Flying guys, does anybody know if military pilots have exemptions from the FARs?
Thanks.

All pilots may deviate from FARs when safety dictates.

The military is a government agency and therefor can operate under public use. The FAA has no jurisdiction over public use operations. Did you know your local sheriff can operate an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate and the pilot does not need a pilots license. Most agency's have a set of rules they will follow and conform to the FAR's but they don't have to. In fact they often find the FAR's are to restrictive for them to use and follow.

I used to work for the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, we flew H model Huey's and F model Cobras. The old guys liked to say "the only rule is, there are no rules". The only jurisdiction the FAA had was over our pilots license. We all had FAA commercial certificates and they could come after that if you really pissed them off. It was a good program and provided a great value to the tax payers. We would go put out the wildfires and then ask questions later. The USFS on the other hand has come up with so many rules and restrictions that they no longer put the fires out. They just manage them and see how many hours of overtime one can rack up during the fire season.

We are not exempt from the FAR's. We do have several waivers though. One that comes to mind is a waiver for exceeding 250 knots below 10k feet when coming in for the "break". In addition to the FAR's we Navy types have a mountain of other regulations we are expected to know and follow, some of which are impossible and some just down right comical (ie use of sports drinks such as gatorade are prohibited under the 3710). Luckily for us when it comes to FAA violations our CNAF usually has the final say as to whether or not the FAA can proceed with a violation against the pilot. Do something blatantly illegal and/or stupid (or super bad ass) and we're probably going to hang. Why do you ask?

Let me add that public use aircraft are required to abide by controlled airspace rules and ATC instructions. Public use is a real gray area and the NTSB which does have jurisdiction over those operations just had a lager hearing on the matter. Well it was 2 years ago and I don't think they have come out with their guidance yet.

And on further thinking about it I guess the Military does not really fit the definition of public use. But I would say that being the federal government they have there own rules.

I'm not a military aviator and I sure one will come along soon and give us the facts.

All replies appreciated. It's an intrinsically interesting subject but, as for my motivation in asking, the truth is, I work with a guy who was a bombadeer/ navigator in a previous life. These days he is often being paid for spending time being extremely impressed with the stories he tells of his exploits from his flying days.
I don't have any intention of messing with his karma or whatever as he amazes himself and brings slightly bemused smiles to the rest of the room but just was never sure how how to tell the difference between the crap and the fiction He never was an actual pilot but clearly, with an ego like that, had potential.......

Well, the reality is that the Military does not have to follow the FARs.... but the flying regs are built around them so for the most part the operations are complimentary. The FAA cannot violate a military pilot.

The FAA does not issue military pilots licenses.....

gunny

I'm an active duty Naval Aviator and yes we do have to follow the FAR's (we are reminded of this once a year during instrument ground school) with a few exceptions for waivers as I listed above. No, the FAA didn't issue my military pilot's license (qualification) but they did issue my cfi/cfii/mei/atp and they could go after those based on something I did in a military aircraft. Without going into the details just let me say that I know this from "personal experience" (twice unfortunately) Even for guys that don't currently have civilian certificates/ratings they most likely would like to have them in the future and flying an F/A-18 under the Golden Gate Bridge at 20 feet and 5 bills while bad ass may prohibit that individual from being issued certificates/ratings from the FAA. Like I said above, CNAF (Commander Naval Air Forces) can shield me from the FAA. However, and we have this beat into us routinely, CNAF can easily throw us to the FAA wolves if he chooses.

Waterboy said:

I used to work for the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, we flew H model Huey's and F model Cobras.

I sure miss watching those DNR Cobras practice with the buckets. They do a lot of their pre fire season training up the canyon behind my house. Their helitack crew and chief pilot give a talk at one of our meetings each year. It is probably the most popular event of the year.

Waterboy wrote:Let me add that public use aircraft are required to abide by controlled airspace rules and ATC instructions. Public use is a real gray area and the NTSB which does have jurisdiction over those operations just had a lager hearing on the matter. Well it was 2 years ago and I don't think they have come out with their guidance yet.

And on further thinking about it I guess the Military does not really fit the definition of public use. But I would say that being the federal government they have there own rules.

I'm not a military aviator and I sure one will come along soon and give us the facts.

First, the NTSB does not have ANY jurisdiction over anybody....their sole function is to investigate accidents and make RECOMMENDATIONS to the FAA, the agency which actually has teeth. Thank your lucky stars that the NTSB does NOT have jurisdiction or enforcement authority, because almost every accident investigation concludes that all sorts of changes should be made, many if not most of which would put aviation right out of business cumulatively.

Military aircraft and aviators are by definition operating as "Public Aircraft"....read the definition in FAR 1.1, here:

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.


The definitions of "Public" have morphed somewhat in the last several years.

While it is true that Public aircraft are not required to carry an airworthiness certificate, nor are their pilots required to possess a pilot's certificate issued by the FAA, most agencies discover pretty quickly (like after their first accident) that such behaviour will most certainly draw unwanted attention from the FAA. While the FAA cannot cite a public aircraft operation, they CAN go up that agency's chain of command, and things can get ugly politically.

A classic example is going on right now with the Alaska State Troopers, following a helicopter crash that killed the Trooper pilot, a patrol trooper and the rescuee they were tasked to rescue....the preliminary report by the NTSB is pretty harsh on the agency: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/2 ... pers-pilot

While the NTSB itself has no power to force the Troopers to take any action on this, you can bet the Governor's office really doesn't appreciate their attention.....and some changes will doubtless come about. You will note, however, that the FAA is noticeably absent in that report.....they have no jurisdiction.

