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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:04:17 GMT, "John R Weiss"
wrote in Message-Id: 1rV_a.146530$Ho3.17545@sccrnsc03: "Ron Natalie" wrote... The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft, only civil aviation. Actually, he does, per 49 USC 40101, par. (d)(4) and (d)(6). Actually, she does if you consider "Public interest" to be authority: "...the Administrator shall consider the following matters, among others, as being in the public interest" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/40101.html (d) Safety Considerations in Public Interest. - In carrying out subpart III of this part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart III, the Administrator shall consider the following matters, among others, as being in the public interest: (1) assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. (2) regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety and fulfills national defense requirements. (3) encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology. (4) controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both of those operations. (5) consolidating research and development for air navigation facilities and the installation and operation of those facilities. (6) developing and operating a common system of air traffic control and navigation for military and civil aircraft. (7) providing assistance to law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of laws related to regulation of controlled substances, to the extent consistent with aviation safety. -- Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera, |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Webidence" is defined as: "Using unproven evidence gathered from the Web to prove your silly point". |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:13:04 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote: snip The FAA regulates private (civil) aviation and public (government) passenger-carrying operations, but no other public operations. NASA flies fighters without FAA regulation but not the KingAirs carrying managers around (new FAA rule, which was justified by a couple of passenger-carrying charter-like flights, I think by state agencies, that had serious accidents). Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for those present that think like Tarver). Was seriously under the impression that no pax still meant no regs for "public use" aircraft. We charter-hauled a Federal grant-funded duck-counter (I **** you not) around in an Aztec for awhile a few years back, 'cause she couldn't do the "mission" legally in a "public use" aircraft. TC |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis O'Connor wrote: 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.,? Where in any part of 14 CFR does it say that I *can't* attach a fully auto gun to my aircraft? If it doesn't say I can't, then the FARs allow it (BATF is another issue, however). George Patterson They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is, death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session. Will Rogers |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message ... I have filed and had executed a First Amendment petitioin WRT FAA. What you're saying is I should take your word for it. There are "responsible engineers" at Boeing now, in response. (ie DER that is PE) Well, I don't. Who are you that I would care what you believe, Esres? John P. Tarver, MS/PE Electrical Engineer California E14066 Washington 31553 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary Shafer" wrote...
The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft, only civil aviation. This is no longer entirely true. Within the past few years, the FAA acquired jurisdiction over public aircraft used primarily for the transport of personnel on a commuter- or charter-like basis. I think it took a couple of accidents involving planes full of pax to do this. That is, the NASA KingAirs that haul managers around have to be maintained and operated to FAA standards. Actually, Dryden got the FAA to accept the NASA maintenance standards as conforming to FAA requirements. The operations and pilot licensure issues were minor compared to that. On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones. The FAA certainly has authority over military "aviation" -- flight OPERATIONS, even if it does not have total authority over military or public AIRCRAFT. In 14 CFR 61, the language (sometimes clearly, sometimes not so clearly) differentiates between "civil aircraft," "public aircraft," and the requirements of the pilots flying them. For example, 61.3(a) specifically says a "Pilot Certificate" is required to pilot a "civil aircraft" -- public aircraft are specifically excepted. While 61.3(c)(1) requires a "Medical Certificate" for operation of "an aircraft" (with certain exceptions delineated in 61.3(c)(2)), it also allows for "other documentation acceptable to the Administrator." It is entirely possible NASA and the military services have had their medical certificates deemed as "acceptable to the Administrator." In 14 CFR 91, however, "the operation of aircraft" -- which includes both civil and public aircraft -- is explicitly included in 91.1(a). |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary Shafer" wrote...
The FAA regulates private (civil) aviation and public (government) passenger-carrying operations, but no other public operations. NASA flies fighters without FAA regulation but not the KingAirs carrying managers around (new FAA rule, which was justified by a couple of passenger-carrying charter-like flights, I think by state agencies, that had serious accidents). If, by "operations" you mean the aircraft equipment and certifications, pilot requirements, etc., you are correct. However, the FAA DOES regulate "operations" to the extent those aircraft use US airspace. Most of the flight rules in 14 CFR 91 (nee FAR Part 91) apply to civil and public aircraft operations alike. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...
Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for those present that think like Tarver). For those of us who obey the consent decree. Where is that elusive consent decree? Who is subject to it? Nobody ever delivered one to me... |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:yL9%a.118658$cF.32328@rwcrnsc53... "Mary Shafer" wrote... The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft, only civil aviation. This is no longer entirely true. Within the past few years, the FAA acquired jurisdiction over public aircraft used primarily for the transport of personnel on a commuter- or charter-like basis. I think it took a couple of accidents involving planes full of pax to do this. That is, the NASA KingAirs that haul managers around have to be maintained and operated to FAA standards. Actually, Dryden got the FAA to accept the NASA maintenance standards as conforming to FAA requirements. The operations and pilot licensure issues were minor compared to that. On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones. The FAA certainly has authority over military "aviation" -- flight OPERATIONS, even if it does not have total authority over military or public AIRCRAFT. No Weiss, FAA's ATC authority WRT the Military arises from cost and safety considration and does not in any way imply FAA control though any other Part of CFR 14. In 14 CFR 61, the language (sometimes clearly, sometimes not so clearly) differentiates between "civil aircraft," "public aircraft," and the requirements of the pilots flying them. For example, 61.3(a) specifically says a "Pilot Certificate" is required to pilot a "civil aircraft" -- public aircraft are specifically excepted. While 61.3(c)(1) requires a "Medical Certificate" for operation of "an aircraft" (with certain exceptions delineated in 61.3(c)(2)), it also allows for "other documentation acceptable to the Administrator." It is entirely possible NASA and the military services have had their medical certificates deemed as "acceptable to the Administrator." Now you are just being silly, Weiss. In 14 CFR 91, however, "the operation of aircraft" -- which includes both civil and public aircraft -- is explicitly included in 91.1(a). And in no way applicable to the military. Wrong Part of CFR 14, Weiss. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message . net... "Tarver Engineering" wrote... Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for those present that think like Tarver). For those of us who obey the consent decree. Where is that elusive consent decree? Who is subject to it? Nobody ever delivered one to me... Why would you matter WRT what FAA agrees to, Weiss? Outside, perhaps, some large pilot giveback to fund missile defense systems for transports. |
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 |