If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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) Mo http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=107...a&s=rb050 329 ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
British Airways 747 incident on NPR | Ron Garret | Piloting | 3 | March 9th 05 07:38 PM |
FA: British Caledonian Airways Boeing 707 Model aircraft | Baron Corvo | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 31st 04 12:37 AM |
Airways (was Getting unlost) | David Megginson | Piloting | 0 | August 6th 04 11:59 AM |
F15E's trounced by Eurofighters | John Cook | Military Aviation | 193 | April 11th 04 03:33 AM |
russia vs. japan in 1941 [WAS: 50% of NAZI oil..] | Military Aviation | 136 | December 6th 03 10:40 PM |