USAF = US Amphetamine Fools

Probably the thing that amazed me most about the whole thing was that
he was under the control of ATC for the overflight.

I don't understand at all why that should surprise you. Have you
ever looked at Arlington and where it lays in the D.C. Terminal Area?

I'm sure Reagan Tower wouldn't appreciate you overflying their runways
(perpendicular) at 500'.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote...

I'm sure Reagan Tower wouldn't appreciate you overflying their runways
(perpendicular) at 500'.

Better Pk with an acute nagle to the runway, anyway... :-)

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:32:01 -0700,
Mary Shafer wrote:

I think one of them was a university in the midwest somewhere, one of
the state schools. They had a flight department, all unregulated, and
crashed a plane in the KingAir class, maybe in bad weather, with a
bunch of high-level folks on board. This was probably within the last
ten years.

I don't even know where to look to find the records of accidents like
this. They're not investigated by FAA or NTSB, so they're not in
either database.

[Snip]

Might you be thinking about the crash of a Super King Air 200 on
January 27, 2001? This was a flight carrying 8 members of the OSU
basketball team back to Stillwater, OK after a game in Colorado. The
two pilots and 8 passengers were all killed in that accident. During
the investigation, it was found that the university's Flight
Department had not exercised proper oversight over the operation of
this flight. However, the NTSB determined that this was not "causal to
the accident," see:

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2003/030123a.htm

The NTSB did investiage this particular accident; the synopsis of the
accident report can be found at:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X00421&key=1

Eric Chevalier

--
Eric Chevalier
www.tulsagrammer.com

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:31:05 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

snip

I even managed to put a couple of United pilots into F-18s, looking at
unusual attitude recovery. No contract, no agreement, no nothing. A
duck counter would have been (forgive me, I can't resist) duck soup.

Crap ma'am, sign me up!


Did I ever tell you guys about bug collecting with the Jetstar? Or
how we simulated dead bug bodies when getting the real thing didn't
work? Nothing to do with ducks or contractors or pax operations,
although I have a story about pax-like operations in turbulence with
the Jetstar.

Sounds like a good story to me. Am within driving distance of a NASA
research facility, but it's near the north (instead of a ways from the
left) coast.

Looked into using one of our singles for duck-counting, but the
paperwork for low-altitude twin stuff was bad enuff. But man,
compared to the F-18 deal...

And I do really need to know how to make "simulated dead bug bodies".

TC

Wonder how long
it would take George Dubya to deliver the mail to the entire country
with just him and Cheney doing the job?

It's an entertaining thought, but the lads could hardly do a worse job
that the incumbent (i.e. the USPS)!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the
civilian government itself). Any compliance with the FAR's the
military services mandates is purely at their own discretion.


I don't know where you got that idea but it is simply not correct. We don't
have civil aviation regulations in the US, we have Federal Aviation
Regulations, and they apply to all; military, civilian, and civilian
government.

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 gave the FAA sole responsibility for
developing and
maintaining a common civil-military system of air navigation and air traffic
control. The
Act contained an exception for military emergencies and procedures for use
in the event
of war, but outside of those situations, the military and the civilian
government complies with applicable FARs because they are required to do so.



FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958

TITLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

DECLARATION OF POLICY: THE ADMINISTRATOR

Sec. 103 [49 U.S. Code 1303]. In the exercise and performance of his
powers and duties under this Act the Administrator shall consider the
following, among other things, as being in the public interest:

(a) The regulation of air commerce in such manner as to best promote its
development and safety and fulfill the requirements of national defense;

(b) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil aeronautics;

(c) The control of the use of the navigable airspace of the United
States and the regulation of both civil and military operations in such
airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both;

(d) The consolidation of research and development with respect to air
navigation facilities, as well as the installation and operation thereof;

(e) The development and operation of a common system of air traffic
control and navigation for both military and civil aircraft.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

Which is exactly what I said. The FAR's do not by themselves apply
to the military, the military mandates their own compliance with them.


You make it sound like they have an option. The military is required to
follow applicable FARs by higher civilian authority.

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


So anything that's not authorized is prohibited?

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

I once did a story about the Missing Man Formation, and had a
wonderful exchange of emails with a navy pilot who'd recently flown
one at Arlington Natl Cemetery.

Probably the thing that amazed me most about the whole thing was that
he was under the control of ATC for the overflight.


Why did that amaze you?



He did get a "discrete", however--a radio frequency all to his own.


Probably UHF and he just happened to be the only aircraft on it at the time.



And he did bust the speed limit for low altitude work.


Do you mean he operated in excess of 250 kias, or in excess of the minimum
safe airspeed for his particular operation?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

In that case, Ed, you certainly should be able to disearn what entities
are
in the Constitution and which is not. Take for example the department of
Education, which is alternatively praised and then threatened with
disbandment. Limiting Federal powers to those entities that are
Constitutional in nature is at the heart of libertarian thought. Wheras
through republican thinking, one might come to the conclusion that
Federal
power should be limited to those things the States are unable to deal
with;
under a civil free society. Then there is the democratic idea that
Federal
power should be unlimited and seek to satisfy the desires of the masses.
I
don't see how you can convey the meaning of this experiment in democracy
without understanding the differences in the basic ideas of our Republic.

Please educate us, educated one.

In discerning "what entities are in the Constitution" you will find
upon searching for the Cabinet--and all of the agencies included--that
not a single one of them is mentioned.

I think you are on to something, Ed.

Whenever I am dealing with Congressional staff, or high ups in USDOT, it is
always a good laugh to compare academia's abstract view of the system and
how things really work. All that America's children are taught in primary
school civics is a big joke. Some universities are capable of giving some
insight, but the majority of such programs are only testimng to see how well
the students can parrot the professor.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE