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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message ... So is there some sort of generic authorization, or is it authorized on a case by case basis? Probably neither. The latter seems unlikely. Do you really apply for such an authorization every time you fly IFR to Canada? I've never flown IFR to Canada. Given that Part 91 only prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast, I'd feel pretty silly asking for such authorization if I had a notion to. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Julian Scarfe" wrote:
So the next question, which I'll ask on Peter's behalf is... Since Part 97 only prescribes approaches for airports within the US (and presumably associated territories), how does an N-registered aircraft ever fly an IAP in IMC outside the US? "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... That's easy, this rule doesn't apply outside the US. Part 91.1 says: "this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft [...] within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast." Ah. I'm getting confused with Parts 43 and 61, which clearly have to (and do) apply extraterritorially. That will also satisfy Peter's original question, which I think was looking at the applicability outside the US. Julian |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message ... Ah. I'm getting confused with Parts 43 and 61, which clearly have to (and do) apply extraterritorially. That will also satisfy Peter's original question, which I think was looking at the applicability outside the US. What in Peter's original question suggested to you that he was looking at the applicability outside the US? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Julian Scarfe" wrote:
So the next question, which I'll ask on Peter's behalf is... Since Part 97 only prescribes approaches for airports within the US (and presumably associated territories), how does an N-registered aircraft ever fly an IAP in IMC outside the US? "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... That's easy, this rule doesn't apply outside the US. Part 91.1 says: "this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft [...] within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast." Now Peter has got me wondering about this. The first bit that you snipped says: " (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and Secs. 91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft" "Sec. 91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States. (a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall-- .... (2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force; (3) Except for Secs. 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; ..." So what's the test for something being "inconsistent with applicable regulations"? Many regulations work as prohibitions: if Part 91 prohibits something and the regulations of the foreign country remain silent on the issue (for example, the choice of instrument letdown), would the N-reg aircraft still have to comply with Part 91? Julian |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
... "Sec. 91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States. (a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall-- ... (2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force; (3) Except for Secs. 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; ..." So what's the test for something being "inconsistent with applicable regulations"? Many regulations work as prohibitions: if Part 91 prohibits something and the regulations of the foreign country remain silent on the issue (for example, the choice of instrument letdown), would the N-reg aircraft still have to comply with Part 91? Actually, *any* regulatory requirement on a pilot works as a prohibition (that is, the pilot is prohibited from violating the requirement). So if foreign regs were construed as "inconsistent" with a requirement simply by virtue of their being silent (and thus not imposing the requirement themselves), then 91.703a3 would be entirely superfluous--it would only require compliance with US requirements that the foreign regs *also* impose, and thus would merely reiterate 91.703a2. Since 91.703a3 presumably was not intended to be superfluous, the only plausible interpretation is that when the foreign regs are silent on a US requirement, the requirement is in force for US aircraft. --Gary |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
... Actually, *any* regulatory requirement on a pilot works as a prohibition (that is, the pilot is prohibited from violating the requirement). So if foreign regs were construed as "inconsistent" with a requirement simply by virtue of their being silent (and thus not imposing the requirement themselves), then 91.703a3 would be entirely superfluous--it would only require compliance with US requirements that the foreign regs *also* impose, and thus would merely reiterate 91.703a2. Since 91.703a3 presumably was not intended to be superfluous, the only plausible interpretation is that when the foreign regs are silent on a US requirement, the requirement is in force for US aircraft. In which case I repose my question: "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in part 97 of this chapter." Since Part 97 only prescribes approaches for airports within the US (and presumably associated territories), how does an N-registered aircraft ever fly an IAP in IMC outside the US? Julian |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter" wrote in message ... Julian knows I am in the UK, and also the return email address in my original post made this clear. I deliberately didn't say this in the original post because I didn't want to muddy the water (not sure if that's an American expression but you know what I mean . So what? Your question asked about FAR 91.175, which is applicable only in the US. The other thing is that the internet isn't just the USA, and N-reg planes do fly outside the USA too Yes, but they're not operating under FAR 91.175 when they're outside the US. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message ... In which case I repose my question: "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in part 97 of this chapter." Since Part 97 only prescribes approaches for airports within the US (and presumably associated territories), how does an N-registered aircraft ever fly an IAP in IMC outside the US? By complying with the applicable rules of the country in which they're operating, of course. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
By complying with the applicable rules of the country in which they're operating, of course. That's sane, reasonable, and my armchair-understanding of how everyone does it. But what do the regs say? Does ICAO weigh in? -Luke |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I haven't looked through the entire thread. Has anyone mentioned 91.177?
Once you achieve an en route altitude 91.177 is constant and mandatory except for a Part 97 IAP or special IAP. (excepting a visual, contact, or cancellation) Roy Smith wrote: Peter wrote: One could read 175 as saying that if an official IAP is provided, it must be used. I think one would need to be reading a different text than what I have available to come to that conclusion. The one I've got says, "each person [...] shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in part 97 of this chapter." I don't see anything in there that sounds like, "if one is provided". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Only official instrument approaches authorised under FAR? | Matt Barrow | Instrument Flight Rules | 32 | August 5th 05 11:25 PM |
Instrument Checkride passed (Long) | Paul Folbrecht | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | February 11th 05 02:41 AM |
Instrument Rating Checkride PASSED (Very Long) | Alan Pendley | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | December 16th 04 02:16 PM |
PC flight simulators | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 178 | December 14th 03 12:14 PM |
Logging instrument approaches | Slav Inger | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | July 27th 03 11:00 PM |