Public Use Rules???

[atpcliff]

Hi!

What are the "Public Use Rules" used for flying? There are some jobs available that use these rules, and we don't know what this means.

Thanx!

cliff
LRD

 

[JimNtexas]

The goverment doesn't have to follow the normal FAA rules for aircraft or crew certification. A 'public use' aircraft is operated by or for the goverment.

Neither the pilot nor the airplane need an FAA certificate. The airplane can bew modified without an STC.

When you see the Sheriff flying an old Huey, he's probably doing it under public use.

When it's flying in civil airspace it still has to follow ATC rules.

When I was in the Air Force I worked with the 'Faker' Lear Jet contracts. Some of these airplanes were considered 'public use' airplanes because they had non-certified modifications. I actually went several times to the Department of Interior's Office of Air Services in Boise to get help on setting up our contracts, because they are experts on public use.

 

[satpak77]

Public Use came into being when surplus military aircraft, which were manufactured without an FAA Airworthiness Certificate (OH-6), were surplused into civilian hands, mostly local law enforcement agencies. Hence, a legal mechanism was needed to allow this aircraft to fly in civilian (non-military) hands.

Public Use is a CATEGORY OF OPERATION. A civilian Cessna 182, operated on a search and rescue mission, flown by the local Highway Patrol, is conducting a Public Use operation. The same airplane, flown by two Highway Patrol pilots out doing ILS's for training, is not at that time in Public Use Category.

Public use aircraft still must abide by ATC rules and most of Part 91. Some agencies have FAR Waivers, such as night with lights out ops. But 99% of the time, they are complying with the FARS.

Pilots of Public Use aircraft must hold pilot ratings in accordance to FAR 61.3. "Public Use" does not mean you don't need a pilots license.

some info

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/trans/hpw104-37.000/hpw104-37_0.HTM

http://www.ntsb.gov/PressRel/2002/020107.htm

If this is confusing, don't worry. Ask three different FSDO's for their interpretation of Public Use and you will get 3 different answers.

 

[avbug]

On average, accident-involved public use aircraft pilots were more highly qualified than accident-involved GA accident pilots, holding more advanced flight certificate ratings, according to the data reviewed by the NTSB.

Interesting observation. Considering that most if not all of these operations are utility special operations involving numerous hazards, this isn't surprising.

This isn't a vague issue at all, and is very clearly spelled out, word by word, in Advisory Circular 00-1.1, which deals specifically with government aircraft. From that AC:

c. Statutory Text. The new definition of public aircraft enacted by Congress is as follows:

"(1) an aircraft -

(i) used only for the United States Government; or

(ii) owned and operated (except for commercial purposes) or exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by a government (except the United States Government), including a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States, or political subdivision of that government; but

(2) does not include a government-owned aircraft -

(i) transporting property for commercial purposes; or

(ii) transporting passengers other than -

(A) transporting (for other than commercial purposes) crewmembers or other persons aboard the aircraft whose presence is required to perform, or is associated with the performance of, a governmental function such as firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement, aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource management; or

(B) transporting (for other than commercial purposes) persons aboard the aircraft if the aircraft is operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States.

3) An aircraft described in the preceding sentence shall, notwithstanding any limitation relating to use of the aircraft for commercial purposes, be considered to be a public aircraft for the purposes of this part without regard to whether the aircraft is operated by a unit of government on behalf of another unit of government, pursuant to a cost reimbursement agreement between such units of government, if the unit of government on whose behalf the operation is conducted certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration that the operation was necessary to respond to a significant and imminent threat to life or property (including natural resources) and that no service by a private operator was reasonably available to meet the threat."

49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(37).

The operational nature of the definition is given as follows, in the same AC:

The status of an aircraft as "public aircraft" or "civil aircraft" depends on its use in government service and the type of operation that the aircraft is conducting at the time. Rather than speaking of particular aircraft as public aircraft or civil aircraft, it is more precise to speak of particular operations as public or civil in nature. Example: An aircraft owned by a state government is used in the morning for a search and rescue mission. During the search and rescue operation, the aircraft is a public aircraft. Later that same day, however, the aircraft is used to fly the governor of the state from one meeting to another. At that time, the aircraft loses its public aircraft status and must be operated as a civil aircraft.

The previously mentioned Office of Aircraft Services (OAS) is now the Office of Aircraft Management, and oversees much of the government run or contracted operations. This agency has a responsibility to ensure that both pilots and aircraft meet strict guidlines. This is done by ensuring that pilots and aircraft are in compliance with FAA regulation, OAS requirements, contract requirements or government regulations and agency regulations and policies. Pilots undergo certificate and background investigations and inspections, aircraft undergo records and physical inspections, and for most all operations, but be in full compliance with the regulation. l

I have operated public use for many years, and most of my operations have been very, very closely monitored for full compliance with FAA regulation, as well as all agency policies and regulations, and other applicable policies and regulations. The oversight is stiff enough that for many operations, specific managers are assigned to each individual aircraft to oversee it and ensure full compliance. And they do, too.

