Police Helicopter Hovering Low ?

twdeckard said:
Don't Police and DNR and other government aviation services operate "for public good?" They are not formally bound by 14 CFR? Their compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations is technically voluntary. This is why in thier operating practices they will say "flights will be conducted under section 91 ..."
Click to expand...

Depends on whether it's State, Fed, or local.

Generally, Fed is exempt from FAA regulations. State and local are generally bound by FAA regs, however, the FAA regs often make exceptions for State and local operations. Emergency operations are almost always excepted. And many state/local operations hold waivers of one sort or another (in the DC area, for example, the state/local police operations (and Medevac) generally have FRZ & SFRA waivers among other things).
 
dmccormack said:
What other measure of efficiency do you propose? Fuel burn? Maintenance costs? Overall abuse to the air? What?
Click to expand...

OK efficiency is the wrong term, how about best tool for the job of flying low? That said rag and tube airplanes are good fun.
 
Wow we're two pages into a helicopter thread, and no one has posted this yet??


:D
 
One of the prototypes of this design was demonstrated in flight restrained from forward movement by a tether.

CCW.jpg



EdFred said:
I still don't know of any planes that fly at 0 airspeed, unless you block the pitot tube. ;)
Click to expand...
 
twdeckard said:
He isn't bound by the regulation except as they adopt them as part of their operating practices. He is operating "for public good" I couldn't locate a clean reference but I believe this is the case.
Click to expand...

If you're going to keep repeating wrong information, you should at least provide a reference.

While the FAA doesn't have authority over the airworthiness of public aircraft nor the certification of the pilots of public aircraft, it does have authority over flight rules (Part 91 Subpart B) for all aircraft (US v Christensen).
 
wsuffa said:
Depends on whether it's State, Fed, or local.

Generally, Fed is exempt from FAA regulations. State and local are generally bound by FAA regs, however, the FAA regs often make exceptions for State and local operations. Emergency operations are almost always excepted. And many state/local operations hold waivers of one sort or another (in the DC area, for example, the state/local police operations (and Medevac) generally have FRZ & SFRA waivers among other things).
Click to expand...

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?
 
kkoran said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's based on letters of agreement and interagency working groups. Those LOAs specify who is in charge and what must conform/not conform. That's particularly true as it relates to airspace (FAA generally controls, except in reserved areas) where there has to be coordination between civilian and federal uses.
 
wsuffa said:
It's based on letters of agreement and interagency working groups. Those LOAs specify who is in charge and what must conform/not conform. That's particularly true as it relates to airspace (FAA generally controls, except in reserved areas) where there has to be coordination between civilian and federal uses.
Click to expand...

So, unless the FAA agreed otherwise, the FARs apply to aircraft operated by the feds.
 
kkoran said:
So, unless the FAA agreed otherwise, the FARs apply to aircraft operated by the feds.
Click to expand...

Not true. It's kinda the inverse. An LOA defines how the agency aircraft will operate within the NAS.

While most agencies require pilots to have an FAA license, it is not a (legal) requirement (it might be part of a job description) when operating USG aircraft. Mods to aircraft don't necessarily need to conform to FAA specs. Maintenance doesn't have to be done by and FAA A&P. Annual inspections are not necessarily required. etc. etc.

Now as a practical matter, most agencies do try to comply with applicable FARs. But they're not required to.

BTW, it's a similar thing in the electromagnetic spectrum side (radio/tv/telecom). The FCC doesn't licence/authorize govt agencies, there is a separate Federal agency (part of NTIA) that coordinates uses. Note that I didn't say "license" - it acts to coordinate uses to avoid interference. The military has a similar office that does coordination within the military frequency bands.
 
wsuffa said:
Not true. It's kinda the inverse. An LOA defines how the agency aircraft will operate within the NAS.

While most agencies require pilots to have an FAA license, it is not a (legal) requirement (it might be part of a job description) when operating USG aircraft. Mods to aircraft don't necessarily need to conform to FAA specs. Maintenance doesn't have to be done by and FAA A&P. Annual inspections are not necessarily required. etc. etc.

Now as a practical matter, most agencies do try to comply with applicable FARs. But they're not required to.

BTW, it's a similar thing in the electromagnetic spectrum side (radio/tv/telecom). The FCC doesn't licence/authorize govt agencies, there is a separate Federal agency (part of NTIA) that coordinates uses. Note that I didn't say "license" - it acts to coordinate uses to avoid interference. The military has a similar office that does coordination within the military frequency bands.
Click to expand...

You're right that pilots of public aircraft don't have to be licensed by the FAA nor do public aircraft have to meet the airworthiness standards required by the FARS. However...

Federal law and regulations do prescribe how public aircraft will operate in the NAS (remember, this started as a discussion on minimum altitudes). 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. 91.1.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
"Public" aircraft, ie. U.S.Govt. Officials in Govt. airplanes, including military, are all exempted within the FAA certification regs themselves:

61.3 Requirements for certificates and ratings.
"no person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry unless..."

pilot authorizations and aircraft airworthiness is decided by the Govt. Agency.

But all must adhere to traffic rules in 91, except where exempted like any FAA certificated person or operation can do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top