In an accident I was involved in, after a crankshaft failure, the FAA Inspector who was assigned to come along on the investigation was told by the Departmental Accident Investigator that he was welcome to "observe", but that he was not to participate, and that if he interfered in any way, he'd be asked to leave.....and the NTSB was not invited along, but their lab did tear down the engine and examine it.

But, in fact, most agencies and CERTAINLY the military, have their own set of policies and procedures, which almost invariably mirror the FARs pretty closely.

And, as the man noted, military and other public aircraft still have to abide by the airspace and other regs, unless they have a waiver. For example, we used to have a waiver which permitted us to operate aircraft closer than 500 feet to people and property on the surface.....for game surveys. The FAA gradually tightened that waiver to the point where it was useless and we dropped it. As the pilot of a public aircraft, if I or a military aviator were to violate airspace, for example, you can bet that the FAA would have some influence in the matter, although if you don't hold a certificate, more than likely the agency would be expected to implement "corrective actions".

MTV

flyingzebra wrote:All replies appreciated. It's an intrinsically interesting subject but, as for my motivation in asking, the truth is, I work with a guy who was a bombadeer/ navigator in a previous life. These days he is often being paid for spending time being extremely impressed with the stories he tells of his exploits from his flying days.
I don't have any intention of messing with his karma or whatever as he amazes himself and brings slightly bemused smiles to the rest of the room but just was never sure how how to tell the difference between the crap and the fiction He never was an actual pilot but clearly, with an ego like that, had potential.......

That's funny.

I have an uncle, by marriage, who flew F4 Vietnam era. When he got out he never flew again. He never talks about his military flying unless I ask. I can't get him to fly with me.

I have a neighbor in Pacific City who flew B25s in WWII he is well into his 80s after the war he flew C47 and Constellations. Last week he called me, I went to his hangar house, and we talked airplanes for awhile.

He want to go up in the Maule. He ask before I even offered. We are going next nice day.

This is one of the best privileges I have, spending time with the greatest generation!

Cheers

OM, I knew a Phantom driver (Marine aviator) from the Vietnam era and it was like pulling teeth to get him to come out and fly. Only 3 things would "maybe" get him out to the airport, and only if his CFII/AP/IA son kept after him. That was a Stearman, Eagle/Pitts and an Extra 300L. When we managed to get him to stop by, he could still outfly anybody around here. Just amazing airmanship skills that never seemed to atrophy from non-use, made the Stearman do things you didn't think it could do.

BRD wrote:OM, I knew a Phantom driver (Marine aviator) from the Vietnam era and it was like pulling teeth to get him to come out and fly. Only 3 things would "maybe" get him out to the airport, and only if his CFII/AP/IA son kept after him. That was a Stearman, Eagle/Pitts and an Extra 300L. When we managed to get him to stop by, he could still outfly anybody around here. Just amazing airmanship skills that never seemed to atrophy from non-use, made the Stearman do things you didn't think it could do.

Amazing what you can learn to do if someone is tryin to kill your ass!!

Army Regulations 95-1 commands Army pilots to comply with FARs when practicable. Areas not practicable are nape of the earth both day and night (one pilot wears night vision goggles,) confined area and pinnacle operations, mountain approaches at zero airspeed, air to ground gunnery, and medevac operations.

We're required to comply with FAA or Host Country regulations, depending on where we are. Some things can be waived depending on the mission, but the approval authority for stuff like that is usually a guy wearing a star or more. But our primary flight reg in the Army is AR 95-1.

Check out Paragraph 5-1.a.

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r95_1.pdf

FWIW, the NTSB does have enforcement authority, as the appellate "court" respecting FAA enforcement actions involving civilian certificates. Essentially an airman who has been slapped by the FAA has the right to appeal that decision, and that appeal is heard by an independent administrative law judge. If the airman or the FAA then wishes to appeal the decision of the administrative law judge, it goes to the NTSB. Since I've never gone beyond the administrative law judge level, I haven't researched and certainly am not current on the process.

Cary

Cary, the admin law judge level can get ugly. He (she) is so far removed from aviation that any and all testimony by aviators carries little weight. Attended some hearings and saw an experienced Alaskan 135 owner lose his ratings. Based on passenger testimony that was clearly in error.
Public use is interesting historically too. Barrow search and rescue high time aviator in helo's and fixed never had a rating. Flew better than me with a pocket full of fancy letters on my green card.

Cary wrote:FWIW, the NTSB does have enforcement authority, as the appellate "court" respecting FAA enforcement actions involving civilian certificates. Essentially an airman who has been slapped by the FAA has the right to appeal that decision, and that appeal is heard by an independent administrative law judge. If the airman or the FAA then wishes to appeal the decision of the administrative law judge, it goes to the NTSB. Since I've never gone beyond the administrative law judge level, I haven't researched and certainly am not current on the process.

Cary

Cary,

That's true. But, about all the NTSB Board generally does in an appeal is uphold or strike down an FAA enforcement action. They don't enforce anything....that's the FAAs job.

If you are involved in an accident or violation, the NTSB rep may make a recommendation for enforcement to the FAA, but in fact the FAA more often than not pretty much ignores many of those recommendations.

Be VERY thankful that the NTSB doesn't have the responsibility for enforcement of regs.

And, as Flightlogic says, once an enforcement action goes beyond the FAA, you are no longer dealing with aviation issues, but rather procedural issues for the most part.

The Board rarely overturns an FAA enforcement action.

MTV