DLH_FRA

Carter, The FAA confirmed to me the waiver is a specific letter not the company specification or the AFM but an actual letter as issued to the military.

The interpretation of the regulations by the USAF is actually in line with the interpretation that the FAA Legal Council provided to Continental Airlines, that it is correct and proper to use aircraft configuration to adjust the aircraft speed. As nowhere that I have found to date FAR 91.117(d) referenced to the aircrafts minimum clean speed. (only minimum safe speed) Which with a few exceptions, would be hard to are it is unsafe (although uneconomical) to fly to 10,000 at or below 250 with some flaps out. I have seen many people just automatically assume that FAR 91.117(d) was a reference to minimum clean and as such provided an exemption.. But to date not found anything in writing to support this, I have however found evidence to dispute this. The case continues....

I agree, those waivers 91.117(a) are very few...nas in the FAA have not issued many long standing ones they are mainly used for airshows. With regards to the Continental case the FAA interpreted FAR 91.117(d) to mean the minimum speed not minimum clean speed. It's all a play on words, but the FAA should ensure these things are correct... They are after all what these use to prosecute someone for a breach of the FARs. Actually in your last paragraph, it says you should use the configuration to adjust your speed to the lowest in the range of speeds as specified / recommended in the AFM.

And invalidate his GCAA (not FAA) approved runway analysis?

Carter, That's as maybe. But it still shows poor regulation by the FAA to allow something so unclear to be in existence for so long, certainly to kept pace with the way aviation has changed. As it stands today there are numerous B747 type aircraft that are privately operated and not on an AOC or subject to "Operations Specifications" so what is your friendly Sheikh supposed todo when departing heavy heading back to the ME with his tanks topped off and a few sports cars in the hold?

If he has time I think this guy can help www.hoppie.nl

G550, I agree I agree! I just actually think now it has all been dragged up something is amiss in the FARS :) Lots of things get done, "because we always did it that way" well in this case I think "we" are right just the reg has not caught up

G550, This whole thing about the 250 below 10 is just a theoretical argument as far as how I operate the aircraft - our OPS manual says the FAA ATC will approve the speed (Kyle says they can't but at the end of the day the FAA have approved that manual) , I will continue to fly the profiles as provided by my company and our approved procedures. However, it does seem there is an error in the regulations and the way they were written. This afternoon I spoke with 3 inspectors at the NY FSDO (that hold the 129 certificate) all 3 of those inspectors would not commit themselves with regards to the regulation, as the legal opinion from the FAA legal council cast more doubt than provided answers - as such they have now also referred my question to the legal council. (I had already contacted them earlier in the day anyway) There must be a reason why pretty much every other state in the world up has in place the wording "Maximum speed below 10,000 250 KIAS or minimum clean speed whichever is higher" This is not the first time this debate has come up.. There are pages and pages on Airline Pilot Central and PPRUNE about this very issue, and various inspectors over the years have given conflicting answers. To answer your question about if I think the FAA took all of this into account when they made the FAR.... I would have to answer no, because by the FAA's own admission it is a section of the FARs that has not been updated as aviation progressed, the NTSB have suggested changes to it, and it is not in conformity with ICAO. At the very least I think they need to clarify what they mean in relation to section (d) one view presented by the FAA is this is not a minimum clean speed, but the minimum speed the aircraft may be flown at (ie with slats and flaps extended) Mr Kyle thinks this is all black and white... Well Continental Airlines don't agree with you! Neither do several message boards of professional pilots... The point cold be argued either way... That is not the way a regulation is supposed to be. It comes to something when the FAA Inspectors will not say one way or the other "as it needs to be subject to review by the FAA legal council" Well I will see what comes of it.

Go back and read it again... As Carter spotted right away. The FAA point out that the exception in FAR 91.117(d) is not based upon the aircraft being in a specific configuration. Therefor according to what the FAA have stated your can't use the exception (d) when you are able to adjust your speed with this use of flaps or other devices, further they go on to say it is the respinsability of the pilot to use these devices to comply with the regulation. I really don't see what is so hard to see about that? Otherwise they would have to make more clauses to FAR91.117 which they have not done.. They have established a legal precedent that the maximum speed permitted is not subject to the aircraft being in a clean configuration. As Carter has offered as a suggestion, airlines maybe using exception A (authorization by the Administrator aka Flight Standards) because according the FAA interpretation exception (d) does not offer relief to the speed restriction to simply operate clean.

