do it. If they do, they won't win it.


Bertie


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Sam Whitman]

Thialfi wrote:

> In article >
> Sam Whitman > wrote:
> >
> >
> > L Grasso wrote:
> >
> > > On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >htt
> p://
> www.
> nyti
> mes.
> com/
> 2005
> /03/
> 08/b
> usin
> ess/
> worl
> dbus
> ines
> s/08
> air.
> html
> ?ex=1110949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS
> > > >
> > > >F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
> > > >By DON PHILLIPS
> > > >
> > > >Published: March 8, 2005
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >International Herald Tribune
> > > >
> > > >Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday
> that they were
> > > >preparing to take strong action against British Airways,
> including a
> > > >charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft,"
> because it
> > > >allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with
> one of its
> > > >four engines inoperable.
> > > >
> > > >Under normal circumstances, the United States would not
> take action
> > > >against British Airways because such issues would be
> handled by
> > > >Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have
> become
> > > >concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its
> supervisors.
> > > >
> > > > F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right
> to block
> > > >entry to the United States by British Airways but that a
> fine was more
> > > >likely.
> > > >
> > > >British Airways expressed surprise over the developments.
> Steve
> > > >Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with
> British Airways,
> > > >said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a
> four-engine
> > > >airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one
> engine out.
> > > >
> > > >"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three
> engines," he said.
> > > >"There is no requirement to land."
> > > >
> > > >British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on
> Feb. 19 and
> > > >quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline
> said this
> > > >was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the
> mixture of air and
> > > >fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the
> English coast,
> > > >the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in
> Manchester.
> > > >
> > > >On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on
> three engines
> > > >when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to
> London.
> > >
> > > So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and
> punish the
> > > airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is
> going to stick.
>
> It's always stuck in the past.
>
> > Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when
> they can't find a clear violation of any rule.
>
> True.
> And it generally wins those cases.
>
> > Also note that 121.565
> > permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the
> destination on 3 engines.
>
> Read it again, especially pargraph (b). Then read 121.627.
> Continuing flight for several thousand miles and an ocean with a
> catastrophic engine failure may seem reasonable to you, but the
> NTSB has repeatedly ruled that it's not safe to THEM.
> And they get to make that decision; you don't.

NTSB won't be making any decisions regarding this.

> > So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
> > FAA's own regs) to do so.
>
> Case law proves you wromg.

Please reread what I wrote. I didn't say anything about case law.

> > Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not
> even required to follow 14 CFR 121.
>
> British Airways needs a Part 129 certificate to operate in US
> airspace.
> The FAA has every right to revoke British Airways' Part 129
> certificate for this flight.

Which has nothing to do with 14 CFR 121.

>
>
> > It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
> > probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the
> recent negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I
> don't see
> > what the big deal is.
>
> That's because you're not an airline pilot.

Incorrect again.

[Sam Whitman]

wrote:

> > Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
> required to
> > follow 14 CFR 121.
>
> Untrue.
> 121.1
> This part prescribes rules governing--
> ...
> (f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
> an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
> conducting proving tests.

British Airways is no such applicant, nor is any other foreign flagged
carrier.

> 119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
> operate civil aircraft -
> (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
> commerce;

It's nice to be able to quote selected portions of the CFR. It's more
important to have a clue what you are quoting. Before claiming that part
119 refers to foreign flagged airlines operating in the USA, you might be
interested in reading part 119. See 14 CFR 119.1 (d)

> So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
> portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to 14
> CFR 121.

Absolutely False.

[Sam Whitman]

Limey wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >> Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
> > required to
> >> follow 14 CFR 121.
> >
> > Untrue.
> > 121.1
> > This part prescribes rules governing--
> > ...
> > (f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or=

> > an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
> > conducting proving tests.
> >
> > 119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
> > operate civil aircraft -
> > (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
> > commerce;
> >
> > So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the=

> > portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to =
14
> > CFR 121.
> >
> You're both wrong.. Part 119 and Part 121 specifically deal with Air
> Carriers with an Operating Certificate issued by the FAA (US registered=

> aircraft). Since the BA fleet, as far as I'm aware are all UK registere=
d
> aircraft, operated out of the UK, then ICAO regulations or ANO's apply,=

> whatever. They *probably* (I don't know) contain something like this, w=
hich
> incidentally is applicable to US registered aircraft operating under a=
n FAA
> issued certificate.
> >
> =A7 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
> Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a for=
eign
> country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country concerned and=
the
> local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more restric=
tive
> and may be followed without violating the rules of that country. <
>
> which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91, and
> applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.

