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

 

[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.

 

[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."

 

[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.

 

[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.