The FAA and the military

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?

--
Dallas

Dallas wrote:

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?



FAA is the final authority.
Military must go through the petition/waiver/notice of proposed
rulemaking process to obtain permission for non-emergency issues.

In article ,
john smith wrote:

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?

FAA is the final authority.
Military must go through the petition/waiver/notice of proposed
rulemaking process to obtain permission for non-emergency issues.

???

The FAA doesn't have any say wrt airworthiness certifiation of US military
aircraft (any FAA certification of military aircraft is at the option of the
service).

And then there is the option of "due regard"

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On 13-Jan-2007, Bob Noel wrote:

The FAA doesn't have any say wrt airworthiness certifiation of US military
aircraft (any FAA certification of military aircraft is at the option of
the
service).

I'll add to this, when I was a comm-nav avionics specialist in the USAF
(1980-1991), we didn't have any kind of requirement to recertify the
aircraft transponders every two years. We fixed 'em when the crews said they
were broken but never worked on them otherwise.
Scott Wilson

A point that needs to be made is that the FAA and DoD ATC systems are
not completely independent and parallel systems; they're thoroughly
intertwined. For instance, Ellsworth Approach/Departure handles
civilian traffic into and out of Rapid City Regional; Wichita
Approach/Departure handles McConnell AFB traffic; military controllers
at Sheppard AFB handle traffic for the civilian side of the field
(Wichita Falls Muni) in the air and on the ground. Military sorties
are under FAA control except under two circumstances:

1. When being handled by a military ATC facility. The handoffs
to/from FAA controllers are done in accordance with procedures
established in part at the national level and in part by local FAA/DoD
working groups. Handling of civilian traffic by military controllers
is worked out the same way.

2. When operating in a Military Operations Area (MOA) or a
low-level training route. The sortie is directed to the MOA or the
entry point of the route by the FAA, then it's on its own (unless
there's a military ATC facility controlling the MOA, e.g. Nellis Range
Control) under a policy known as MARSA (Military Assumes Responsibility
for Separation of Aircraft). The FAA tries to keep civilian traffic
out of the way, but is not responsible for mishaps unless the FAA
controllers were negligent. When the sortie has flown the route or is
ready to leave the MOA it contacts Center, declares itself "no longer
MARSA" and is again under FAA control.

Emergencies are handled the same way as in civilian aviation, although
a military crew may have to justify their irregular actions to two sets
of authorities afterward. DoD flight safety regulations are heavily
based on FAA requirements and even preferences; the military comes down
hard on unnecessary violations of FARs. However, I don't know of a
case in which a military pilot who also held an FAA license was
punished by both the DoD and FAA for an action in a military aircraft.

In article . com,
"quietguy" wrote:

A point that needs to be made is that the FAA and DoD ATC systems are
not completely independent and parallel systems; they're thoroughly
intertwined.

in fact, the new STARS is a joint DOD/FAA program with the FAA as
lead and the DOD follower, and the companion ASR-11 (aka DASR)
has the DOD as lead with the FAA follower. In other words, in the
NAS, the FAA and DOD will be using the same systems for TRACONs
and terminal radars (for the most part).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

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.

C J Campbell wrote:
I see nothing in the FARs which give the FAA authority over military
operations.

You're looking in the wrong place! I believe the Federal Aviation Act of
1958[1] was the first legislation that gave the FAA sole responsibility
for a common civil-military system of air navigation and air traffic
control.

Section (d)(4) of reference [2] appears to be the relevant passage of the
current law that grants the FAA the power to regulate both military and
civilian traffic in the U.S. national airspace:

"(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."

And the only exceptions to the FAA's regulatory power over the national
airspace seem to appear in reference [3]:

"Section 40106. Emergency powers

(a) Deviations From Regulations. - Appropriate military authority
may authorize aircraft of the armed forces of the United States to
deviate from air traffic regulations prescribed under section
40103(b)(1) and (2) of this title when the authority decides the
deviation is essential to the national defense because of a
military emergency or urgent military necessity. The authority
shall -
(1) give the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration prior notice of the deviation at the earliest
practicable time; and
(2) to the extent time and circumstances allow, make every
reasonable effort to consult with the Administrator and arrange
for the deviation in advance on a mutually agreeable basis.
(b) Suspension of Authority. - (1) When the President decides
that the government of a foreign country is acting inconsistently
with the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of
Aircraft or that the government of a foreign country allows
territory under its jurisdiction to be used as a base of operations
or training of, or as a sanctuary for, or arms, aids, or abets, a
terrorist organization that knowingly uses the unlawful seizure, or
the threat of an unlawful seizure, of an aircraft as an instrument
of policy, the President may suspend the authority of -
(A) an air carrier or foreign air carrier to provide foreign
air transportation to and from that foreign country;
(B) a person to operate aircraft in foreign air commerce to and
from that foreign country;
(C) a foreign air carrier to provide foreign air transportation
between the United States and another country that maintains air
service with the foreign country; and
(D) a foreign person to operate aircraft in foreign air
commerce between the United States and another country that
maintains air service with the foreign country.

(2) The President may act under this subsection without notice or
a hearing. The suspension remains in effect for as long as the
President decides is necessary to ensure the security of aircraft
against unlawful seizure. Notwithstanding section 40105(b) of this
title, the authority of the President to suspend rights under this
subsection is a condition to a certificate of public convenience
and necessity, air carrier operating certificate, foreign air
carrier or foreign aircraft permit, or foreign air carrier
operating specification issued by the Secretary of Transportation
under this part.

(3) An air carrier or foreign air carrier may not provide foreign
air transportation, and a person may not operate aircraft in
foreign air commerce, in violation of a suspension of authority
under this subsection."

See also "Section 40107. Presidential transfers" and "Section 40103.
Sovereignty and use of airspace".

References:

[1] Wikipedia, under "Federal Aviation Administration":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...Administration

[2] "United States Code
* TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
* SUBTITLE VII - AVIATION PROGRAMS
* PART A - AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY
* SUBPART I - GENERAL
* Chapter 401. General Provisions
* Section 40101. Policy"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...ion_40101.html

[3] "United States Code
* TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
* SUBTITLE VII - AVIATION PROGRAMS
* PART A - AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY
* SUBPART I - GENERAL
* Chapter 401. General Provisions
* Section 40106. Emergency Powers"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...ion_40106.html

C J Campbell wrote:


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.

It would be settled in DC as these are policy differences.

Dallas wrote:
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?

Please see my reply to C J Campbell's message where I cite what I believe
is the appropriate legislation. The answer is not simple, but congress
appears to have basically made the FAA the principal regulatory agency over
the U.S. airspace and excepting "emergency or urgent military necessity,"
military flights must follow FAA regulations.