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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message ... FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US Military. We're talking about knowledge of the law. Yes, we are. The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the President, That's silly. Everyone working for the President doesn't have to obey the law? Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated Congrsional authority lead to any such regulatory authority? FAR 91.1 says that it "prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft...within the United States...." No, a FAR is a Federal Acquisition Regulation and has nothing to do with airspace. Doesn't say "civil" or "military", so it applies to everyone, unless the law itself provides the exemption. If you mean CFR 14, then that administrative law has only to do with those individuals and corporations that volentarily submit themselves to FAA's regulatory authority. Can you provide any supporting evidence at all to justify your position? You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the words. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message ... No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression. A FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation. Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations. Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the acronym. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... 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. No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression. A FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation. The FAA, and even the 14CFR itself refers to 14 CFR as the Federal Aviation Regulations and uses the abbreviation FAR. Not anymore. In consent decree FAA agrees to not use the acronym FAR anymore. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ... Come on folks, wake up... Despite lip service and soothing sounds offered by their spokesman, the military arm of the federal government demonstrates daily that it is not bound by civilian rules, including the FAA rules... I will ask one rhetorical question for those who are not too brain dead to think for themselves... Where in 14 CFR, Part 91, et. al., does it authorize you to attach a fully automatic machine gun on the aircraft, or a nuclear weapon, or napalm, etc.,? Military aircraft built after 1959 have little chance of even being certificated for flight operations under CFR14. Obviously it doesn't yet they do - Res Ipsa Loquitor / QED ... Denny . While in U.S. airspace Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of aircraft, both civilian and military. obviously NOT! D. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Where in 14 CFR, Part 91, et. al., does it authorize you to attach a
fully automatic machine gun on the aircraft, or a nuclear weapon, or napalm, etc.,? There doesn't need to be an authorization. There is no prohibition. There are numerous exemptions in the FARs for military aircraft, and there are a number of other blanket exemptions such as "Unless authorized by the administrator". The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
Congressional authority lead to any such regulatory authority? Here's a quote from the Cornell web page on military law: -----snip-------- Congress's control over formation, organization and government of the national armies is plenary and exclusive. -----snip-------- You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the words. I've given you the following 1) Statement by the FAA's general counsel's office 2) References to the FARs which contain military exemptions 3) FAR statements as to the applicability of the regs All you've given me is statements based on your own authority. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Military aircraft built after 1959 have little chance of even being
certificated for flight operations under CFR14. Part 91 only requires that "Civil" aircraft have an airworthiness certificate. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message ... Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated Congressional authority lead to any such regulatory authority? Here's a quote from the Cornell web page on military law: -----snip-------- Congress's control over formation, organization and government of the national armies is plenary and exclusive. -----snip-------- Congress' power is limited to funding and declaration of war. Any claim of Congressional primacy over the military seems childish, in light of the past 30 years of American history. Even the enabling order giving DoD authority over the military has been resinded, during this Administration. You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the words. I've given you the following 1) Statement by the FAA's general counsel's office 2) References to the FARs which contain military exemptions 3) FAR statements as to the applicability of the regs All you've given me is statements based on your own authority. I'll refer you to Article II section 2: "The President shall be Commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States;" Historically, this section of Article II is the explicit price George Washinton required to become the first President of the Republic; no George Washington, no Republic. Washington, commander of the Army of Virginia, was the most powerful man in America at the time and refused to relinquish power in order to be President. I suggest that in the future, you post items you are capable of understanding, Esres. As has been pointed out by other posters, the Military has their own regulation bringing them into compliance with some sections of CFR14, but this document is controlled by the military and is in no way subject to FAA review. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message ... - There are numerous exemptions in the FARs for military aircraft, and there are a number of other blanket exemptions such as "Unless authorized by the administrator". Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in part 91. The only part that even pretends to play military and civilian together. The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so. The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft, only civil aviation. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.
Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the acronym. Cite your source. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
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 |