Say again Rick?

Section 91.117 does not distinguish requirements based on the aircraft's configuration during different portions of the operation. Under the scenario you describe, the aircraft can in fact be configured to operate in accordance with the speed restrictions of paragraph (B). Therefore, the pilot must operate the aircraft in the configuration to meet the requirements unless the minimum safe airspeed for that operation is greater than 200 knots. If so, then the aircraft can be operated at the minimum safe airspeed, in accordance with paragraph (d). Do you not see how this directly offers guidence? Yes Continental asked the question because of an issue that came up with the 739 but the legal view that the FAA have issued is on FAR 91.117 and the fact that part D is not talking about the aircraft in any specific config - just the fact that if flaps and slats will allow the aircraft to operate below the maximum airspeed as per FAR 91.117 then it must do so. Just have to see how long it takes the FAA to put that in writting in relation to my question I asked them this afternoon. Carter, From your reply I think you see the point I'm making.. Can you think of another way to word it that might be more clear?

Kyle, you need to back and read that letter again. What that letter does it set out in writing the FAA position with regard to part D of the regulation, specifically that it does not relate to an aircrafts configuration and as such if slats and or flaps can be used to meet a speed restriction then they should be used. If that FAA interpretation does not stand to the application of 250 below 10,000 then the FAA need to rewrite the FAR because it would mean they have contradicted themselves, as they have issued guidance in that letter specifically stating the part D does not refer to and aircraft being "clean" Let's not forget the importance of the controllers information being consistent with the FAR's this is how miss communication happens, that at best leads to reports at worst something more serious - it is especially important in this case as this section of the FARs is not in accordance with ICAO (so even more room for miss communication) *source United States AIP. When I was talking about CYA I was referring to our company manuals and guides instructing us to ask ATC for the speed - as can be seen it is not clear what they mean by these regulations as they have set them out different to ICAO and your own airlines are not such of the exact meaning without seeking review from the FAA Legal Council. The FAA with regard to this regulation make no mention of a HEAVY aircraft, the only one mentioning that is yourself Kyle.

We shall soon find out! I have made contact with the person who wrote that letter at the FAA and made the specific request for our question! Seems it was not so cut and dry after all... I have a feeling our manual may have some "arse covering" built into it for situations such as this!

Ok.... Just found something else.. It actually would seem that maybe we are all wrong. Acording to the FAA letter to Continental Airlines, FAR 91.117(d) does not refer to the aircraft in clean state, and as such if the aircraft can use flaps to fly at the speed required - then it must do so. So that means day in day out just about every heavy is not following the rule? See what you make of this.... http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2010/Seltzer.pdf

Sorry... What I was trying to say is that part D does not talk about minimum clean speed, we all use part D to exceed 250 and accelerate to minimum clean. (when in actual fact that regulation does not explicitly authorize you to do so - you could very well fly at 250 or less with flaps out, you would just burn more fuel) However, when we refer to the FAA controllers manual that specifically talks about mimumun speed required. This brings me on to the point I made that the regulation is not as well written as it could be, and the two sources of documents don't actually align fully. FAR 91.117(D) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed. FAA 7010.65 a. If traffic conditions permit, approve a pilot’s request to cross Class C or Class D surface areas or exceed the Class C or Class D airspace speed limit. Do not, however, approve a speed in excess of 250 knots (288 mph) unless the pilot informs you a higher minimum speed is required. NOTE− 14 CFR Section 91.117 permits speeds in excess of 250 knots (288 mph) when so required or recommended in the airplane flight manual or required by normal military operating procedures. So as we can see the FAA uses at least 3 terms when talking about speed in excess of 250 below 10,000 feet - none of them actually state minimum clean speed - one says you may fly a speed higher than 250 if it recomended in the flight manual - recomended for what? To get to your destination faster? To save fuel - it does not say the regulation is unclear and open to various views and opinions.

