Re: USAF = US Amphetamine Fools

[BUFDRVR]

>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

First, "Amphetamines", sedatives and adrenaline aren't forced on anyone. I've
never taken, nor will I, the "go pill" or the "no-go pill". They're optional
and quite controlled. Second, I've never taken, nor been told to, "anti-nerve"
agents. The only time you take these is when you've been exposed to a nerve
agent. Finally, the only vaccine the US Department of Defense has asked me to
take, that your average US citizen hasn't is anthrax and, recently, small pox.
Every other vaccine I've been "forced" to take, both my children are forced to
take to attend public school.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Tarver Engineering]

"lego" > wrote in message
om...

<snip>

> By the way, this whole idea about military pilots not being bound by
> the FAR's is untrue as well... If anyone chose to actually read
> AFI11-203V3, you could look under paragraphs 1.2.1.3 for Compliance.

No, military pilots are governed by AFI11-203V3.

Any claim the the US Military works for FAA means the the US Military works
for Congress and that is Unconstitutional. Even the DoD is off to persue
her Constitutional role and has its ended usurping Executive power; under
the current Administration.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> No, military pilots are governed by AFI11-203V3.

No, SOME military pilots are governed by AFI11-203V3 -- probably USAF pilots.
USN pilots are governed by OPNAVINST 3710.7 (latest version available from the
NEDS web site is 3710.7S, 15 Nov 01, with Interim Change 31, 20 Sep 02).

OPNAVINST 3710.7S, par. 1.2.3 states:

"1.2.3 Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Naval aircraft shall be operated in
accordance with applicable provisions of FAR, Part 91, except:

a. Where this instruction prescribes more stringent requirements.

b. Where exemptions or authorizations issued to the Department of the
Navy/Department of Defense permit deviation from FAR."

So, Navy pilots are bound by 14 CFR 91 nee FAR Part 91.


> Any claim the the US Military works for FAA means the the US Military works
> for Congress and that is Unconstitutional. Even the DoD is off to persue
> her Constitutional role and has its ended usurping Executive power; under
> the current Administration.

I have seen no claim that the US Military works for the FAA. I have only seen
valid claims that US military pilots are bound by [some portions of] 14 CFR
(formerly formally, and currently popularly, known as the Federal Aviation
Regulations or FAR). BTW, the header of the copy of 14 CFR 91 I downloaded from
the FAA web site in Mar 2002 says:

"Note: This document contains FAR Part 91 including Amendment 91-263 as
published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2000."


Further, 14 CFR 91.101 states:

" 91.101 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes flight rules governing the operation of aircraft
within the United States and within 12 nautical miles from the coast of the
United States."

It does NOT differentiate between civil, military, and public aircraft.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > " 91.101 Applicability.
> > This subpart prescribes flight rules governing the operation of
> aircraft within the United States and within 12 nautical miles from the coast
of
> the United States."
> >
> > It does NOT differentiate between civil, military, and public aircraft.
>
> Title 49 does and Statute rules.

"Statute rules"?!?

OK, then 49 USC specifically allows the FAA to regulate military aircraft
operations. Almost right off the bat, 49 USC 40101 par. (a)(7)(C) mentions "the
national defense" as a target of its "regulatory system." Then par. (d)
specifically charges the "Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration"
with:

"(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."

AND

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


When a clause within 14 CFR does not specifically differentiate between civil,
public, and military aircraft, it defaults to the 14 CFR 1.1 definition:

'"Aircraft" means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in
the air.'

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:WKR_a.146308$uu5.22441@sccrnsc04...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > " 91.101 Applicability.
> > > This subpart prescribes flight rules governing the operation of
> > aircraft within the United States and within 12 nautical miles from the
coast of
> > the United States."
> > >
> > > It does NOT differentiate between civil, military, and public
aircraft.
> >
> > Title 49 does and Statute rules.
>
> "Statute rules"?!?
>
> OK, then 49 USC specifically allows the FAA to regulate military aircraft
> operations. Almost right off the bat, 49 USC 40101 par. (a)(7)(C)
mentions "the
> national defense" as a target of its "regulatory system." Then par. (d)
> specifically charges the "Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration"
> with:

Come on Weiss, the words you quote explicitly exempt the Military, on a
National Defense basis, from FAA regulation. Why would you think providing
a specific exception, under Statute, would assert some sort of control?

[Gordon]

>> US common carriers can now
>> boast of two zero killed years
>
>Two zero? Did the kaiser steal your word twenty?

[two, zero-killed years]

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:imV_a.147086$YN5.96385@sccrnsc01...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> > >
> > > OK, then 49 USC specifically allows the FAA to regulate military
aircraft
> > > operations.
>
> > > Then par. (d) specifically charges the "Administrator of the Federal
Aviation
> > Administration" with:
> >
> > Come on Weiss, the words you quote explicitly exempt the Military, on a
> > National Defense basis, from FAA regulation. Why would you think
providing
> > a specific exception, under Statute, would assert some sort of control?
>
> I see absolutely NO indication of any exemption of the military in 49 USC
40101
> par. (d). Quite to the contrary, the FAA Administrator is specifically
charged
> with "controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil
and
> military operations in that airspace"; and military and civil aircraft are
> subject to "common system of air traffic control and navigation"!