Incorret. 14 CFR 121.11 refers to USA carriers certificated to fly under=
14 CFR
121 operating in foreign (non-USA) territories or countries. Like any ot=
her
non-USA carrier certified to fly in the USA, British Airways operates und=
er part
129 while in the USA.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Thialfi >
:

> In article >
> Sam Whitman > wrote:
>>
>> Thialfi wrote:
>>
>> > In article >
>> > Sam Whitman > wrote:
>> > >
>> > Read it again, especially pargraph (b). Then read 121.627.
>> > Continuing flight for several thousand miles and an ocean
> with a
>> > catastrophic engine failure may seem reasonable to you, but
> the
>> > NTSB has repeatedly ruled that it's not safe to THEM.
>> > And they get to make that decision; you don't.
>>
>> NTSB won't be making any decisions regarding this.
>
> That's true - British Airways will be offered a chance to pay a
> civil penalty in lieu of revocation of their certificate.
>
> They'll pay it.
>>
>> > > So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
>> > > FAA's own regs) to do so.
>> >
>> > Case law proves you wromg.
>>
>> Please reread what I wrote. I didn't say anything about case
> law.
>
> That's why you've missed the point.
> The issue is "careless or reckless", a rule that does apply to
> foreign carriers.
> And the NTSB has repeatedly ruled that a failure to land at the
> nearest suitable airport in case of engine failure is careless
> and reckless.
>
>> > > Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and
> not
>> > even required to follow 14 CFR 121.
>
> It's required to follow Part 91.
> See 91.13.
>
>> > British Airways needs a Part 129 certificate to operate in US
>> > airspace.
>> > The FAA has every right to revoke British Airways' Part 129
>> > certificate for this flight.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with 14 CFR 121.
>
> ...but has everything to do with part 91.
> Which is what the original article said the FAA plans to charge
> British Airways with.
> Only Part 91 contains the phrase "careless or reckless".
>

and they'll fail, because it's meant as a catch-all to cover unforseen
circumstances. Since they clearly laid out the circumstances as they
occured, they haven't a leg to stand on.

Besides, since BA is still basically the British flag carrier, as long as
Tony is Shrub's lap dog, well..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sam Whitman > :

> wrote:
>
>> > Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
>> required to
>> > follow 14 CFR 121.
>>
>> Untrue.
>> 121.1
>> This part prescribes rules governing--
>> ...
>> (f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
>> an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
>> conducting proving tests.
>
> British Airways is no such applicant, nor is any other foreign flagged
> carrier.
>
>> 119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
>> operate civil aircraft -
>> (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
>> commerce;
>
> It's nice to be able to quote selected portions of the CFR. It's more
> important to have a clue what you are quoting. Before claiming that part
> 119 refers to foreign flagged airlines operating in the USA, you might be
> interested in reading part 119. See 14 CFR 119.1 (d)
>
>> So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
>> portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to 14
>> CFR 121.
>
> Absolutely False.

No, it isn't. No more than say, A US aircraft operating into France would
be exempt from their air navigation orders which have higher Cat 3b
limitations than 121.

Bertie



Bertie

[Sam Whitman]

Thialfi wrote:

> In article >
> Sam Whitman > wrote:
> >
> > Thialfi wrote:
> >
> > > In article >
> > > Sam Whitman > wrote:
> > > >
> > > Read it again, especially pargraph (b). Then read 121.627.
> > > Continuing flight for several thousand miles and an ocean
> with a
> > > catastrophic engine failure may seem reasonable to you, but
> the
> > > NTSB has repeatedly ruled that it's not safe to THEM.
> > > And they get to make that decision; you don't.
> >
> > NTSB won't be making any decisions regarding this.
>
> That's true - British Airways will be offered a chance to pay a
> civil penalty in lieu of revocation of their certificate.
>
> They'll pay it.
> >
> > > > So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
> > > > FAA's own regs) to do so.
> > >
> > > Case law proves you wromg.
> >
> > Please reread what I wrote. I didn't say anything about case
> law.
>
> That's why you've missed the point.
> The issue is "careless or reckless", a rule that does apply to
> foreign carriers.

Actually I wrote about that issue to. Please reread the post for
details.

>
> And the NTSB has repeatedly ruled that a failure to land at the
> nearest suitable airport in case of engine failure is careless
> and reckless.

Which cases are you specifically referring to?

>
>
> > > > Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and
> not
> > > even required to follow 14 CFR 121.
>
> It's required to follow Part 91.
> See 91.13.

Many operations are required to comply with part 91.

>

>
> > > British Airways needs a Part 129 certificate to operate in US
> > > airspace.
> > > The FAA has every right to revoke British Airways' Part 129
> > > certificate for this flight.
> >
> > Which has nothing to do with 14 CFR 121.
>
> ...but has everything to do with part 91.
> Which is what the original article said the FAA plans to charge
> British Airways with.
> Only Part 91 contains the phrase "careless or reckless".