Not just me that's sees a problem with it.... Just do an Internet search! The problem is part D, because it does not say minimum clean speed it uses different wording to the controllers manual. It does not really give an authorization via part D to exceed 250 knots just to be clean (even though everyone uses it as that) Anyway, I have sent an email to the person that deals with our 129 and other international certificates to as the FSDO for clarification. Carter, As for Amanda yu can thank Apple and my language not being in English... As much as I love Apple their auto / type / correct really comes up with some funny things

When I ask to exceed 250 below 10 ATC could and sometimes do say we can't do it. Because as we all know the aircraft can fly slower than 250, just means we can't clean up... Amanda have to burn more fuel. If anything it is not a very well written section of the regulations... Not surprising if you look at the history that caused this regulation and the arguing of it by both sides. From a post on the 'bluecoat' forum a few years ago. BACKGROUND OF THE 250 KT RULE The Rule FAR 91.117(a): Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.). The above FAR 91.117(a) restricts all aircraft departing Class B airspace to maximum speeds of 250 kt indicated airspeed when they are below 10,000 ft altitude. This background section will describe the historical origins of this restriction, the current implementation and enforcement of the rule. The Historical Evolution of the Rule The current 250 kt restriction on U.S. aircraft departures in Class B airspace was a result of the historical air traffic control problem of aircraft separation in busy, terminal areas. In the earlier days of aviation, avoiding collisions by the "see and be seen" VFR rules and air traffic controller-enforced IFR rules was adequate, but as air traffic levels increased and aircraft performance improved, these safety rules were significantly augmented by airspace and speed restrictions. Beginning in 1926, the U.S. government started issuing federal regulations to enhance the safety of the "see and avoid" concept of air traffic separation (Note: an interesting account of the history of the "see and be seen" concept can be found in Appendix D of reference 1). However, federal inquiries into three mid-air collisions in the 1950s and 1960s more or less led to the imposition of the 250 kt restriction on aircraft departures in Class B airspace. In June 30, 1956, a mid-air collision between two airline aircraft over the Grand Canyon in visual meteorological conditions occurred, resulting in significant Congressional inquiry. A result of the inquiry was the adoption of an amendment to the Civil Air Regulations on February 6, 1957. This amendment established high-density air traffic zones around certain busy airports and aircraft in these zones were to be limited to indicated airspeeds of 160 knots. This indicated airspeed restriction was later increased to 200 knots and 250 knots as required by the higher operating speeds of the developing jet aircraft. On December 16, 1960, two IFR-controlled airline aircraft collided near Staten Island, New York. The two aircraft were assigned the same altitude but were assigned to two different routes with safe separation. One of the contributing factors in the accident (see reference 2) was judged to be the high rate of speed of one of the aircraft that ventured outside of its cleared airspace. One outcome of the accident over Staten Island was the publishing of Draft Release (D.R.) No. 61-9, a notice that the Federal Aviation Agency was considering the imposition of a rule to prohibit the flight of arriving aircraft at airspeeds in excess of 250 knots indicated airspeed while in the airspace below 14,500 feet mean sea level within 50 miles of the destination airport (see reference 3). The result of this draft release was both strong support for and opposition against such restrictions. Reference 3 describes the written comments that responded to the draft release, "...one civil aviation organization voiced strong opposition to the proposed rule, emphasizing the economic burden that it felt would be imposed by its adoption. A second organization advocated a speed limit more stringent than the one under consideration, while a third such organization tempered its endorsement with recommendations that the area of applicability be reduced and that the ceiling of applicable airspace be established at 10,000 feet a.m.s.l." Later, an informal conference among the interested parties was held and further discussions were conducted. The ultimate ruling was a modified version of D.R. No. 61-9, enforcing a 250 knot indicated airspeed restriction with the reduced airspace affected by the rule being all airspace below 10,000 feet m.s.l. and within 30 nautical miles of the destination airport. The next significant development in the evolution of FAR 91.117(a) was a mid-air collision on March 9, 1967, between an airliner and a private pilot in clear daylight. In the accident report, after acknowledging the inability of "see and be seen" rules to suffice for separation of high-speed VFR traffic and rejecting the potential of increasing the amount of positive control airspace that exists (due to impact of airspace users and economic considerations), the newly-designated Federal Aviation Administration decided to prescribe the conditions of FAR 91.117(a). The rule was enacted to "...provide a more realistic "see and avoid" environment in the airspace below 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) where traffic congestion is greatest..." Furthermore, the National Transportation Safety Board investigating the accident recognized the limitations of the speed restriction and, in the accident report, recommended "the studying of the feasibility of climb and descent corridors for use by high performance aircraft at major air terminals," as well as, the consideration of collision avoidance systems "until a fail-safe system is developed that applies to all types of aircraft operating under both IFR and VFR weather conditions". REFERENCES 1. National Transportation Safety Board, "Aircraft Accident Report: Allegheny Airlines, Inc., DC-9, N968VJ and a Forth Corporation, Piper PA-28, N7374J, Near Fairland, Indiana, September 9, 1969," SA-417, Adopted: July 15, 1970. (Report Number NTSB-AAR-70-15) 2. Civil Aeronautics Board, "Aircraft Accident Report: United Air Lines, Inc., DC-8, N 8013U, and Trans World Airlines, Inc., Constellation 1049A, N 6907C, Near Staten Island, New York, December 16, 1960," SA-361, Adopted: June 18, 1962. 3. National Transportation Safety Board, "Aircraft Accident Report: Trans World Airlines, Inc., Douglas DC-9, Tann Company Beechcraft Baron B-55, In-Flight Collision, Near Urbana, Ohio, March 9, 1967," SA-396, Adopted: June 19, 1968.

