In our country (I suspect the USA is fairly similar), military aircraft are specifically exempt from civil aviation regs. But..... military policy is normally to comply where possible, in the interests of aviation safety for everyone. I remember more than one pilot in my day being dragged into the squadron commander?s office after busting civil regs outside military airspace for no good reason.

As far as equipping military aircraft with ADSB and other avionics which the aircraft may not have been originally designed with, you probably need to have served in the military to realise how long the bureaucracy and the supply/engineering chain takes to get these things moving!

The reason is to prevent civilians from trying to apply the FARs on the military.

Exactly, suspending their CIVILIAN privileges. They are completely powerless on their Military privileges.

:cool:

Well one more example is in order, TFRs. Restrictions established to prevent all but authorized aircraft to enter. Surely you are not supporting the notion that military aircraft are exempt from TFRs or other airspace requirements established by the FAA. Try blowing through class B,C D airspace without a clearance.

We are not exempt from many FARs. Whether the chain of command supports resolving violations is another issue.

Scott?s answer is correct. In my experience the military never provided a pilots name to the FAA in cases of a suspected violation. This effectively blocked the FAA from any action against a pilot. The exception would be some type of very high profile issue like flying over a major city very low.

What do you think the ANG F16's did through the Washington DC airspace during 9/11? They only talked to the SEADS.

It isn't a carte-blanch approval to violate the FAR's since military procedures closely follow the FAR's and vice versa. Regarding your examples, military procedures and the FAR's are exactly the same. Some differences; the FAR's require that below 10,000' you must keep your speed below 250Kts unless unable. Military procedures authorizes certain flights below 10,000' at 450+Kts, even outside of MOA's and this happens every day.

Violate military procedures, aligned with the FAR's or not, and see what happens to the military aviator.

:cool:

Ok have it your way. Military aircraft launched during a national emergency is not an example of normal operations of military missions flown in national airspace. During 9/11 all airspace rules were altered to handle the emergency.

I spent the last six or seven years of my career in Stan Eval dealing with these issues. If you choose to believe otherwise, so be it.

No rules were altered during 9/11, just fringe areas of the rules not normally used became applicable. The best example was the partial implementation of SCATANA.

Good for you. I also spent 6yrs in USAF Stan Eval, 3 as Sq Chief Stan Eval but not interested in who has the biggest "stick".

:cool:

Have it your way. I?m fine with that. Now back to RVs

Cool. I LOVE them RV-9's :D

Wading in- USAF military guy- story all can understand-

Had a TFR show up on a low level route corridor when they were new- active during a sporting event- Instrument Route on an active IFR flight plan- ATC helped us with enough heads up to avoid it.

No one back then knew how to check the sporting event TFRs.

In AMC we followed FARs in FAA airspace unless we could not- then we followed approved regs that were all coordinated with the FAA through standing channels.

I was later a safety guy- part of our gig was working with FAA mil liaisons at times- that was the firewall to keeping crew names out of FAA violation channels. It was a service foul, not a named person foul.

Harder yet was being a Tactics shop guy and building low level routes with the FAA. I'd rather get violatedthan do that again! Can I even post here- I was only in a Sq and Gp StanEval for 3 years;)