On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:50:15 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
wrote:

"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" writes:

True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they?

Only for the aircraft that are only used to carry people around in
much the same manner as commercial aircraft. The research and support
aircraft at Dryden, like F-18s and F-15s and stuff, aren't covered by
FAA rules, but the KingAirs used to haul management and other staff to
and from Ames are.

This doesn't include certification, just maintenance and operation.
Military aircraft aren't certified and the KingAirs were bought from
the maker, who did the certification before introducing the aircraft
to the market.

These rules, requiring adherence to FAA regs for aircraft used like
commercial aircraft, apply to all Federal agencies. It's mostly only
agencies like NASA and the military that also have aircraft to which
the rules don't apply.

I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)

Fairly new rule, maybe less than ten years old. It only applies to
public aviation that mimics private aviation, sort of. It doesn't
apply to other public aviation. It covers less than a dozen NASA
aircraft, mostly KingAirs and QueenAirs and whatever NASA 1 is.

I don't think it applies to the pilots or mechanics, just to the
aircraft. I think they're regular NASA pilots, with NASA medicals and
NASA job assignments (NASA doesn't issue licenses, per se, but puts it
into the job description). I know the mechanics don't have FAA
licenses, at least at Dryden. They use the regular Dryden inspection
system, which the FAA has agreed to.

BUT BUT
Most/all had to obey the FAR's just as if they did; in many cases because
their insurance companies required same, in others because there was an
edict err policy requiring same. Is that what you mean?

No. The USG doesn't have insurance companies, because it
self-insures. I don't know about smaller units and insurance. The
NASA directives instruct us to follow the FARs as much as is
applicable and doesn't interfere with the stuff we're doing. I mean,
we don't need FAA permission to launch or drop the Orbiter through the
controlled air space. We tell them, not ask them. That's pretty
typical of public aviation, except for when the mission is just
hauling people around.

In general, the various exceptions to the FARs are mission related.
For example, the damned LACo Sheriff's helicopter that flies over my
neighborhood at 200 ft at Oh-Dark-Thirty is allowed to descend much
lower than the FARs allow because it's required to look for criminals
(and to awaken more sleeping citizens to let us know our sheriff is at
work).

NASA and the military adhere to the relevant FARs when traveling
cross-country under ATC, but do so with uncertified aircraft and
unlicensed pilots. These agencies break a lot of FARs, too, but
usually within special areas. Oil Burner/Olive Branch routes, MOAs,
restricted areas. We used to fly the SR-71s above the controlled air
space (above 65,000 ft), going Mach 3 over US ground. We still fly
the U-2s there, only slower. So does the USAF.

Mary "Yes, it's an odd rule, if you ask me."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/