Gov't Aircraft lack FAA oversigh?

[inactive15]

Gov't Aircraft lack FAA oversight?

Can someone explain this?

"The Federal Aviation Administration has long said it doesn't have the authority to apply regulations to government agencies as long as their aircraft are engaged in public missions like firefighting or law enforcement. The FAA also doesn't regulate the airworthiness or maintenance of military surplus aircraft in use by government agencies."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/28/national/w235519S41.DTL#ixzz1f937r18T

 

[d.grimm]

No rules, we are the government!

 

[RotorAndWing]

Can someone explain this?

"The Federal Aviation Administration has long said it doesn't have the authority to apply regulations to government agencies as long as their aircraft are engaged in public missions like firefighting or law enforcement. The FAA also doesn't regulate the airworthiness or maintenance of military surplus aircraft in use by government agencies."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/28/national/w235519S41.DTL#ixzz1f937r18T

These are Public Aircraft.

14 CFR 1.1

Public aircraft means any of the following aircraft when not being used for a commercial purpose or to carry an individual other than a crewmember or qualified non-crewmenber:


(1) An aircraft used only for the United States Government; an aircraft owned by the Government and operated by any person for purposes related to crew training, equipment development, or demonstration; an aircraft owned and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments; or an aircraft exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments.
(i) For the sole purpose of determining public aircraft status, commercial purposes means the transportation of persons or property for compensation or hire, but does not include the operation of an aircraft by the armed forces for reimbursement when that reimbursement is required by any Federal statute, regulation, or directive, in effect on November 1, 1999, or by one government on behalf of another government under a cost reimbursement agreement if the government on whose behalf the operation is conducted certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration that the operation is necessary to respond to a significant and imminent threat to life or property (including natural resources) and that no service by a private operator is reasonably available to meet the threat.
(ii) For the sole purpose of determining public aircraft status, governmental function means an activity undertaken by a government, such as national defense, intelligence missions, firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement (including transport of prisoners, detainees, and illegal aliens), aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource management.
(iii) For the sole purpose of determining public aircraft status, qualified non-crewmember means an individual, other than a member of the crew, aboard an aircraft operated by the armed forces or an intelligence agency of the United States Government, or whose presence is required to perform, or is associated with the performance of, a governmental function.


(2) An aircraft owned or operated by the armed forces or chartered to provide transportation to the armed forces if—
(i) The aircraft is operated in accordance with title 10 of the United States Code;
(ii) The aircraft is operated in the performance of a governmental function under title 14, 31, 32, or 50 of the United States Code and the aircraft is not used for commercial purposes; or
(iii) The aircraft is chartered to provide transportation to the armed forces and the Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating) designates the operation of the aircraft as being required in the national interest.


(3) An aircraft owned or operated by the National Guard of a State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States, and that meets the criteria of paragraph (2) of this definition, qualifies as a public aircraft only to the extent that it is operated under the direct control of the Department of Defense.


While it is true the FAA cannot regulate these aircraft as far as airworthiness or pilot requirements, the FAA can enforce Part 91 operating limitations as they may apply.

 

[inactive15]

Re: Gov't Aircraft lack FAA oversight?

It's the lack of airworthiness oversight is what's bothering me. I can understand aircraft operations.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Re: Gov't Aircraft lack FAA oversight?

It's the lack of airworthiness oversight is what's bothering me. I can understand aircraft operations.

Public Use aircraft by law have no airworthiness oversight by the FAA. The agency operating the aircraft carry that responsibility.

 

[timwinters]

Similarly, a city's code officials don't have any authority over a state or federal building being built in their city (at least that's the way it is in Missouri). I used to be with an A/E firm that did quite a bit of work at one of Missouri's universities. There was quite a bit of non code complaint "cool stuff" designed into some of these structures. Nothing life threatening but still...

 

[zaitcev]

One useful result of this lack of FAA oversight is that county and city cops can fly LSAs that were certified to 750 kg gross, such as Jabiru and Alpha. They use those 150 kg to pack IR cameras.

 

[PilotAlan]

Re: Gov't Aircraft lack FAA oversight?

It's the lack of airworthiness oversight is what's bothering me. I can understand aircraft operations.

It allows public safety operations that otherwise would not be permitted. Like putting in a FLIR unit, or rappelling a SWAT team from the chopper, or removable seats for insertion of a team, etc.
Also, they operate surplus military aircraft, which do not have airworthiness certificates. And the military surplus engines and rotors don't have yellow tags that would satisfy the FAA.

Yes, you could operate them in restricted category, but then you could not transport a SWAT team (required aircrew members only).