Pilots and aircraft must be in compliance with appropriate regulation, including FAA regulation. For public aircraft the FAA may also grant waivers, the standard of which is:

(i) the Administrator finds that granting the exemption is necessary to prevent an undue economic burden on the unit of government and

(ii) the Administrator certifies that the aviation safety program of the unit of government is effective and appropriate to ensure safe operations of the type of aircraft operated by the unit of government.

To be continued...(due to length)

 

[avbug]

Continued...

These requirements are further defined as:

"The Administrator Finds ... and ... Certifies." This language indicates that the Administrator, or his or her delegate, is to make an independent determination as to whether the statutory requirements for granting an exemption have been met. This is in contrast to an earlier portion of the statute in which the unit of government rather than the Administrator makes the required certifications (that the operation was necessary to respond to a significant and imminent threat, and that no private operator was reasonably available to meet the threat).

"Undue Economic Burden." One finding that the Administrator or his or her delegate must make before granting an exemption is that the exemption is necessary to prevent an undue economic burden on the unit of government. "Undue economic burden" means that it would cost substantially more to comply with FAA regulations than with "an aviation safety program that is effective and appropriate to ensure safe operations of the type of aircraft operated by the unit of government" under the statute's exemption provision. To show "substantial additional costs," a petitioner for exemption should submit information that will allow the FAA to compare the cost of operating in compliance with Part A of Subtitle VII of Title 49 of the United States Code with comparable costs if an exemption were granted.

"Aviation Safety Program." The Administrator or the Administrator's delegate may not grant an exemption to a unit of government without certifying that the aviation safety program of the unit of government is "effective and appropriate to ensure safe operations of the type of aircraft operated by the unit of government." As a result, in the petition for an exemption, the petitioner must show to the Administrator's satisfaction that the petitioner's aviation safety program is effective and appropriate to ensure safe operations of the type of aircraft operated by the petitioner. Example: A unit of government applies for an exemption on an aircraft whose wings were modified to carry external pods for various surveillance activities. In its proposed aviation safety program, the unit of government would need to identify how the continued airworthiness of the modification will be accomplished. At minimum, the following may be required: a special structural inspection at the wing attach points, additional training for pilots operating the aircraft during pod installations, and flight manual changes to reflect any new operating limitations that may be necessary due to the modifications.

Aircraft with No Previous FAA Type Certification. It may be difficult for units of government to show that, for aircraft having no previous FAA type certification, e.g., military surplus aircraft, they have "an aviation safety program that is effective and appropriate to ensure safe operations of the type of aircraft operated by the unit of government." In order to make the "effective and appropriate aviation safety program" finding, the FAA must be assured that the safety of the aircraft in question is comparable to that provided by the FAR. Aircraft that have no history of civil certification often present significant "unknowns" when it comes to such critical safety matters as life-limited parts and aircraft design. Thus, such aircraft often do not have the basis on which to build an aviation safety program that is effective and appropriate to ensure safe operations. A unit of government developing a proposal for an aviation safety program may find the information below helpful:

Generally. Subpart E of FAR Part 91 prescribes the rules governing the maintenance, preventative maintenance, and alterations of U.S.-registered aircraft civil aircraft operating within and outside the United States. FAR Section 91.403 states that the owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with FAR Part 39. FAR Part 39 describes the requirements for compliance to AD's issued by the FAA.

Inspection Programs. Operators of large aircraft, turbojet multiengine airplanes, or turbopropeller powered multiengine airplanes, should select and use one of the four inspection program options outlined in FAR Sections 91.409(e) and (f).

For one of the four inspection program options, that identified in FAR Section 91.409(f)(4), the inspection program submitted should be compared with the manufacturer's recommended program. Where there is no manufacturer's program, a time-tested program should be utilized. The program developed must provide a level of safety equivalent to or greater than that provided by the other inspection options identified in FAR Section 91.409(f).

For the other three inspection options outlined in FAR Sections 91.409(e) and (f), the basis for the development of the inspection program or the instructions for continued airworthiness, including the detail of the parts and areas of the airplane to be inspected, is the manufacturer's recommendations. In the case of surplus military aircraft, the manufacturers provide this basic information to the specific military service that has contracted for the airplane. The military service then develops a reliability-centered maintenance program to meet its needs and environment which are often comparable to the continuous airworthiness maintenance programs developed by air carriers.

In many cases, manufacturers may be unwilling or unable to provide instructions for continued airworthiness for operation of the airplane in other than a military environment. Therefore, in keeping with existing policy as provided by the FAA, the only reasonable basis that for detailing the inspection criteria for the aircraft to be inspected, as required by FAR Section 91.409(g)(1), is the scope and detail developed by the applicable military service.

In addition to the "field" level inspection requirements set forth in the military maintenance program, the "depot" level inspection requirements should also be included in any inspection program approved under FAR Section 91.409(f)

The military "field" level maintenance is roughly equivalent to the civil terminology that air carriers use to describe "A, B or C" checks. The military "depot" level maintenance is comparable to the "heavy C or D" checks used by air carriers. Some air carriers may use a numerical description verses the alphabetical identifier for inspection checks.