If FAA decides to follow through with more than press releases and
grandstanding as they threaten, they face an uphill legal battle in view
of treaties USA has signed. If they decide to fine or ban British
Airways for *following procedures in its own manual* then the USA
shouldn't be surprised shortly afterward when one or more US flagged
airlines is banned from British airspace.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sam Whitman > :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Sam Whitman >
>> :
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not
>> >> > even
>> >> required to
>> >> > follow 14 CFR 121.
>> >>
>> >> Untrue.
>> >> 121.1
>> >> This part prescribes rules governing--
>> >> ...
>> >> (f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate
>> >> or an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
>> >> conducting proving tests.
>> >
>> > British Airways is no such applicant, nor is any other foreign
>> > flagged carrier.
>> >
>> >> 119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending
>> >> to operate civil aircraft -
>> >> (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
>> >> commerce;
>> >
>> > It's nice to be able to quote selected portions of the CFR. It's
>> > more important to have a clue what you are quoting. Before
>> > claiming that part 119 refers to foreign flagged airlines operating
>> > in the USA, you might be interested in reading part 119. See 14
>> > CFR 119.1 (d)
>> >
>> >> So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for
>> >> the portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed
>> >> subject to 14 CFR 121.
>> >
>> > Absolutely False.
>>
>> No, it isn't. No more than say, A US aircraft operating into France
>> would be exempt from their air navigation orders which have higher
>> Cat 3b limitations than 121.
>
> Two distinctly separate situations which are not comparable. Part 121
> applies to US flagged airlines only. To put it another way, part 121
> does not apply to foreign flagged (non-USA) airlines. See 14 CFR
> 121.1
>

OK, that's true enough.

> A US aircraft operating in France would be subject to all French
> regulations which pertain to foreign flagged (non-French) airlines.
> However treaties in ICAO countries limit the authority of all such
> regulations.


also so, but he's still not going to get nailed.BA can use 121 to show a
double standard is being used by the FAA if it were to go to court, which,
of course, it will not.


Bertie

[Sam Whitman]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Sam Whitman > :
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
> >> required to
> >> > follow 14 CFR 121.
> >>
> >> Untrue.
> >> 121.1
> >> This part prescribes rules governing--
> >> ...
> >> (f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
> >> an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
> >> conducting proving tests.
> >
> > British Airways is no such applicant, nor is any other foreign flagged
> > carrier.
> >
> >> 119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
> >> operate civil aircraft -
> >> (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
> >> commerce;
> >
> > It's nice to be able to quote selected portions of the CFR. It's more
> > important to have a clue what you are quoting. Before claiming that part
> > 119 refers to foreign flagged airlines operating in the USA, you might be
> > interested in reading part 119. See 14 CFR 119.1 (d)
> >
> >> So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
> >> portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to 14
> >> CFR 121.
> >
> > Absolutely False.
>
> No, it isn't. No more than say, A US aircraft operating into France would
> be exempt from their air navigation orders which have higher Cat 3b
> limitations than 121.

Two distinctly separate situations which are not comparable. Part 121 applies
to US flagged airlines only. To put it another way, part 121 does not apply to
foreign flagged (non-USA) airlines. See 14 CFR 121.1

A US aircraft operating in France would be subject to all French regulations
which pertain to foreign flagged (non-French) airlines. However treaties in
ICAO countries limit the authority of all such regulations.

[Limey]

"Sam Whitman" > wrote in message
...
Limey wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >> Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
> > required to
> >> follow 14 CFR 121.
> >
> > Untrue.
> > 121.1
> > This part prescribes rules governing--
> > ...
> > (f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
> > an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
> > conducting proving tests.
> >
> > 119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
> > operate civil aircraft -
> > (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
> > commerce;
> >
> > So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
> > portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to 14
> > CFR 121.
> >
> You're both wrong.. Part 119 and Part 121 specifically deal with Air
> Carriers with an Operating Certificate issued by the FAA (US registered
> aircraft). Since the BA fleet, as far as I'm aware are all UK registered
> aircraft, operated out of the UK, then ICAO regulations or ANO's apply,
> whatever. They *probably* (I don't know) contain something like this,
> which
> incidentally is applicable to US registered aircraft operating under an
> FAA
> issued certificate.
> >
> § 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
> Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a
> foreign
> country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country concerned and
> the
> local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more
> restrictive
> and may be followed without violating the rules of that country. <
>
>> which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91, and
>> applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.

>Incorret. 14 CFR 121.11 refers to USA carriers >certificated to fly under
>14 CFR
>121 operating in foreign (non-USA) territories or >countries.

OK, I just assumed that there may be some relevance being that the more
restrictive 121 rules might apply, but that is prolly covered under 129,
with which I am not at all familiar. Thx for the clarification.


> Like any other
>non-USA carrier certified to fly in the USA, British >Airways operates
>under part
>129 while in the USA.
>
Yup.

Cheers, Limey.