And, last I checked, no one makes an STC for a rifle mount or gunner strap for an MD500. And I'm pretty sure that some of the things we did in police aviation would violate a great many FARs if we weren't in public use.

 

[weilke]

If anyone has time, the NTSB has a public forum on this issue tomorrow and thursday:

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/public_aircraft/index.html

There have been a number of accidents where the non-adherence to best practices used in the industry otherwise has contributed to bad outcomes. At times, public agencies are (willfully) unaware of their responsibility to come up with their own maintenance and operations limitations. In addition to all the good things Alan mentions as to why public operation is necessary, at times it has been used to get simply get away with shoddy in-house maintenance in order to afford flying aircraft that would otherwise be outside of an agencies budget.

 

[Jim Logajan]

While it is true the FAA cannot regulate these aircraft as far as airworthiness or pilot requirements, the FAA can enforce Part 91 operating limitations as they may apply.

Indeed - the FAA Part 91 regulations even apply to military flights within the US national airspace outside of MOAs.

 

[denverpilot]

Heh heh. Mel Brooks comes to mind...

"It's good to be da King!"

 

[flyingron]

Indeed - the FAA Part 91 regulations even apply to military flights within the US national airspace outside of MOAs.

Only because the military choses to abide by the FAA practice. The FAA has no authority on it's own to regulate public or military aviation, only civil.

The FAA was probably the most egregious offender of violations of best practices that would be mandatory by their own regs on civil aircraft. After a couple of incidents in the nineties they decided maybe they should follow their own rules.

THe MD State Police (which administers the state Medevac system) similarly ran afoul of failure to use practices that were on par with civil standards.

 

[RotorAndWing]

FAA has no authority on it's own to regulate public or military aviation, only civil.

The FAA can regulate public operators via Part 91 and the NAS. While the operator may not follow crew requirements or maintenance/airworthiness they still must abide by NAS requirements.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Only because the military choses to abide by the FAA practice. The FAA has no authority on it's own to regulate public or military aviation, only civil.

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 assigns authority only to the FAA. The military doesn't "choose" to abide by FAA practice. I wrote about this about 4 years ago - read post 5 in the thread at the link below where I cite the law in question (the military can only deviate from FAA regulations in a national emergency - and even then must eventually give the FAA notice when it can):

http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=44169

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

 

[kkoran]

Only because the military choses to abide by the FAA practice. The FAA has no authority on it's own to regulate public or military aviation, only civil.

Federal law and regulations do prescribe how public aircraft will operate in the NAS. From United States v. Christensen:

Title 49 U.S.C. 1348, Airspace control and facilities-- Use of airspace, provides in subsection (c), Air traffic rules:

'The Administrator is further authorized and directed to prescribe air traffic rules and regulations governing the flight of aircraft, for the navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft, for the protection of persons and property on the ground, and for the efficient utilization of the navigable airspace, including rules as to safe altitudes of flight and rules for the prevention of collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.'

The term 'aircraft' is defined in 49 U.S.C. 1301(5) as 'any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed for navigation of or flight in the air.' The parties are agreed that appellee was operating an 'aircraft' at the time in question.


Pursuant to the above authority, regulations pertaining to flight rules were promulgated. By express provision, these regulations apply to 'aircraft'-- and not simply to 'civil aircraft' ('any aircraft other than a public aircraft,' 49 U.S.C. 1301(14)), as appellee herein contends. Thus, 14 C.F.R. 91.1, Applicability, provides that 'this part describes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons) with the United States.' Hence, 'public aircraft' are not specifically excluded in 14 C.F.R.

Additionally, if the feds are "exempt" from FAA regulations, how come the military, CBP, etc., have to request exemptions from the FAA, and more importantly, the FAA can and has denied their requests? http://aes.faa.gov/

 

[RotorAndWing]

Federal law and regulations do prescribe how public aircraft will operate in the NAS. From United States v. Christensen:
Additionally, if the feds are "exempt" from FAA regulations, how come the military, CBP, etc., have to request exemptions from the FAA, and more importantly, the FAA can and has denied their requests? http://aes.faa.gov/

Correct. Thanks for the links.

 

[bigblockz8]

The best part about the government is that you don't need a license to drive while on official business. Same goes for flying! The FAA would have something to say about it for sure though!

 

[RotorAndWing]

The best part about the government is that you don't need a license to drive while on official business. Same goes for flying! The FAA would have something to say about it for sure though!

Not sure where you got that info, but I can attest that when operating a government car one does have to have a state drivers license.