The inspection frequency and program structure established by the military may not be appropriate for use in a civilian environment. Therefore, inspection frequency and program structure may require adjustment to meet the government operator's requirement. However, facts and sound judgment must form the basis for any inspection frequency adjustment beyond that which has been established for use by the military.

An alternate means of compliance for individual specific inspection requirements, in lieu of that which is called for in the military "field" or "depot" level programs, may be approved following evaluation of the applicant's inspection process instructions.

Revisions to an operator's existing approved inspection program can be requested by the Administrator in accordance with FAR Section 91.415.

Persons Conducting Inspections and Maintenance. The program proposed by the petitioner should include procedures to insure that inspections and maintenance tasks are performed by persons authorized by FAR Sections 43.5 and 43.7.

Modifications and Repairs. The program must identify all major modifications and repairs accomplished since the aircraft was put into service. Additionally, all further modifications and major repairs will need to be approved in the same format as required for civil aircraft under the regulations.

As you may be able to see, it's not quite such a cowboy unregulated world as you may have been lead to believe, and the pilots are generally far more qualified in terms of total and operational experience than many others outside that community. Hardly the uncertificated pilot jumping into anything that flies or floats and joyriding on unregulated missions.

Generally we see a whole lot more regulation and oversight than virtually anyone else in the industry, because we comply with multiple regulations, and answer to multiple oversight parties.

 

[Darkhlmt]

Question... In simple terms. If an aircraft, lets say owned by a civilian, is used/operated for a search and rescue which is being conducted by a government agency. Does it then fall under the "public aircraft" category? Or does the aircraft have to be owned by a government agency?

If that aircraft does fall under the public aircraft category it still has to follow ATC rules. I'm still new to the deep nitty gritty of aviation so please forgive me. But what difference does it make if the aircraft is operated under "public aircraft" vs. the "civilian aircraft" category?

 

[pilotyip]

nice response Avbug, answers a lot of Public Use questions.

 

[avbug]

A public use aircraft is a civillian aircraft. In fact, if it's not a military aircraft, it's a civillian aircraft. An ex-military aircraft being used for civil purposes is a civillian aircraft, but there's no civillian category of aircraft. Pulblic use becomes a category of aircraft certification, sort or an öther category as is restricted, exhibition, etc.

Chance are your private airplane has a standard airworthiness certificate. It may certainly be involved in a public use operation, but it's both the certification/registration that help determine the fact, and the type of operation under which you're flying at the time. I fly to a contract base and sit. My flight there is public use, as I'm enroute to a designated base for an exclusive use operation. The aircraft is a civil registered airplane, with an N number, privately owned, but under exclsive use, along with me, for a given period of time. It may be on call for less than the typicl exclusive use period, and the aircraft holds a restricted category airworthiness certificate.

I begin conducting various operations in support of operations as each agency requests, and each operation is a public use operation. One morning I discover a fuel leak, take the aircraft out of service, and conduct a ferry flight to a repair facility to have the leak addressed. I'm not in government service, even though the aircraft is still restricte category airplane, I'm not a public aircraft any more. I'm not on a public mission. Likewise, if I were to conduct a flght in which I transport personnel or equipment for an outside party not directly connected to the emergency operations or agency mission, and conduct it for profit or hire, then I am no longer a public use aircraft.

The government must allow me to perform my mission, so long as I am cost effective and safe. The government may not simply undercut me, regardless of what I am doing. The government may not, for example, go buy an airplane to conduct the type of service I offer, so long as I am reasonable and available, as the government cannot compete with a contractor. Conversely, I am unavailable, the government is within it's discretion to conduct the operation in their own way, in their own aircraft, and in certain circumstances, accept reimbursement for operations by varying means. They just can't compete.

Does your aircraft become public use during the time you are conducting a search and rescue mission for Civil Air Patrol? In connection with the mission, it may be fulfilling that capacity, but it's airworthiness certiicate and registration does not change, and it's connection to a public aircraft status doesn't alleviate it from requirements to adhere to the regulations of both the FAA and the agencies for whom you are working, with full compliance when you are no longer attending to the specific mission that makes you public use.

There's a reason that the CAP aircraft can't be used for compensation or hire, and for all the restrictions placed upon the corporate-owned aircraft. Whe attending to official functions, they are operating as public use aircraft. You'll note, however, that each pilot must be current and legal in accordance with FAA regulation, and each flight must be conducted in full compliance with both the CFR and with CAP and USAF regulations. If you're conducting an operation on behalf of anther agency (such as a surveillance mission), you are also beholden to that agency for adherence to all relevant regulation as applied by that particular agency.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

It's nice to see a thread on flightinfo where u learn a lot, none of the posters are fighting with each other, and know won coments on speling mistaks (that's 4 u, Randy!).

Thanx!

cliff
LRD

 

[redd]

Ditto's!!