A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

USAF = US Amphetamine Fools



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old August 21st 03, 02:41 AM
C.D. Damron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

You make it sound like there's an option. The military adheres to
applicable FARs because they are required to do so.


Military pilots adhere to FAR's because they are ordered to adhere to FAR's.
They are held accountable by their command, not the FAA.

While there is some statutory ambiguity, in practice, there is no ambiguity.
You can't just cite the law and ignore how it has been interpreted by
government agencies, the military, and administrative law courts over a
number of decades. If you ignore how the law has been applied, you can
reach some stupid conclusions, based on the letter of the law.

Only in a couple of cases where the FAA threatened to pull the tickets of
military pilots has the FAA asserted itself in this area. Even in these
cases, the FAA backed down.




  #102  
Old August 21st 03, 02:44 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C.D. Damron" wrote in message
news:RqV0b.213070$uu5.38577@sccrnsc04...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

You make it sound like there's an option. The military adheres to
applicable FARs because they are required to do so.


Military pilots adhere to FAR's because they are ordered to adhere to

FAR's.
They are held accountable by their command, not the FAA.

While there is some statutory ambiguity, in practice, there is no

ambiguity.

Even the Statute refers only to ATC. Not some "applicable FARs".

You can't just cite the law and ignore how it has been interpreted by
government agencies, the military, and administrative law courts over a
number of decades. If you ignore how the law has been applied, you can
reach some stupid conclusions, based on the letter of the law.

Only in a couple of cases where the FAA threatened to pull the tickets of
military pilots has the FAA asserted itself in this area. Even in these
cases, the FAA backed down.


FAA is now prohibited, by adminstrative law, from sanctioning Miilitary
pilots in any way.


  #103  
Old August 21st 03, 11:15 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:47:40 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way)
was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the
document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action,
but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out
what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what
the government "can't" do.


More than that, agreement on the Constitution was actually predicated
on the promise that the Bill of Rights would immediately follow.

I don't remember why it wasn't included in the main document. It could
have been something as simple as wanting to keep the Constitution
streamlined, or as devious as a worry that all 13 former colonies
might not ratify it with the Bill included. Nor do I remember how the
Bill was ratified. If it went to the states (as they now were), the
second possibility can be ruled out.

To carry on the civics lesson: the Constitution went into effect when
nine states had ratified it; New Hampshire was the 9th state to do so.
Vermont was not one of the 13 colonies, nor one of the 13 states who
are memorialized as the stripes on the American flag. When Vermont
joined the Union, the tradition was already underway that the United
States would expand virtually without limit.

All the press goes to the Declaration of Independence and the war of
revolution that followed it, but the Constitution was the document
that changed the world. Just about every nation, at one time or
another, has declared independence and/or fought a revolution, but
what other created a document for self-government that lasted more
than 200 years?

In my opinion, even the 3/5 provision ought to be there, enshrined
forever, so we'll never forget that the document wasn't perfect to
begin with, but is being perfected over time.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #104  
Old August 21st 03, 03:49 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:47:40 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way)
was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the
document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action,
but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out
what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what
the government "can't" do.


More than that, agreement on the Constitution was actually predicated
on the promise that the Bill of Rights would immediately follow.

I don't remember why it wasn't included in the main document.


The Bill of Rights restricts the power of the Central Government and the
Federalists (libertarians) did not want the federal government resticted.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE


  #105  
Old September 25th 03, 03:17 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

[snipped]

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.


Somebody better tell the FAA...

Chip, ZTL


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.