As far as operating a "public use aircraft", you are correct that no certificates are required. However the pilot is still responsible for operating in the NAS and following applicable rules.

In my dealings with public use aircraft, I've yet to find an agency that allows anyone to pilot aircraft without the appropriate FAA ratings (except for military, national guard). These agencies still must deal with insurance issues even if they self insure. Having a non rated crewmember, even if allowed under law opens up too much liability.

In the FAA all of their aircraft are operated under 14 CFR Part 135.

 

[n20junkie]

The FAA can regulate public operators via Part 91 and the NAS. While the operator may not follow crew requirements or maintenance/airworthiness they still must abide by NAS requirements.

So an air force jet can't go supersonic over ohio? I bet they can.

Can marine 1 fly below VFR weather minimums?




Military choses to follow as best they can FAA regulations. But if the need to fly supersonic 50 feet off of KEWR's active while talking to nobody exists. They can, will, and there isn't a single thing the FAA can do about it.





The military does **** that would blow the mind of OSHA. But OSHA can just add it to a report. They can't fine the military, DOE, FBI...........

 

[n20junkie]

Not sure where you got that info, but I can attest that when operating a government car one does have to have a state drivers license.

As far as operating a "public use aircraft", you are correct that no certificates are required. However the pilot is still responsible for operating in the NAS and following applicable rules.

In my dealings with public use aircraft, I've yet to find an agency that allows anyone to pilot aircraft without the appropriate FAA ratings (except for military, national guard). These agencies still must deal with insurance issues even if they self insure. Having a non rated crewmember, even if allowed under law opens up too much liability.

In the FAA all of their aircraft are operated under 14 CFR Part 135.

Wrong.

A US Military drivers license is all a person needs. There are lots of privates, airmen...... That have military drivers licenses but no state licenses. Think of kids that came from cities where there was no need.

Just the same, I can drive an air braked semi, and as long as its on my .gov/mil license, I'm good to go.

 

[RotorAndWing]

So an air force jet can't go supersonic over ohio? I bet they can.

Sure they can. The CFR's restrict Civil Aircraft, not military from supersonic.

Can marine 1 fly below VFR weather
minimums?

Sure, just like any other helicopter.

Military choses to follow as best they can FAA regulations. But if the need to fly supersonic 50 feet off of KEWR's active while talking to nobody exists. They can, will, and there isn't a single thing the FAA can do about it.

If you're implying a military aircraft can do such an event purely because they want to, then the answer is no. They are required ATC separation and flight rule compliance just like their civil counterparts. However, in an emergency that can change.
Military aircraft can have a Pilot Deviation filed against them the same as civil aircraft. The difference is once the PD is filed the FAA turns it over to the appropriate military agency to handle. And each military branch has their own rules and regulations to follow while in the NAS.

The military does **** that would blow the mind of OSHA. But OSHA can just add it to a report. They can't fine the military, DOE, FBI...........

Each entity has their policy and procedures. I can't speak as to what OSHA can or would do, but I do know what the FAA can do.

 

[Jim Logajan]

So an air force jet can't go supersonic over ohio? I bet they can.

Part 91 applies to all aircraft, civil and military. In the case of supersonic, 91.817 through 91.821 only apply to civil aircraft (because, well, that is what the rules say!)

Can marine 1 fly below VFR weather minimums?

I believe most of the time Marine One is a helicopter, which has slightly more liberal minimums in 91.155(b)(1) in G airspace. But since the Executive branch can request waivers on any rule listed in 91.905, they no doubt can request flight below VFR minimums.

Military choses to follow as best they can FAA regulations. But if the need to fly supersonic 50 feet off of KEWR's active while talking to nobody exists. They can, will, and there isn't a single thing the FAA can do about it.

As noted above, the FAA only wrote rules about supersonic flight of civil aircraft. If they had done so for military, they would have to abide by them.

The military does **** that would blow the mind of OSHA. But OSHA can just add it to a report. They can't fine the military, DOE, FBI...........

I'm not at all familiar with OSHA rules - but that body of laws and regulations isn't relevant to the extent and limits of FAA authority.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Wrong.

A US Military drivers license is all a person needs. There are lots of privates, airmen...... That have military drivers licenses but no state licenses. Think of kids that came from cities where there was no need.

Just the same, I can drive an air braked semi, and as long as its on my .gov/mil license, I'm good to go.

The other person posted this in which I replied:

The best part about the government is that you don't need a license to drive while on official business.

We have a huge parking lot outside full of "G" cars (government owned, GSA)

My reply was toward that, not military. And these vehicles (GSA) require a drivers license.