Kyle, It does have a full working weather radar and Honeywell EGPWS with actuall terrain and obstacle database.

Kyle, We also fly into some class C airports. However, that is not the issue.. You have stated over and over that ATC can not approve a pilot to go in excess of 250 knots below 10,000 feet. (You never said subject to some exceptions) With a little digging (As we know I'm not American, or flying under the US rules) I find an FAA ATC Manual instructing them to approve a speed greater than 250 when advised by a pilot that it is required. In view of the fact that I knew what FAR 129 was.. and you thought it was only relating to N number aircraft operating for non US Airlines, such as TACA I think it is you that needs to read that. In the last couple of days while we have been talking about this I have been on google and had a look about, there are pages and pages and pages talking about this very same subject on the various pro pilot website - in actual fact thats where I first noticed the comment from the FAA ATC manual, infact there was a person listed as a FedEx pilot who stated that very quote from the ATC manual was used in response to the 250 below 10 question when they asked their FSDO for guidence. Anyway, over and over the pilots on those websites flying large aircraft said the same thing. Call ATC when getting your CLR or on departure and let them know what speed you need. Now if you don't at the very least think that is a nice thing to do... Then well I don't know! We are arguing about a very small point, but it is something I have done many many times as do my co-workers and airlines from all over the world.. Let ATC know what speed we will need on DEP and ATC respond with either no problem or approved. For the record I said ICAO set the minimum standards, and that EU-OPS are way more strict. So far what FAR have you said is more strict? Carter said you need a written waiver from the FAA to do more than 250 below 10k You yourself pointed out the part D to it, as did the DC10 driver. All that you and I have "argued" about for want of a better word is the fact if I say i need 280 today... they say approved to me.. and you say they cant say that.

Actually I just had a little read over JO7110.65U (effective Febuary 9. 2012) Now just to be clear you have stated all along that ATC can not under any circumstances approve greater than 250 kts below 10,000 in the United States. Well in the very manual you mentioned JO7110.65U 3-1-11. 3−1−11. SURFACE AREA RESTRICTIONS a. If traffic conditions permit, approve a pilot’s request to cross Class C or Class D surface areas or exceed the Class C or Class D airspace speed limit. Do not, however, approve a speed in excess of 250 knots (288 mph) unless the pilot informs you a higher minimum speed is required. So that is just one example of what I have been saying all along, a pilot requesting a specific speed, in this case one higher than 250 knots and because the pilot has informed ATC that he requires it as his minimum speed the ATC specialist may approve it, and be within his manual as published by the FAA.