[Pooh Bear]

Limey wrote:

> "Sam Whitman" > wrote in message
> ...
> Limey wrote:
>
>
> > § 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
> > Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a
> > foreign
> > country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country concerned and
> > the
> > local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more
> > restrictive
> > and may be followed without violating the rules of that country. <
> >
> >> which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91, and
> >> applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.
>
> >Incorret. 14 CFR 121.11 refers to USA carriers >certificated to fly under
> >14 CFR
> >121 operating in foreign (non-USA) territories or >countries.
>
> OK, I just assumed that there may be some relevance being that the more
> restrictive 121 rules might apply, but that is prolly covered under 129,
> with which I am not at all familiar. Thx for the clarification.
>
> > Like any other
> >non-USA carrier certified to fly in the USA, British >Airways operates
> >under part
> >129 while in the USA.

Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over which FARs
apply.

Part 129 .Operations: Foreign air carriers and foreign operators of
U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage. Section 19 - Air traffic
rules and procedures

(a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the navigational and
communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other procedures, of
the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.

(b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to assure that each of
its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this section and
shall check the ability of each of its pilots to operate safely according to
applicable rules and procedures.

* (c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices, procedures, and
other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air carriers for
the areas to be operated in. *

129.19(c) appears to infer that foreign carriers have to comply with Part 121
whilst in US airspace.


Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Pooh Bear >
:

>
>
> Limey wrote:
>
>> "Sam Whitman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> Limey wrote:
>>
>>
>> > § 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
>> > Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a
>> > foreign
>> > country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country concerned
>> > and the
>> > local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more
>> > restrictive
>> > and may be followed without violating the rules of that country. <
>> >
>> >> which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91,
>> >> and applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.
>>
>> >Incorret. 14 CFR 121.11 refers to USA carriers >certificated to fly
>> >under 14 CFR
>> >121 operating in foreign (non-USA) territories or >countries.
>>
>> OK, I just assumed that there may be some relevance being that the
>> more restrictive 121 rules might apply, but that is prolly covered
>> under 129, with which I am not at all familiar. Thx for the
>> clarification.
>>
>> > Like any other
>> >non-USA carrier certified to fly in the USA, British >Airways
>> >operates under part
>> >129 while in the USA.
>
> Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over
> which FARs apply.

Yeah, right, planespotter.

Like it would matter to you.

Fjukwit.

Bertie

[Limey]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Limey wrote:
>
>> "Sam Whitman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> Limey wrote:
>>
>>
>> > § 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
>> > Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a
>> > foreign
>> > country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country concerned and
>> > the
>> > local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more
>> > restrictive
>> > and may be followed without violating the rules of that country. <
>> >
>> >> which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91, and
>> >> applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.
>>
>> >Incorret. 14 CFR 121.11 refers to USA carriers >certificated to fly
>> >under
>> >14 CFR
>> >121 operating in foreign (non-USA) territories or >countries.
>>
>> OK, I just assumed that there may be some relevance being that the more
>> restrictive 121 rules might apply, but that is prolly covered under 129,
>> with which I am not at all familiar. Thx for the clarification.
>>
>> > Like any other
>> >non-USA carrier certified to fly in the USA, British >Airways operates
>> >under part
>> >129 while in the USA.
>
> Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over which
> FARs
> apply.
>
> Part 129 .Operations: Foreign air carriers and foreign operators of
> U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage. Section 19 - Air
> traffic
> rules and procedures
>
> (a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the
> navigational and
> communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other
> procedures, of
> the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.
>
> (b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to assure that
> each of
> its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this section and
> shall check the ability of each of its pilots to operate safely according
> to
> applicable rules and procedures.
>
> * (c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices, procedures,
> and
> other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air carriers
> for
> the areas to be operated in. *
>
> 129.19(c) appears to infer that foreign carriers have to comply with Part
> 121
> whilst in US airspace.
>
>
Kind of what I thought but didn't look into properly. Better that you do it,
seeing that you have more time on yer hands.
Either way, if you're implying that "you pilots" ought to know all the regs,
that's ridiculous. We're only required to be familiar with the ones that
apply to the particular type of flying we're doing, which makes my job easy.

Limey.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

JL Grasso > :

> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:35:24 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Limey wrote:
>>
>>> "Sam Whitman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> Limey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > § 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
>>> > Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within
>>> > a foreign
>>> > country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country
>>> > concerned and the
>>> > local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more
>>> > restrictive
>>> > and may be followed without violating the rules of that country.
>>> > <
>>> >
>>> >> which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part
>>> >> 91, and applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.
>>>
>>> >Incorret. 14 CFR 121.11 refers to USA carriers >certificated to
>>> >fly under 14 CFR
>>> >121 operating in foreign (non-USA) territories or >countries.
>>>
>>> OK, I just assumed that there may be some relevance being that the
>>> more restrictive 121 rules might apply, but that is prolly covered
>>> under 129, with which I am not at all familiar. Thx for the
>>> clarification.
>>>
>>> > Like any other
>>> >non-USA carrier certified to fly in the USA, British >Airways
>>> >operates under part
>>> >129 while in the USA.
>>
>>Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over
>>which FARs apply.
>
>
> Maybe someday planespotting will be regulated.
>

Someone needs to do something before there's a disaster!
Tea could be spilt on thousands!