 

[weilke]

We have a huge parking lot outside full of "G" cars (government owned, GSA)

My reply was toward that, not military. And these vehicles (GSA) require a drivers license.

Is that a GSA internal rule (because they dont want to be in the business of issuing drivers licenses) or is that because federal law requires a state license ?

The analogue to the militaries use of the NAS is that even if you drive a GSA vehicle, you are still going to get a speeding ticked from a lowly state trooper or city cop. He can't dock you for a missing inspection sticker, but as long as you interact with other drivers on roads governed by the law he is hired to enforce, he can ticket you.

 

[ejensen]

Is that a GSA internal rule (because they dont want to be in the business of issuing drivers licenses) or is that because federal law requires a state license ?

Can't speak to GSA but in my former agency (USDA-Forest Service) it was required to be licensed according to the state you were based in. So if Colorado required a trailer license for tandom trailers then you had to have one. No one drove street legal vehicles without a State license. Requirement for a Federal license to go with it went away for awhile then came back much simplier form.

 

[n20junkie]

If you're implying a military aircraft can do such an event purely because they want to, then the answer is no. They are required ATC separation and flight rule compliance just like their civil counterparts. However, in an emergency that can change.
Military aircraft can have a Pilot Deviation filed against them the same as civil aircraft. The difference is once the PD is filed the FAA turns it over to the appropriate military agency to handle. And each military branch has their own rules and regulations to follow while in the NAS.

You guys are kind of missing the point here.

There are internal rules in the agencies that may require thier people to follow the rules of other agencies. Thats just playing nice.

A military aircraft can blast through NYC's class bravo, not talk to a soul, and all the FAA can do is file a PD with the pentagon. The general can chose to persue it, or he can laugh as he shreads it. There isn't a thing the FAA can do to enforce its regulations.

We have regulations such as AR 95-1 that spell out that we will abide by the regulations, but that is a standing ORDER by the secretary of the Army. Orders can be rescended, changed, or made invalid by any number of reasons. Military aviatiors are specifically told NOT TO give any inspector, or FAA personel your full name or airmen certificate number. Your actions while in the military are totally seperate from civilan certificates. The FAA can deal with the pentagon, but thats it. What the commanders chose to do about it is thier call. End of story. We don't have to talk to a tower supervisor, center supervisor if requested. The FAA can submit thier tapes, and then go on thier marry way, or get a DUI or something.

Just the same, we can drive a truck, with a ballistic missile right down the streets of NYC, and Bloomberg himself, with his chief of police can't pull over that truck. I don't care if they have a swimming pool full of hookers in tow shooting AK's for fun.

For ease of paperwork, agencies may elect to use easier methods of licensing. But don't think that a courtesy, or lazy way out, is by any means a requirement of one agency of another.

 

[ejensen]

You guys are kind of missing the point here.

There are internal rules in the agencies that may require thier people to follow the rules of other agencies. Thats just playing nice.

A military aircraft can blast through NYC's class bravo, not talk to a soul, and all the FAA can do is file a PD with the pentagon. The general can chose to persue it, or he can laugh as he shreads it. There isn't a thing the FAA can do to enforce its regulations.

I believe you with regards to military ops. They are by nature a different beast. Many of the vehicles would not be street legal nor their aircraft certifiable. But I don't believe cilivian agencies are the same.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You guys are kind of missing the point here.

There are internal rules in the agencies that may require thier people to follow the rules of other agencies. Thats just playing nice.

You're missing the point. While you claim the military can just "do as they please" and laugh at everyone doing while doing it, that's just not the case.

A military aircraft can blast through NYC's class bravo, not talk to a soul, and all the FAA can do is file a PD with the pentagon. The general can chose to persue it, or he can laugh as he shreads it. There isn't a thing the FAA can do to enforce its regulations.

You know in reality that would never happen as the military isn't willing to risk civilian lives just "because we can". You also know that a "General" is not going to "laugh as he shreads it" if a military aviator was dumb enough to pull such a stunt. You're really going out on a limb trying to make your ill-conceived point. Take a recent case where a military pilot buzzed a football game. Using your "logic" he should be able to do that at will, except the outcome for the pilot was basically a ruined career, not by the FAA but by his branch of service.

Since you feel the military can thumb their nose at the FAA (in reality they don"t) then why is there a system set up for the military to request waivers from certain CFR's? And the FAA can deny the waiver if they feel there is not an acceptable level of safety.

 

[Jim Logajan]

A military aircraft can blast through NYC's class bravo, not talk to a soul, and all the FAA can do is file a PD with the pentagon. The general can chose to persue it, or he can laugh as he shreads it. There isn't a thing the FAA can do to enforce its regulations.