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

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> You just quoted the "national security" exception, Weiss.

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:05:15 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >>
> >> You just quoted the "national security" exception, Weiss.
> >
> >You must be delusional. There was no mention of "security" or
"exception,"
> >either expressed or implied.
>
> He is delusional - this has been argued ad-nauseam this year, last
> year, and the prior year, and Tarver always argues from the same
> position, namely that the military is not at all subject to FAA
> jurisdiction.

Correctly so.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> ATC is also not Part 91 Weiss. In the case where the Military needs to
> control domestic Airspace, ATC will be getting their instructions somewhere
> besides FAA.

Gee... We were discussing "Statute" -- specifically 49 USC 40101 -- and the
fact it gives the Administrator of the FAA the authority to control flight
operations in US airspace, specifically including military flight operations.
This authority is reinforced by 49 USC 40103. Nowhere in 49 USC 40101 or 40103
is there any mention of the DOT or FAA relinquishing control of airspace or
flight operations to anyone else. If some other statute overrides 49 USC 40101
or 40103, please post the citation.

49 USC 40106 specifically gives "Appropriate military authority" the emergency
power to "authorize aircraft of the armed forces of the United States to deviate
from air traffic regulations." It does NOT give the military any authority to
take over ATC functions or control non-military aircraft.

BTW, ATC IS part of 14 CFR 91 -- specifically 91.123, which mandates the
adherence to ATC clearances. Further, most of Subpart B of 14 CFR 91 deals with
flight operations under ATC within the US airspace system.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>Second, I've never taken, nor been told to, "anti-nerve"
>agents. The only time you take these is when you've been exposed to a nerve
>agent.

There are also Nerve Agent Pre-treatment System (NAPS) tablets which are
taken in anticipation of exposure to cholinesterase inhibitors (nerve
gases, organophosphorous insecticides and so on) - these increase your
resistance to the compounds and buy you more time to mask up, seal up
and grab a Combopen.

I don't believe they're issued to aircrew, though, which would be why
you haven't come across them.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:Ji9%a.121293$Oz4.25309@rwcrnsc54...
> "John Hairell" > wrote...
> >
> > He is delusional - this has been argued ad-nauseam this year, last
> > year, and the prior year, and Tarver always argues from the same
> > position, namely that the military is not at all subject to FAA
> > jurisdiction. This seems to be an issue of "constitutionality" with
> > him, i.e. his position has previously been that DOD is part of the
> > executive department and is not subject to any regulatory agencies.
> >
> > And he is wrong.
>
> Indeed, those of us who have been here for a while know that Tarver posts
a lot
> of incredible BS around here. However, lest the occasional newcomer start
to
> accept any of it as truth, it is worth debunking again.

Just admit you are wrong about FAA having Authority over the military,
Weiss. FAA control of airspace through ATC is at the discression of the
military.

As to my understanding of electric aircraft systems being a minor area, I
recommend you spend some time educating yourself as to how modern aircraft
work.

John p. Tarver, MS/PE

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> FAA provides military operations areas wherever the military requests them.
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIR/air2501.html#25-1-6

Not quite... The FAA MAY provide a military operations area when the military
requests one. The FAA has the final decision authority (14 CFR 11.69).


> Additionally here is the FAA Order for special military operations, as
> published in the Congressional Record.
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/ATPubs/MIL/INDEX.HTM

Indeed, the military may REQUEST exercise areas and Special Use Airspace from
the FAA for special military operations. However, as provided in par. 2-1-4.a.
of Order 7610.4J, Order 7400.2 governs the procedures. Par. 21-1-5 of Order
7400.2E is very clear:

"FAA Headquarters is the final approval authority for all permanent and
temporary SUA, except CFA's. CFA approval authority is delegated to the regional
ATD."

Again, the FAA has the final authority to approve or deny requests.


> For safety and cost reasons FAA ATC has control of airspace for both
> civilian and military operations, but ATC has no authority to sanction
> either a pilot, or the military. ATC, as demonstrated in the two ATC Orders
> (law) posted here, is in compliance with the Military's needs and not the
> other way around. In the case of "Special Operations", ATC may have an
> obligation to ground all civil aircraft, as was demonstrated in 2001.

The FAA certainly has the obligation to consider military needs, but it is not
required to approve all military requests.

Note that the FAA is the one that grounded all civil aircraft in 2001 -- not
some other agency. Certainly other agencies had significant input into the
FAA's decision, but "the Administrator" made the final decision.

Neither of the orders you cite has anything to do with FAA sanctions of pilots
or "the military."

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > FAA control of airspace through ATC is at the discression of the
> > military.
>
> Not according to all the statutes, regulations, and orders cited so far...

What would you have FAA do if the Military chose to take flight?