Bertei

[Limey]

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:35:24 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Limey wrote:
>>
>>> "Sam Whitman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> Limey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > § 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
>>> > Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a
>>> > foreign
>>> > country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country concerned
>>> > and
>>> > the
>>> > local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more
>>> > restrictive
>>> > and may be followed without violating the rules of that country. <
>>> >
>>> >> which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91,
>>> >> and
>>> >> applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.
>>>
>>> >Incorret. 14 CFR 121.11 refers to USA carriers >certificated to fly
>>> >under
>>> >14 CFR
>>> >121 operating in foreign (non-USA) territories or >countries.
>>>
>>> OK, I just assumed that there may be some relevance being that the more
>>> restrictive 121 rules might apply, but that is prolly covered under 129,
>>> with which I am not at all familiar. Thx for the clarification.
>>>
>>> > Like any other
>>> >non-USA carrier certified to fly in the USA, British >Airways operates
>>> >under part
>>> >129 while in the USA.
>>
>>Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over which
>>FARs
>>apply.
>
>
> Maybe someday planespotting will be regulated.
>
>
Ouch!
Kb.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Pooh Bear >
:

> Limey wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over
>> > which FARs
>> > apply.
>> >
>> > Part 129 .Operations: Foreign air carriers and foreign operators of
>> > U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage. Section 19 -
>> > Air traffic
>> > rules and procedures
>> >
>> > (a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the
>> > navigational and
>> > communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other
>> > procedures, of
>> > the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.
>> >
>> > (b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to assure
>> > that each of
>> > its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this
>> > section and shall check the ability of each of its pilots to
>> > operate safely according to
>> > applicable rules and procedures.
>> >
>> > * (c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices,
>> > procedures, and
>> > other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air
>> > carriers for
>> > the areas to be operated in. *
>> >
>> > 129.19(c) appears to infer that foreign carriers have to comply
>> > with Part 121
>> > whilst in US airspace.
>>
>> Kind of what I thought but didn't look into properly. Better that you
>> do it, seeing that you have more time on yer hands.
>
> I have a few free moments - sure. Didn't take me more than about 15
> mins to work through the FARs to find it though.
>
>
>> Either way, if you're implying that "you pilots" ought to know all
>> the regs, that's ridiculous.
>
> And I'm *not* implying that btw. Just intruiged to see how many
> opininons came into discussion.
>
>
>> We're only required to be familiar with the ones that
>> apply to the particular type of flying we're doing, which makes my
>> job easy.
>>
>> Limey.
>
> Actually, you have my agreement. The FARs are written in 'legalese'
> and often appear to be confusing and even possibly contradictory.


Who gives a fjuk what you think?
Planespotting****.





Bertie

[Pooh Bear]

Limey wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over which
> > FARs
> > apply.
> >
> > Part 129 .Operations: Foreign air carriers and foreign operators of
> > U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage. Section 19 - Air
> > traffic
> > rules and procedures
> >
> > (a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the
> > navigational and
> > communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other
> > procedures, of
> > the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.
> >
> > (b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to assure that
> > each of
> > its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this section and
> > shall check the ability of each of its pilots to operate safely according
> > to
> > applicable rules and procedures.
> >
> > * (c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices, procedures,
> > and
> > other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air carriers
> > for
> > the areas to be operated in. *
> >
> > 129.19(c) appears to infer that foreign carriers have to comply with Part
> > 121
> > whilst in US airspace.
>
> Kind of what I thought but didn't look into properly. Better that you do it,
> seeing that you have more time on yer hands.

I have a few free moments - sure. Didn't take me more than about 15 mins to work
through the FARs to find it though.


> Either way, if you're implying that "you pilots" ought to know all the regs,
> that's ridiculous.

And I'm *not* implying that btw. Just intruiged to see how many opininons came
into discussion.


> We're only required to be familiar with the ones that
> apply to the particular type of flying we're doing, which makes my job easy.
>
> Limey.

Actually, you have my agreement. The FARs are written in 'legalese' and often
appear to be confusing and even possibly contradictory.

Pilots have more important things to do than have to worry about the wording of
some obscure clause in the regs. For this the legislators are to blame for
making things frankly *unclear*.


Graham

[george]

Thialfi wrote:
> In article >
> Sam Whitman > wrote:
> >
> > Thialfi wrote:
> >
> > > In article >
> > > Sam Whitman > wrote:
> > > >
> > > Read it again, especially pargraph (b). Then read 121.627.
> > > Continuing flight for several thousand miles and an ocean
> with a
> > > catastrophic engine failure may seem reasonable to you, but
> the
> > > NTSB has repeatedly ruled that it's not safe to THEM.
> > > And they get to make that decision; you don't.
> >
> > NTSB won't be making any decisions regarding this.
>
> That's true - British Airways will be offered a chance to pay a
> civil penalty in lieu of revocation of their certificate.
>
> They'll pay it.

