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
  #51  
Old August 15th 03, 02:22 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:04:17 GMT, "John R Weiss"
wrote in Message-Id:
1rV_a.146530$Ho3.17545@sccrnsc03:

"Ron Natalie" wrote...

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


Actually, he does, per 49 USC 40101, par. (d)(4) and (d)(6).



Actually, she does if you consider "Public interest" to be authority:

"...the Administrator shall consider the following matters, among
others, as being in the public interest"




http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/40101.html

(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.

(5)

consolidating research and development for air navigation
facilities and the installation and operation of those facilities.

(6)

developing and operating a common system of air traffic control
and navigation for military and civil aircraft.

(7)

providing assistance to law enforcement agencies in the
enforcement of laws related to regulation of controlled
substances, to the extent consistent with aviation safety.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,
  #52  
Old August 15th 03, 02:42 AM
Richard Lamb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Webidence" is defined as: "Using unproven evidence gathered from the
Web to prove your silly point".
  #53  
Old August 15th 03, 03:49 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:13:04 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

snip

The FAA regulates private (civil) aviation and public (government)
passenger-carrying operations, but no other public operations. NASA
flies fighters without FAA regulation but not the KingAirs carrying
managers around (new FAA rule, which was justified by a couple of
passenger-carrying charter-like flights, I think by state agencies,
that had serious accidents).


Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last
decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for
those present that think like Tarver).

Was seriously under the impression that no pax still meant no regs for
"public use" aircraft.

We charter-hauled a Federal grant-funded duck-counter (I **** you not)
around in an Aztec for awhile a few years back, 'cause she couldn't do
the "mission" legally in a "public use" aircraft.

TC


  #54  
Old August 15th 03, 01:59 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Dennis O'Connor wrote:

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.,?


Where in any part of 14 CFR does it say that I *can't* attach a fully auto
gun to my aircraft? If it doesn't say I can't, then the FARs allow it (BATF
is another issue, however).

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers
  #55  
Old August 15th 03, 05:55 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
I have filed and had executed a First Amendment petitioin WRT FAA.

What you're saying is I should take your word for it.


There are "responsible engineers" at Boeing now, in response. (ie DER that
is PE)

Well, I don't.


Who are you that I would care what you believe, Esres?

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer
California E14066
Washington 31553


  #56  
Old August 15th 03, 07:37 PM
John R Weiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mary Shafer" wrote...

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


This is no longer entirely true. Within the past few years, the FAA
acquired jurisdiction over public aircraft used primarily for the
transport of personnel on a commuter- or charter-like basis. I think
it took a couple of accidents involving planes full of pax to do this.

That is, the NASA KingAirs that haul managers around have to be
maintained and operated to FAA standards. Actually, Dryden got the
FAA to accept the NASA maintenance standards as conforming to FAA
requirements. The operations and pilot licensure issues were minor
compared to that.

On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.



The FAA certainly has authority over military "aviation" -- flight OPERATIONS,
even if it does not have total authority over military or public AIRCRAFT.

In 14 CFR 61, the language (sometimes clearly, sometimes not so clearly)
differentiates between "civil aircraft," "public aircraft," and the requirements
of the pilots flying them. For example, 61.3(a) specifically says a "Pilot
Certificate" is required to pilot a "civil aircraft" -- public aircraft are
specifically excepted. While 61.3(c)(1) requires a "Medical Certificate" for
operation of "an aircraft" (with certain exceptions delineated in 61.3(c)(2)),
it also allows for "other documentation acceptable to the Administrator." It is
entirely possible NASA and the military services have had their medical
certificates deemed as "acceptable to the Administrator."

In 14 CFR 91, however, "the operation of aircraft" -- which includes both civil
and public aircraft -- is explicitly included in 91.1(a).

  #57  
Old August 15th 03, 07:40 PM
John R Weiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mary Shafer" wrote...

The FAA regulates private (civil) aviation and public (government)
passenger-carrying operations, but no other public operations. NASA
flies fighters without FAA regulation but not the KingAirs carrying
managers around (new FAA rule, which was justified by a couple of
passenger-carrying charter-like flights, I think by state agencies,
that had serious accidents).


If, by "operations" you mean the aircraft equipment and certifications, pilot
requirements, etc., you are correct. However, the FAA DOES regulate
"operations" to the extent those aircraft use US airspace. Most of the flight
rules in 14 CFR 91 (nee FAR Part 91) apply to civil and public aircraft
operations alike.

  #58  
Old August 15th 03, 07:40 PM
John R Weiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last
decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for
those present that think like Tarver).


For those of us who obey the consent decree.


Where is that elusive consent decree? Who is subject to it? Nobody ever
delivered one to me...

  #59  
Old August 15th 03, 07:53 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:yL9%a.118658$cF.32328@rwcrnsc53...
"Mary Shafer" wrote...

The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public

aircraft,
only civil aviation.


This is no longer entirely true. Within the past few years, the FAA
acquired jurisdiction over public aircraft used primarily for the
transport of personnel on a commuter- or charter-like basis. I think
it took a couple of accidents involving planes full of pax to do this.

That is, the NASA KingAirs that haul managers around have to be
maintained and operated to FAA standards. Actually, Dryden got the
FAA to accept the NASA maintenance standards as conforming to FAA
requirements. The operations and pilot licensure issues were minor
compared to that.

On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.



The FAA certainly has authority over military "aviation" -- flight

OPERATIONS,
even if it does not have total authority over military or public AIRCRAFT.


No Weiss, FAA's ATC authority WRT the Military arises from cost and safety
considration and does not in any way imply FAA control though any other Part
of CFR 14.

In 14 CFR 61, the language (sometimes clearly, sometimes not so clearly)
differentiates between "civil aircraft," "public aircraft," and the

requirements
of the pilots flying them. For example, 61.3(a) specifically says a

"Pilot
Certificate" is required to pilot a "civil aircraft" -- public aircraft

are
specifically excepted. While 61.3(c)(1) requires a "Medical Certificate"

for
operation of "an aircraft" (with certain exceptions delineated in

61.3(c)(2)),
it also allows for "other documentation acceptable to the Administrator."

It is
entirely possible NASA and the military services have had their medical
certificates deemed as "acceptable to the Administrator."


Now you are just being silly, Weiss.

In 14 CFR 91, however, "the operation of aircraft" -- which includes both

civil
and public aircraft -- is explicitly included in 91.1(a).


And in no way applicable to the military. Wrong Part of CFR 14, Weiss.


  #60  
Old August 15th 03, 07:55 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
. net...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last
decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for
those present that think like Tarver).


For those of us who obey the consent decree.


Where is that elusive consent decree? Who is subject to it? Nobody ever
delivered one to me...


Why would you matter WRT what FAA agrees to, Weiss?

Outside, perhaps, some large pilot giveback to fund missile defense systems
for transports.


 




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 08:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.