Only official instrument approaches authorised under FAR?

"Julian Scarfe" wrote:

So the next question, which I'll ask on Peter's behalf is...

Since Part 97 only prescribes approaches for airports within the US (and
presumably associated territories), how does an N-registered aircraft
ever
fly an IAP in IMC outside the US?

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
That's easy, this rule doesn't apply outside the US. Part 91.1 says:

"this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft [...]
within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of
the U.S. coast."

Now Peter has got me wondering about this.

The first bit that you snipped says:

" (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and
Secs. 91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the
operation of aircraft"

"Sec. 91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the
United States.

(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside
of the United States shall--
....
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations
relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;
(3) Except for Secs. 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply
with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable
regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or
annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; ..."

So what's the test for something being "inconsistent with applicable
regulations"? Many regulations work as prohibitions: if Part 91 prohibits
something and the regulations of the foreign country remain silent on the
issue (for example, the choice of instrument letdown), would the N-reg
aircraft still have to comply with Part 91?

Julian

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
"Sec. 91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the
United States.

(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside
of the United States shall--
...
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations
relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;
(3) Except for Secs. 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply
with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable
regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or
annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; ..."

So what's the test for something being "inconsistent with applicable
regulations"? Many regulations work as prohibitions: if Part 91
prohibits something and the regulations of the foreign country remain
silent on the issue (for example, the choice of instrument letdown), would
the N-reg aircraft still have to comply with Part 91?

Actually, *any* regulatory requirement on a pilot works as a prohibition
(that is, the pilot is prohibited from violating the requirement). So if
foreign regs were construed as "inconsistent" with a requirement simply by
virtue of their being silent (and thus not imposing the requirement
themselves), then 91.703a3 would be entirely superfluous--it would only
require compliance with US requirements that the foreign regs *also* impose,
and thus would merely reiterate 91.703a2. Since 91.703a3 presumably was not
intended to be superfluous, the only plausible interpretation is that when
the foreign regs are silent on a US requirement, the requirement is in force
for US aircraft.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Actually, *any* regulatory requirement on a pilot works as a prohibition
(that is, the pilot is prohibited from violating the requirement). So if
foreign regs were construed as "inconsistent" with a requirement simply by
virtue of their being silent (and thus not imposing the requirement
themselves), then 91.703a3 would be entirely superfluous--it would only
require compliance with US requirements that the foreign regs *also*
impose, and thus would merely reiterate 91.703a2. Since 91.703a3
presumably was not intended to be superfluous, the only plausible
interpretation is that when the foreign regs are silent on a US
requirement, the requirement is in force for US aircraft.

In which case I repose my question:

"Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument
letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an
aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a
standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in part
97 of this chapter."

Since Part 97 only prescribes approaches for airports within the US (and
presumably associated territories), how does an N-registered aircraft ever
fly an IAP in IMC outside the US?

Julian

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...

In which case I repose my question:

"Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument
letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an
aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a
standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in part
97 of this chapter."

Since Part 97 only prescribes approaches for airports within the US (and
presumably associated territories), how does an N-registered aircraft ever
fly an IAP in IMC outside the US?


By complying with the applicable rules of the country in which they're
operating, of course.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
By complying with the applicable rules of the country in which they're
operating, of course.

That's sane, reasonable, and my armchair-understanding of how everyone
does it.

But what do the regs say? Does ICAO weigh in?

-Luke

Negative. Part 91 cannot be applied outside US territories. Not to long
ago the FAA attempted to violate an airline pilot for exceeding 250 KIAS in
a descent into the Miami area. He was off shore and outside the US
boundaries. Even though the aircraft was under US control, it was in
international airspace. The violation did not stick.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
"Sec. 91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of
the United States.

(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside
of the United States shall--
...
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations
relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;
(3) Except for Secs. 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply
with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable
regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or
annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; ..."

So what's the test for something being "inconsistent with applicable
regulations"? Many regulations work as prohibitions: if Part 91
prohibits something and the regulations of the foreign country remain
silent on the issue (for example, the choice of instrument letdown),
would the N-reg aircraft still have to comply with Part 91?

Actually, *any* regulatory requirement on a pilot works as a prohibition
(that is, the pilot is prohibited from violating the requirement). So if
foreign regs were construed as "inconsistent" with a requirement simply by
virtue of their being silent (and thus not imposing the requirement
themselves), then 91.703a3 would be entirely superfluous--it would only
require compliance with US requirements that the foreign regs *also*
impose, and thus would merely reiterate 91.703a2. Since 91.703a3
presumably was not intended to be superfluous, the only plausible
interpretation is that when the foreign regs are silent on a US
requirement, the requirement is in force for US aircraft.

--Gary