And every American carrier that enters British airspace will be
subjected to -their- minutae..
Imagine an automatic maintenance check of every US carrier entering EU
airspace..
No-one (I hope) is so stupid they want their airlines grounded

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:35:24 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Limey wrote:
> >
> >> "Sam Whitman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> Limey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > § 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
> >> > Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a
> >> > foreign
> >> > country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country concerned
and
> >> > the
> >> > local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more
> >> > restrictive
> >> > and may be followed without violating the rules of that country. <
> >> >
> >> >> which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91,
and
> >> >> applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.
> >>
> >> >Incorret. 14 CFR 121.11 refers to USA carriers >certificated to fly
under
> >> >14 CFR
> >> >121 operating in foreign (non-USA) territories or >countries.
> >>
> >> OK, I just assumed that there may be some relevance being that the more
> >> restrictive 121 rules might apply, but that is prolly covered under
129,
> >> with which I am not at all familiar. Thx for the clarification.
> >>
> >> > Like any other
> >> >non-USA carrier certified to fly in the USA, British >Airways operates
> >> >under part
> >> >129 while in the USA.
> >
> >Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over which
FARs
> >apply.
>
>
> Maybe someday planespotting will be regulated.
>
> Jerry
>
Considering the current regs re access to approach/departure ends of Rys.
due security concerns, "Planespotting" is already regulated.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

[Limey]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Limey wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over which
>> > FARs
>> > apply.
>> >
>> > Part 129 .Operations: Foreign air carriers and foreign operators of
>> > U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage. Section 19 - Air
>> > traffic
>> > rules and procedures
>> >
>> > (a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the
>> > navigational and
>> > communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other
>> > procedures, of
>> > the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.
>> >
>> > (b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to assure that
>> > each of
>> > its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this section
>> > and
>> > shall check the ability of each of its pilots to operate safely
>> > according
>> > to
>> > applicable rules and procedures.
>> >
>> > * (c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices,
>> > procedures,
>> > and
>> > other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air
>> > carriers
>> > for
>> > the areas to be operated in. *
>> >
>> > 129.19(c) appears to infer that foreign carriers have to comply with
>> > Part
>> > 121
>> > whilst in US airspace.
>>
>> Kind of what I thought but didn't look into properly. Better that you do
>> it,
>> seeing that you have more time on yer hands.
>
> I have a few free moments - sure. Didn't take me more than about 15 mins
> to work
> through the FARs to find it though.

Good, that's about 13 mins more than I apply to most responses here.

>
>> Either way, if you're implying that "you pilots" ought to know all the
>> regs,
>> that's ridiculous.
>
> And I'm *not* implying that btw. Just intruiged to see how many opininons
> came
> into discussion.
>
>
>> We're only required to be familiar with the ones that
>> apply to the particular type of flying we're doing, which makes my job
>> easy.
>>
>
> Actually, you have my agreement. The FARs are written in 'legalese' and
> often
> appear to be confusing and even possibly contradictory.

Not in my limited experience.

> Pilots have more important things to do than have to worry about the
> wording of
> some obscure clause in the regs.

Yup, whose round is it?

Limey.

[Captain Clarance Ovuer]

Thialfi wrote:
>
> In article >
> Sam Whitman > wrote:
> >
> > If FAA decides to follow through with more than press releases
> and
> > grandstanding as they threaten, they face an uphill legal
> battle in view
> > of treaties USA has signed. If they decide to fine or ban
> British
> > Airways for *following procedures in its own manual* then the
> USA
> > shouldn't be surprised shortly afterward when one or more US
> flagged
> > airlines is banned from British airspace.
>
> You seriously think that Tony the Poodle would do such a thing?
>
> I don't.

I thot he was the Blair Witch Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tommy, come on up here, have you ever been up in the cockpit before?
Captain Under - Airplane

[Captain Clarance Ovuer]

