On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:41:06 -0800, Dallas wrote
(in article ):


This came up in another group and no one had an answer.

What is the relationship of the FAA to the military? Is the FAA the final
word on regulations for everything in the US airspace with the military
using an additional set of their own regulations?



Lately it is more a matter of whether the FAA is subject to military
authority, isn't it? Of late, whenever the military says, "JUMP!" the FAA
seems to be saying, "How high?"

The FAA does not certify military crew members or aircraft, nor does it
certify the crew members or aircraft of any federal, state, or local
governmental agency. All such crew members may fly without a license or
medical certificate as far as the FAA is concerned. That "eye in the sky"
highway patrolman checking your speed does not need a pilot certificate, and
he could be legally flying just about anything.

Since the FAA does not certify crew members or airplanes, they cannot very
well threaten to take those certificates away, can they? And that is really
just about the only enforcement action the FAA is allowed to take,
ultimately.

Most non-military governmental agencies insist that their crew members and
aircraft be certified by the FAA for insurance reasons if for no other
purpose. Apply to your state government for a flying job and they will likely
require a commercial certificate and stiff minimum experience requirements.
They will also insist that all FARs be followed to the letter. But that is
the state requiring these things, not the FAA.

The military is different. Military regulations will generally match or even
exceed the FARs and ICAO rules, but the military reserves the right to make
exceptions. There are cases of military pilots or even military commanders
being cited for violations of the FARs by the FAA, but these were rare and
extremely egregious cases resulting in death or threat of death to civilians
in the air or on the ground. I was involved in one such case where the FAA
issued a violation to a wing commander on the ground for "reckless operation
of an aircraft," because the commander had knowingly ordered aircraft into an
area of extreme turbulence for an exercise. Several crew members were injured
and some were in the hospital for more than six months. The military relieved
the colonel from duty and the FAA dropped the violation. That was one very
long night, I can tell you.

I see nothing in the FARs which give the FAA authority over military
operations. If push came to shove, the military would probably just tell the
FAA to buzz off and the FAA really wouldn't be able to do anything about it.