Look a couple of posts down on this forum and a guy is making it as an add on or all aircraft.

I responded to your post via PM due to the political nature of the first part of your post. With regard to the second.. we are not on the PW but it is located in the engine inlet. On a side note! I always wonder how often they get damaged? On another aircraft type the A320 with the IAE the probe is in prime position for catching a bird! Would of thought the CFM design was better in that nothing is in the inlet...

I'm not wanting to have an argument about anything, and when one steps back from the "emotion" it is quite an informative discussion (one that has been had on several messages boards online) What you must understand in our operation we are bound by the Air Operators Certificate. That certificate is issued according to EU law by the National Aviation Authority. A big part of getting that AOC issued is our set of operations manuals.. The ones relating to this discussion are OM A (General) OM B (Type Specific) and OM C (RouteManual) this is our bible as this is everything we are approved to do and everything we are not approved to do. It conforms with both the ICAO minimum standards and the far more restrictive EU-OPS. With regards to specific regulations lots of things are the same but lots of things are not, but we are certified and operate under EU-OPS and the manuals above. Below are a few areas of regulations where the EU-OPS and FAR's are not the same. We have different rest rules We have different minimums and ways of calculating them (both landing, takeoff, alternate planning minima, ETOPS minima) We have different rules relating to ETOPs operations We have different rules on pilot licensing We have different rules of the amount of fuel that is required for flight, for example using an ERA as approved by EU-OPS to reduce the cont fuel from 5% to 3% We have different rules relating to the dispatch of an aircraft. For example the US employes what is called joint respinsability between the dispatcher and the Captain both are required to release the flight. This does not exist in Europe.... So by your thinking does that mean all flights by European operators to the US are illegal because they have not been released by a dispatcher as is required by the FARs? We have different rules relating to low visibility operations - I could go on and on. Everyday all of these things that in some cases are contary to your FAR's are in use by non US airlines in US airspace, and it is fully legal.. Becuase when the FAA issued that airline it's FAR 129 certificate it accepted that while our rules may differ, they provide the same or better level of safety as your FAR's. What this boils down to is not having such a US centric approach to the matter, there are rules other than those of the FAA and we are licensed (both as pilots and as an airline) by a another authority. Here is another example just for fun... Up north of you in Canada at YYC (this was the case about 3 years ago when I last flew there) it would be daytime and low visibility... All the Canadian airlines are parked at the gate and can't leave due to the poor visibility.. Then there is the roar of an aircraft taking off, then another. First one British Airways, second Lufthansa. Reason, because we did not require high intensity centerline lights for takeoff in daylight conditions as per the then JAR-OPS (now EU-OPS) but this was a Transport Canada requirement for their operators who had their AOC. "Furthermore, I'm not sure why you'd be under a Part 129 certificate since that's all for US-registered aircraft for foreign carriers, and last I checked GEC (Lufthansa Cargo) has all D-reg aircraft, which wouldn't fall under Part 129. Whose leg are you trying to pull here?" Oh, just for your information..... All air carriers that conduct operations to and from the United States are required to have a 129 certificate. Here is a list for you, http://av-info.faa.g...eratorsName.asp

At the end of the day we are splitting hairs... I think it is at the very least a nice gesture to speak with ATC when in excess of 250 is going to be needed. Technically the FAA require us to speak to ATC about it (yes you got me to the point of looking at our part 129 certificate... And it's in there!) Now the next question... Why do the FAA like the 250 below 10? To help ATC, for bird strikes, or because of light traffic not talking to ATC (see and avoid) As a matter of fact the issue we are talking about here was discussed on our own internal site some years ago!

Actually for us the route manual is law, it's proper name is OM (Operations Manual) part C, part of the set of operations manuals that govern our operations. Point maybe worthy of note... The OP did not state where he was flying, or what airline he wished to "simulate" For the record FAR 91.xxx has nothing whatsoever to do with us.. We comply with our AOC and our operations manual. This has been held to be correct in court, for example the FAA tried enforcement action against British Airways, because they did not land at the first available airport after an inflight shutdown (as required by the FAR's) the end result was they are not required to because they operate under a British AOC - and it is allowed under the rules of their AOC and state of registry for them to continue.