Limey wrote:
>
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Limey wrote:
> >
> >> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over which
> >> > FARs
> >> > apply.
> >> >
> >> > Part 129 .Operations: Foreign air carriers and foreign operators of
> >> > U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage. Section 19 - Air
> >> > traffic
> >> > rules and procedures
> >> >
> >> > (a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the
> >> > navigational and
> >> > communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other
> >> > procedures, of
> >> > the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.
> >> >
> >> > (b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to assure that
> >> > each of
> >> > its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this section
> >> > and
> >> > shall check the ability of each of its pilots to operate safely
> >> > according
> >> > to
> >> > applicable rules and procedures.
> >> >
> >> > * (c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices,
> >> > procedures,
> >> > and
> >> > other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air
> >> > carriers
> >> > for
> >> > the areas to be operated in. *
> >> >
> >> > 129.19(c) appears to infer that foreign carriers have to comply with
> >> > Part
> >> > 121
> >> > whilst in US airspace.
> >>
> >> Kind of what I thought but didn't look into properly. Better that you do
> >> it,
> >> seeing that you have more time on yer hands.
> >
> > I have a few free moments - sure. Didn't take me more than about 15 mins
> > to work
> > through the FARs to find it though.
>
> Good, that's about 13 mins more than I apply to most responses here.
>
> >
> >> Either way, if you're implying that "you pilots" ought to know all the
> >> regs,
> >> that's ridiculous.
> >
> > And I'm *not* implying that btw. Just intruiged to see how many opininons
> > came
> > into discussion.
> >
> >
> >> We're only required to be familiar with the ones that
> >> apply to the particular type of flying we're doing, which makes my job
> >> easy.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, you have my agreement. The FARs are written in 'legalese' and
> > often
> > appear to be confusing and even possibly contradictory.
>
> Not in my limited experience.
>
> > Pilots have more important things to do than have to worry about the
> > wording of
> > some obscure clause in the regs.
>
> Yup, whose round is it?
>
> Limey.

who's able to read their cellphone to call the hotel for a pickup?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tommy, come on up here, have you ever been up in the cockpit before?
Captain Ovuer - Airplane

[Limey]

"Captain Clarance Ovuer" > wrote in
message ...
> Limey wrote:
>>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Limey wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over
>> >> > which
>> >> > FARs
>> >> > apply.
>> >> >
>> >> > Part 129 .Operations: Foreign air carriers and foreign operators of
>> >> > U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage. Section 19 -
>> >> > Air
>> >> > traffic
>> >> > rules and procedures
>> >> >
>> >> > (a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the
>> >> > navigational and
>> >> > communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other
>> >> > procedures, of
>> >> > the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.
>> >> >
>> >> > (b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to assure
>> >> > that
>> >> > each of
>> >> > its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this
>> >> > section
>> >> > and
>> >> > shall check the ability of each of its pilots to operate safely
>> >> > according
>> >> > to
>> >> > applicable rules and procedures.
>> >> >
>> >> > * (c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices,
>> >> > procedures,
>> >> > and
>> >> > other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air
>> >> > carriers
>> >> > for
>> >> > the areas to be operated in. *
>> >> >
>> >> > 129.19(c) appears to infer that foreign carriers have to comply with
>> >> > Part
>> >> > 121
>> >> > whilst in US airspace.
>> >>
>> >> Kind of what I thought but didn't look into properly. Better that you
>> >> do
>> >> it,
>> >> seeing that you have more time on yer hands.
>> >
>> > I have a few free moments - sure. Didn't take me more than about 15
>> > mins
>> > to work
>> > through the FARs to find it though.
>>
>> Good, that's about 13 mins more than I apply to most responses here.
>>
>> >
>> >> Either way, if you're implying that "you pilots" ought to know all the
>> >> regs,
>> >> that's ridiculous.
>> >
>> > And I'm *not* implying that btw. Just intruiged to see how many
>> > opininons
>> > came
>> > into discussion.
>> >
>> >
>> >> We're only required to be familiar with the ones that
>> >> apply to the particular type of flying we're doing, which makes my job
>> >> easy.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Actually, you have my agreement. The FARs are written in 'legalese' and
>> > often
>> > appear to be confusing and even possibly contradictory.
>>
>> Not in my limited experience.
>>
>> > Pilots have more important things to do than have to worry about the
>> > wording of
>> > some obscure clause in the regs.
>>
>> Yup, whose round is it?
>>
>> Limey.
>
> who's able to read their cellphone to call the hotel for a pickup?
>

.....another pickup crack?
ENOUGH with the Marine, already! ;)

Limey.

[Captain Clarance Ovuer]