That's not even remotely correct. The military justice system doesn't work that way at all.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

When flying in a state's National Guard, we did receive a couple violation notices through FAA. Our commanding officer decided how to act on them, not FAA. There was some voice raising and threatening, in the end it was handled internally. We had similar regs as was posted above. An FAA violation would very probably be a violation of our regs.

Can you imagine FAA holding up a military deployment for say a ramp check <g>. Usually, FAA was satisfied that we would handle the violation. I don't think we ever turned over a pilot's name to them if they had a tail number and sometimes those were difficult to see in small letter on a camo aircraft. Still, we tried very hard to cooperate with them and enforce parallel regs. We normally did report what actions we took with the pilot which was normally anything from additional training to a ride with an instructor.

I was on the receiving end of one of those when I departed a towered field in near zero zero conditions. I was ordered to return to base; the CO asked if I could get back safely and I told him I could but might need to depart below normal minimums. He said to return. Tower told me the field was closed and I think they could not technically provide permission to depart--it was quite awhile ago, but I still departed and got back safely. It was ground fog we quickly got on top of. We heard about it later and it was all smoothed out. I believe I was given counseling and that was reported to FAA. Not just a farce, I had to review the regulations and cite why I didn't technically comply and why I was able to do it safely and had appropriate authority.

Best,

Dave

 

[weilke]

The article, set off by the NTSB looking into the issue, was about 'public use' operations, not military. The NTSB does investigate 'public use' accidents and makes recommendations. They dont routinely investigate military accidents. The discussion what the military can and cannot do is somewhat peripheral to this issue.

 

[Richard]

Similarly, a city's code officials don't have any authority over a state or federal building being built in their city (at least that's the way it is in Missouri). I used to be with an A/E firm that did quite a bit of work at one of Missouri's universities. There was quite a bit of non code complaint "cool stuff" designed into some of these structures. Nothing life threatening but still...

One of my favorites is the time I remodeled a building a friend owned. The USPS had a lease on the building. The city stepped in to red tag the job. One call to Wash DC and city tucked tail. They took a lot of heat for delaying the job in a functioning post office.

 

[PaulMillner]

>> Tower told me the field was closed and I think they could not technically provide permission to depart--it was quite awhile ago, but I still departed

Hi Dave,

Since Part 91 we can legally depart in zero/zero conditions, on what authority can a tower "close" a field? An airport manager could NOTAM a field closed, but I've never heard of that happening for weather. But the tower? Not their job, eh?

Paul

 

[Richard]

Who issues take off clearance when tower is in operation?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

>> Tower told me the field was closed and I think they could not technically provide permission to depart--it was quite awhile ago, but I still departed

Hi Dave,

Since Part 91 we can legally depart in zero/zero conditions, on what authority can a tower "close" a field? An airport manager could NOTAM a field closed, but I've never heard of that happening for weather. But the tower? Not their job, eh?

Paul

Paul: This was a while back and it was a national guard flight. The tower basically told me there was no traffic but they couldn't clear me to depart or words to that effect. I wasn't on an IFR flight plan. Just popped up to VFR above. Maybe that was the issue. I just departed as if the tower was closed.


Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

>> Tower told me the field was closed and I think they could not technically provide permission to depart--it was quite awhile ago, but I still departed

Hi Dave,

Since Part 91 we can legally depart in zero/zero conditions, on what authority can a tower "close" a field? An airport manager could NOTAM a field closed, but I've never heard of that happening for weather. But the tower? Not their job, eh?

Paul

Paul: This was a while back and it was a national guard flight. The tower basically told me there was no traffic but they couldn't clear me to depart or words to that effect. I wasn't on an IFR flight plan. Just popped up to VFR above. Maybe that was the issue. It was a low fog layer that was VFR just above.

Well, now you've got me thinking about this and I don't recall all the details other than what I said above and we departed anyway but did coordinate with them. I don't think they ever said we couldn't depart; just that they couldn't clear us to depart. They may also have had trouble with a taxi clearance since they didn't have sight of much of the runway.


Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Since it's been pointed out this doesn't apply to military flights, I'll get out of here, but we had some other extraordinary issues. This was before cell phones, and many times we needed to depart from field operations where we were literally out in some field somewhere. It could be very difficult or impossible to get an IFR clearance out of a place like that. There might not be a land line around for a long way; so, clearance with a void time wasn't practical. Also, telling a controller where you were using grid coordinates didn't work very well. We'd usually try to pop up somewhere we could get radio contact if there weren't other options. Of course this was well away from any busy areas.

Best,

Dave