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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Probably the thing that amazed me most about the whole thing was that
he was under the control of ATC for the overflight. I don't understand at all why that should surprise you. Have you ever looked at Arlington and where it lays in the D.C. Terminal Area? I'm sure Reagan Tower wouldn't appreciate you overflying their runways (perpendicular) at 500'. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" wrote...
I'm sure Reagan Tower wouldn't appreciate you overflying their runways (perpendicular) at 500'. Better Pk with an acute nagle to the runway, anyway... :-) |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:32:01 -0700,
Mary Shafer wrote: I think one of them was a university in the midwest somewhere, one of the state schools. They had a flight department, all unregulated, and crashed a plane in the KingAir class, maybe in bad weather, with a bunch of high-level folks on board. This was probably within the last ten years. I don't even know where to look to find the records of accidents like this. They're not investigated by FAA or NTSB, so they're not in either database. [Snip] Might you be thinking about the crash of a Super King Air 200 on January 27, 2001? This was a flight carrying 8 members of the OSU basketball team back to Stillwater, OK after a game in Colorado. The two pilots and 8 passengers were all killed in that accident. During the investigation, it was found that the university's Flight Department had not exercised proper oversight over the operation of this flight. However, the NTSB determined that this was not "causal to the accident," see: http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2003/030123a.htm The NTSB did investiage this particular accident; the synopsis of the accident report can be found at: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X00421&key=1 Eric Chevalier -- Eric Chevalier www.tulsagrammer.com |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:31:05 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote: snip I even managed to put a couple of United pilots into F-18s, looking at unusual attitude recovery. No contract, no agreement, no nothing. A duck counter would have been (forgive me, I can't resist) duck soup. Crap ma'am, sign me up! Did I ever tell you guys about bug collecting with the Jetstar? Or how we simulated dead bug bodies when getting the real thing didn't work? Nothing to do with ducks or contractors or pax operations, although I have a story about pax-like operations in turbulence with the Jetstar. Sounds like a good story to me. Am within driving distance of a NASA research facility, but it's near the north (instead of a ways from the left) coast. Looked into using one of our singles for duck-counting, but the paperwork for low-altitude twin stuff was bad enuff. But man, compared to the F-18 deal... And I do really need to know how to make "simulated dead bug bodies". TC |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Wonder how long it would take George Dubya to deliver the mail to the entire country with just him and Cheney doing the job? It's an entertaining thought, but the lads could hardly do a worse job that the incumbent (i.e. the USPS)! 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 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"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.,? Obviously it doesn't yet they do - Res Ipsa Loquitor / QED ... So anything that's not authorized is prohibited? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... I once did a story about the Missing Man Formation, and had a wonderful exchange of emails with a navy pilot who'd recently flown one at Arlington Natl Cemetery. Probably the thing that amazed me most about the whole thing was that he was under the control of ATC for the overflight. Why did that amaze you? He did get a "discrete", however--a radio frequency all to his own. Probably UHF and he just happened to be the only aircraft on it at the time. And he did bust the speed limit for low altitude work. Do you mean he operated in excess of 250 kias, or in excess of the minimum safe airspeed for his particular operation? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote: In that case, Ed, you certainly should be able to disearn what entities are in the Constitution and which is not. Take for example the department of Education, which is alternatively praised and then threatened with disbandment. Limiting Federal powers to those entities that are Constitutional in nature is at the heart of libertarian thought. Wheras through republican thinking, one might come to the conclusion that Federal power should be limited to those things the States are unable to deal with; under a civil free society. Then there is the democratic idea that Federal power should be unlimited and seek to satisfy the desires of the masses. I don't see how you can convey the meaning of this experiment in democracy without understanding the differences in the basic ideas of our Republic. Please educate us, educated one. In discerning "what entities are in the Constitution" you will find upon searching for the Cabinet--and all of the agencies included--that not a single one of them is mentioned. I think you are on to something, Ed. Whenever I am dealing with Congressional staff, or high ups in USDOT, it is always a good laugh to compare academia's abstract view of the system and how things really work. All that America's children are taught in primary school civics is a big joke. Some universities are capable of giving some insight, but the majority of such programs are only testimng to see how well the students can parrot the professor. John P. Tarver, MS/PE |
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 |