A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

USAF = US Amphetamine Fools



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 14th 03, 04:28 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US
Military.

We're talking about knowledge of the law.


Yes, we are.

The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the
President,

That's silly. Everyone working for the President doesn't have to obey
the law?


Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
Congrsional authority lead to any such regulatory authority?

FAR 91.1 says that it "prescribes rules governing the operation of
aircraft...within the United States...."


No, a FAR is a Federal Acquisition Regulation and has nothing to do with
airspace.

Doesn't say "civil" or "military", so it applies to everyone, unless
the law itself provides the exemption.


If you mean CFR 14, then that administrative law has only to do with those
individuals and corporations that volentarily submit themselves to FAA's
regulatory authority.

Can you provide any supporting evidence at all to justify your
position?


You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the words.


Ads
  #22  
Old August 14th 03, 04:28 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"B2431" wrote in message
...

No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression.

A
FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation.



Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.


Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the acronym.


  #23  
Old August 14th 03, 04:30 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message

...

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
the military is not governed by FARs...

Here's a copy from a FAA letter of interpretation:

December 9, 1992
Dr. Dietrich Bahls

Dear Dr. Bahls:

...

You are correct that in the U.S. there is only "one" airspace in which
both civil and military aircraft operate. While in U.S. airspace Part
91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
aircraft, both civilian and military.


No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression.

A
FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation.


The FAA, and even the 14CFR itself refers to 14 CFR as the Federal

Aviation
Regulations and uses the abbreviation FAR.


Not anymore. In consent decree FAA agrees to not use the acronym FAR
anymore.


  #24  
Old August 14th 03, 04:31 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...

Come on folks, wake up... Despite lip service and soothing sounds offered
by their spokesman, the military arm of the federal government

demonstrates
daily that it is not bound by civilian rules, including the FAA rules...

I
will ask one rhetorical question for those who are not too brain dead to
think for themselves...
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.,?


Military aircraft built after 1959 have little chance of even being
certificated for flight operations under CFR14.

Obviously it doesn't yet they do - Res Ipsa Loquitor / QED ...


Denny

. While in U.S. airspace Part
91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
aircraft, both civilian and military.


obviously NOT!

D.




  #25  
Old August 14th 03, 06:46 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.,?

There doesn't need to be an authorization. There is no prohibition.

There are numerous exemptions in the FARs for military aircraft, and
there are a number of other blanket exemptions such as "Unless
authorized by the administrator".

The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.



  #26  
Old August 14th 03, 06:55 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
Congressional authority lead to any such regulatory authority?

Here's a quote from the Cornell web page on military law:

-----snip--------
Congress's control over formation, organization and government of the
national armies is plenary and exclusive.
-----snip--------

You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the
words.

I've given you the following
1) Statement by the FAA's general counsel's office
2) References to the FARs which contain military exemptions
3) FAR statements as to the applicability of the regs

All you've given me is statements based on your own authority.

  #27  
Old August 14th 03, 06:59 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Military aircraft built after 1959 have little chance of even being
certificated for flight operations under CFR14.


Part 91 only requires that "Civil" aircraft have an airworthiness
certificate.


  #28  
Old August 14th 03, 07:11 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
Congressional authority lead to any such regulatory authority?

Here's a quote from the Cornell web page on military law:

-----snip--------
Congress's control over formation, organization and government of the
national armies is plenary and exclusive.
-----snip--------


Congress' power is limited to funding and declaration of war. Any claim of
Congressional primacy over the military seems childish, in light of the past
30 years of American history. Even the enabling order giving DoD authority
over the military has been resinded, during this Administration.

You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the
words.

I've given you the following
1) Statement by the FAA's general counsel's office
2) References to the FARs which contain military exemptions
3) FAR statements as to the applicability of the regs

All you've given me is statements based on your own authority.


I'll refer you to Article II section 2:

"The President shall be Commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into
the actual service of the United States;"

Historically, this section of Article II is the explicit price George
Washinton required to become the first President of the Republic; no George
Washington, no Republic. Washington, commander of the Army of Virginia, was
the most powerful man in America at the time and refused to relinquish power
in order to be President.

I suggest that in the future, you post items you are capable of
understanding, Esres. As has been pointed out by other posters, the
Military has their own regulation bringing them into compliance with some
sections of CFR14, but this document is controlled by the military and is in
no way subject to FAA review.


  #29  
Old August 14th 03, 07:23 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Greg Esres" wrote in message ...
-
There are numerous exemptions in the FARs for military aircraft, and
there are a number of other blanket exemptions such as "Unless
authorized by the administrator".


Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in part 91.
The only part that even pretends to play military and civilian together.


The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.


The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
only civil aviation.


  #30  
Old August 14th 03, 07:28 PM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.

Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the acronym.


Cite your source.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.