Limey wrote:
>
> "Captain Clarance Ovuer" > wrote in
> message ...
> > Limey wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Limey wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement over
> >> >> > which
> >> >> > FARs
> >> >> > apply.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Part 129 .Operations: Foreign air carriers and foreign operators of
> >> >> > U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage. Section 19 -
> >> >> > Air
> >> >> > traffic
> >> >> > rules and procedures
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the
> >> >> > navigational and
> >> >> > communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other
> >> >> > procedures, of
> >> >> > the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to assure
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > each of
> >> >> > its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this
> >> >> > section
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > shall check the ability of each of its pilots to operate safely
> >> >> > according
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > applicable rules and procedures.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * (c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices,
> >> >> > procedures,
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air
> >> >> > carriers
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > the areas to be operated in. *
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 129.19(c) appears to infer that foreign carriers have to comply with
> >> >> > Part
> >> >> > 121
> >> >> > whilst in US airspace.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kind of what I thought but didn't look into properly. Better that you
> >> >> do
> >> >> it,
> >> >> seeing that you have more time on yer hands.
> >> >
> >> > I have a few free moments - sure. Didn't take me more than about 15
> >> > mins
> >> > to work
> >> > through the FARs to find it though.
> >>
> >> Good, that's about 13 mins more than I apply to most responses here.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Either way, if you're implying that "you pilots" ought to know all the
> >> >> regs,
> >> >> that's ridiculous.
> >> >
> >> > And I'm *not* implying that btw. Just intruiged to see how many
> >> > opininons
> >> > came
> >> > into discussion.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> We're only required to be familiar with the ones that
> >> >> apply to the particular type of flying we're doing, which makes my job
> >> >> easy.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Actually, you have my agreement. The FARs are written in 'legalese' and
> >> > often
> >> > appear to be confusing and even possibly contradictory.
> >>
> >> Not in my limited experience.
> >>
> >> > Pilots have more important things to do than have to worry about the
> >> > wording of
> >> > some obscure clause in the regs.
> >>
> >> Yup, whose round is it?
> >>
> >> Limey.
> >
> > who's able to read their cellphone to call the hotel for a pickup?
> >
>
> ....another pickup crack?
> ENOUGH with the Marine, already! ;)
>
> Limey.

HARHARHARHARHARHARHAR
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tommy, come on up here, have you ever been up in the cockpit before?
Captain Ovuer - Airplane

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Captain Clarance Ovuer >
:

> Limey wrote:
>>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Limey wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in
>> >> message ...
>> >>
>> >> > Intruiged that you pilots seem to find room for disagreement
>> >> > over which FARs
>> >> > apply.
>> >> >
>> >> > Part 129 .Operations: Foreign air carriers and foreign operators
>> >> > of U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage.
>> >> > Section 19 - Air traffic
>> >> > rules and procedures
>> >> >
>> >> > (a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the
>> >> > navigational and
>> >> > communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other
>> >> > procedures, of
>> >> > the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.
>> >> >
>> >> > (b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to
>> >> > assure that each of
>> >> > its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this
>> >> > section and
>> >> > shall check the ability of each of its pilots to operate safely
>> >> > according
>> >> > to
>> >> > applicable rules and procedures.
>> >> >
>> >> > * (c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices,
>> >> > procedures,
>> >> > and
>> >> > other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air
>> >> > carriers
>> >> > for
>> >> > the areas to be operated in. *
>> >> >
>> >> > 129.19(c) appears to infer that foreign carriers have to comply
>> >> > with Part
>> >> > 121
>> >> > whilst in US airspace.
>> >>
>> >> Kind of what I thought but didn't look into properly. Better that
>> >> you do it,
>> >> seeing that you have more time on yer hands.
>> >
>> > I have a few free moments - sure. Didn't take me more than about 15
>> > mins to work
>> > through the FARs to find it though.
>>
>> Good, that's about 13 mins more than I apply to most responses here.
>>
>> >
>> >> Either way, if you're implying that "you pilots" ought to know all
>> >> the regs,
>> >> that's ridiculous.
>> >
>> > And I'm *not* implying that btw. Just intruiged to see how many
>> > opininons came
>> > into discussion.
>> >
>> >
>> >> We're only required to be familiar with the ones that
>> >> apply to the particular type of flying we're doing, which makes my
>> >> job easy.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Actually, you have my agreement. The FARs are written in 'legalese'
>> > and often
>> > appear to be confusing and even possibly contradictory.
>>
>> Not in my limited experience.
>>
>> > Pilots have more important things to do than have to worry about
>> > the wording of
>> > some obscure clause in the regs.
>>
>> Yup, whose round is it?
>>
>> Limey.
>
> who's able to read their cellphone to call the hotel for a pickup?

**** that, let's have another!


Bertie

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Larry Dighera]

Big U.S. airlines and other aviation companies are resisting some
or all of a proposal to broaden requirements for reporting
safety incidents to federal transportation investigators. The
National Transportation Safety Board proposed a regulation in
December 2004 to ensure that accident investigators are
notified promptly and fully when several types of incidents
occur. Engine failure tops the list of reporting changes sought
by the safety board. There are a handful of uncontained engine
failures per month that are reported to the board, the agency
said. The FAA puts the number of serious failures at one per
year involving airlines. But investigators want to tighten
accident reporting rules with commercial and business jet
operations growing at record pace. Airlines, aerospace
manufacturers, helicopter makers and leading pilot groups
object to some or all of the changes. The Air Transport
Association, the leading trade group for U.S. airlines, said
direct reporting of engine failures and anticollision alerts
"is neither necessary nor beneficial."
(Reuters 05:39 PM ET 03/29/2005)

More:
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1071373&m=10062424b381c00014347a&s=rb050329

----------------------------------------------------------------