"Guilty" of Flying the Wrong Pattern?

Marty Shapiro wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Newps wrote:
Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many do
to make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.

That can't be right. At least not such a blanket exemption. All I can
find is some exemptions for certain operations mention in 5-6-3 of
the AIM.

Do you have a cite?

From the FAR 1.1 definitions:

Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft.
....
Look carefully at the start of FAR 61.3. Note that it only requires a
pilot certificate for a civil aircraft. It does NOT require a
certificate for a public aircraft.

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
....
As a mater of regulation, pilots of public aircraft do not have to
have a pilot's certificate. As a mater of policy, most governmental
agencies do require their pilots to have one or their own equivalent
(eg. the military).

Thanks for the cite. HOWEVER....

The some of the Flight Rules in part 91 appears to make _no_ distinction
between civil and public aircraft. Once airborne, the pilot of a public
aircraft still appears to be required to abide by some of the Flight Rules
under part 91. This seems to be the case because 91.1(a) specifically says
the part 91 Flight Rules apply to "aircraft" - note it has _no_ qualifiers.

So I still don't think that government agencies are not required to abide
by _all_ the FARs. Government agencies, including the military, are
presumably still rerquired to abide by all the FARs that use the
unqualified "aircraft" or "person" terminology. (It's a mixed-bag under
part 91; some FARs definitely refer to civil aircraft, others to all
aircraft.)

Jim Logajan wrote:
So I still don't think that government agencies are not required to
abide by _all_ the FARs. Government agencies, including the military,
are presumably still rerquired to abide by all the FARs that use the
unqualified "aircraft" or "person" terminology.

The problem here is in the U.S. Constitution, I believe. A/C
owned by say Interior cannot be forced to be maintained by rules
of the DOT. DOT can't ask Justice, the law firm to both
agencies, to litigate against Interior. If Interior said its
employee/pilots need not be certificated, then I think FAA can't
enforce against the pilot individually. No certificate; no
certificate action. If they proposed a civil fine for operating
w/o a certificate plus other violations, Interior would step in
and defend the employee and their own rule that their pilots need
not have certificates. Then no way to force it to court. It
ultimately would be the United States of America v. the United
States of America.

Fred F.

TxSrv wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

So I still don't think that government agencies are not required to
abide by _all_ the FARs. Government agencies, including the military,
are presumably still rerquired to abide by all the FARs that use the
unqualified "aircraft" or "person" terminology.


The problem here is in the U.S. Constitution, I believe. A/C owned by
say Interior cannot be forced to be maintained by rules of the DOT. DOT
can't ask Justice, the law firm to both agencies, to litigate against
Interior. If Interior said its employee/pilots need not be
certificated, then I think FAA can't enforce against the pilot
individually. No certificate; no certificate action. If they proposed
a civil fine for operating w/o a certificate plus other violations,
Interior would step in and defend the employee and their own rule that
their pilots need not have certificates. Then no way to force it to
court. It ultimately would be the United States of America v. the
United States of America.


I don't think that's the case. We just opened a brand new tower/tracon
building here at BIL. An unbelievable amount of time and more
importantly money was spent making the building ADA compatible. That's
a Federal Government law that applies to all buildings and it certainly
isn't the FAA that came up with it. The FAA spent a lot of time and
dollars complying with other agencies laws. OSHA, TSA, FBI, etc. The
list is endless.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Newps wrote:
Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many
do to make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.

That can't be right. At least not such a blanket exemption. All I
can find is some exemptions for certain operations mention in 5-6-3
of the AIM.

Do you have a cite?

From the FAR 1.1 definitions:

Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft.
...
Look carefully at the start of FAR 61.3. Note that it only requires
a pilot certificate for a civil aircraft. It does NOT require a
certificate for a public aircraft.

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
...
As a mater of regulation, pilots of public aircraft do not have to
have a pilot's certificate. As a mater of policy, most governmental
agencies do require their pilots to have one or their own equivalent
(eg. the military).

Thanks for the cite. HOWEVER....

The some of the Flight Rules in part 91 appears to make _no_
distinction between civil and public aircraft. Once airborne, the
pilot of a public aircraft still appears to be required to abide by
some of the Flight Rules under part 91. This seems to be the case
because 91.1(a) specifically says the part 91 Flight Rules apply to
"aircraft" - note it has _no_ qualifiers.

So I still don't think that government agencies are not required to
abide by _all_ the FARs. Government agencies, including the military,
are presumably still rerquired to abide by all the FARs that use the
unqualified "aircraft" or "person" terminology. (It's a mixed-bag
under part 91; some FARs definitely refer to civil aircraft, others to
all aircraft.)

My own opinion is that most agencies insist that pilots of public
aircraft be licensed and follow the FARs simply because they don't want the
adverse publicity and resulting Congressional investigations and/or law
suits should there be an incident, especially if fatalities are involved.

IIRC a few years ago, when there were several in-flight breakups of
forest fire fighting aircraft that it turned out the Department of the
Interior had its own airworthiness & maintenance rules for these aircraft.
These rules were changed to be more in line with the FAA rules after the
negative publicity.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

In article ,
Marty Shapiro wrote:

My own opinion is that most agencies insist that pilots of public
aircraft be licensed and follow the FARs simply because they don't want the
adverse publicity and resulting Congressional investigations and/or law
suits should there be an incident, especially if fatalities are involved.

Sometimes they follow the FARs simply to avoid duplication of effort.
Why bother coming up with a regulation if you can just use the FAA's?

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

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many do to
make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.

Which would be a case of them thinking that is what is good enough for us is
not good enough for them... That might be how it works, but it doesn't make
it *right*...

"Grumman-581" writes:

Which would be a case of them thinking that is what is good enough for us is
not good enough for them... That might be how it works, but it doesn't make
it *right*...

I don't think that's how it works. I can recall special exceptions
for the military in certain circumstances (such as MOAs or military
aircraft on interception missions--which doesn't include training),
but that's all.

Nothing makes government aircraft immune to midair collisions, so
there's no particular reason why they should have any blanket
exemption from Federal air regulations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps writes:

Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's.

Do municipal police forces count? Any cowtown can incorporate (or
not) and hire itself a police force.

Many do to make it easier on themselves but they are not
required to.

Where are government agencies exempted?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.