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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... The US Pentagon is becoming a nation unto itself with its own set of laws above the laws of the land. What's next? The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the civilian government itself). Any compliance with the FAR's the military services mandates is purely at their own discretion. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military
Then why do the FARs contain certain exemptions for military aircraft, if the regs don't apply to them in the first place? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message ... The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military Then why do the FARs contain certain exemptions for military aircraft, if the regs don't apply to them in the first place? In the interest of safety, the military respects and adheres to the FARs, in most every instance. The military pilot, who is not required to even hold a license, answers to his/her command, not the FAA. There is some legal ambiguity, as the FAA has been given regulatory authority in certain areas where they have not asserted their original legal mandate. Over decades, this ambiguity has been resolved consistently - the military is not governed by FARs. There have been some interesting cases over the years. In a couple of cases where military pilots have held licenses, the FAA has initiated action to pull licenses, which would affect the military pilot's non-military or post-military flying. These cases are rare. I wonder if the FAA has actually pulled licenses of military pilots based on their military flying behavior. Any ideas? The FAR's contain certain exemptions for military aircraft primarily to alert everybody involved that the military is likely to be acting outside of the FAR's, in certain areas. A GA pilot might be interested in what can be expected in the pattern when military aircraft are present! Thus, there is great value to publish such exemptions. The relationship between the military and FAA has been a model of cooperation and communication compared to other inter-agency relationships. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:08:55 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
wrote in Message-Id: Hgu_a.94174$cF.28808@rwcrnsc53: There is some legal ambiguity, as the FAA has been given regulatory authority in certain areas where they have not asserted their original legal mandate. Can you elaborate on your statement above? While the information you provided regarding the military not being required to adhere to FAA FARs seems consistent with my experience, USAF military pilots engaged in peacetime operations are apparently required to comply with: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfi...fi11-202v3.pdf BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202, VOLUME 3 6 JUNE 2003 Flying Operations GENERAL FLIGHT RULES COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY It would seem that AF Instruction 11-202 closely follows FAA FARs. Supplements are he http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/searc...I11-202&page=2 -- Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera, |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message news On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:08:55 GMT, "C.D. Damron" wrote in Message-Id: Hgu_a.94174$cF.28808@rwcrnsc53: There is some legal ambiguity, as the FAA has been given regulatory authority in certain areas where they have not asserted their original legal mandate. Can you elaborate on your statement above? While the information you provided regarding the military not being required to adhere to FAA FARs seems consistent with my experience, USAF military pilots engaged in peacetime operations are apparently required to comply with: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 Which is exactly what I said. The FAR's do not by themselves apply to the military, the military mandates their own compliance with them. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... Which is exactly what I said. The FAR's do not by themselves apply to the military, the military mandates their own compliance with them. You make it sound like they have an option. The military is required to follow applicable FARs by higher civilian authority. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
the military is not governed by FARs...
Here's a copy from a FAA letter of interpretation: December 9, 1992 Dr. Dietrich Bahls Dear Dr. Bahls: .... You are correct that in the U.S. there is only "one" airspace in which both civil and military aircraft operate. While in U.S. airspace Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of aircraft, both civilian and military. Outside of U.S. airspace, however, the rules of the appropriate jurisdiction govern both U.S. civilian and military aircraft operations. .... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the civilian government itself). Any compliance with the FAR's the military services mandates is purely at their own discretion. I don't know where you got that idea but it is simply not correct. We don't have civil aviation regulations in the US, we have Federal Aviation Regulations, and they apply to all; military, civilian, and civilian government. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 gave the FAA sole responsibility for developing and maintaining a common civil-military system of air navigation and air traffic control. The Act contained an exception for military emergencies and procedures for use in the event of war, but outside of those situations, the military and the civilian government complies with applicable FARs because they are required to do so. FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958 TITLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS DECLARATION OF POLICY: THE ADMINISTRATOR Sec. 103 [49 U.S. Code 1303]. In the exercise and performance of his powers and duties under this Act the Administrator shall consider the following, among other things, as being in the public interest: (a) The regulation of air commerce in such manner as to best promote its development and safety and fulfill the requirements of national defense; (b) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil aeronautics; (c) The control of the use of the navigable airspace of the United States and the regulation of both civil and military operations in such airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both; (d) The consolidation of research and development with respect to air navigation facilities, as well as the installation and operation thereof; (e) The development and operation of a common system of air traffic control and navigation for both military and civil aircraft. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the civilian government itself). Any compliance with the FAR's the military services mandates is purely at their own discretion. That's correct. Government agencies do not have to abide by the FAR's. However a lot of them have written into their regs that they have to follow certain regs, because it is easier than coming up with their own. A friend of mine flies for the USDA ADC(Animal Damage Control). He hunts coyotes from the goverments Piper Cubs. Their regs say they must follow for hire regs with respect to 100 hour inspections and annuals. They do not worry about 337's and field approvals for mods to the aircraft. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USAF axes the bicycle aerobics test | S. Sampson | Military Aviation | 22 | August 10th 03 03:50 AM |
FS Books USAF, Navy, Marine pilots and planes | Ken Insch | Military Aviation | 0 | July 20th 03 02:36 AM |
NZ plane lands safely with help from USAF | Jughead | Military Aviation | 0 | July 6th 03 10:23 PM |
From Col.Greg Davis USAF (ret) | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | July 3rd 03 07:56 PM |