For the record, as an ex ATC trainee:

 

ATC may not approve any flight's use of an airspeed above 250 knots under 10,000 unless it meets FAR 91.117(d), and in that case, the permission is implicit (you won't hear any heavy crews asking if it's okay - they just do it because .117(d) provides an exemption for them). The FAA may grant conditional waivers for anything where airlines/operators make a specific request, and these are often temporary in nature. Even the military doesn't have a blanket waiver to bust M 1.0 except in a few spots in NV and CA (the rest are all temporary exemptions through .117(a)).

 

That being said, if you take fly a 737 over here from Europe and are citing any other regulations other than the FARs and bust 250 under 10, you're going to get violated if it causes a dangerous lack of separation. You're welcome to cite the other regs, but the FAA will still come knocking on your operator's door saying "Hi, we have a number and a bill for you to pay. We'd also like your pilots to talk to us about why they caused an issue."

Your wrong.

 

Your wrong because we always ask / inform ATC we need more than 250 below 10 when we request clearence.

 

I guess it might fall under the category of airmanship, because it is impossible for ATC to know from our aircraft type alone what speed we will need. Sometimes we fly out of your airports with 90,000 KGS and fuel to Frankfurt other times we come out empty. (this means a very very wide range in what our minimum clean speed will be)

 

The quotes I provided about ATC approving the request came directly from the FAA, and are republished in our routemanual.

 

That same information is also used by a number of US airlines who prefer our products to those of Jeppesen.

Scandinavian13,

 

For what it's worth, I don't think "you're wrong," and I highly doubt that you lack airmanship.

 

 

 

DLH_FRA,

 

I think it's about time to drop this. It's really difficult to listen to a pilot working for a foreign carrier and based in a foreign country try to tell multiple US pilots that they are wrong about the regulations in their own country. Espicially since at least one of those US pilots is an instructor. It's difficult to continue to listen to you point to publications that are irrelevant as they are not the Federal Aviation Regulations. That publication is the law for air over the US. Not your routemanual. Not Jeppesen. Not the CRAR/CRAG. Just the FARs. The relevant FAR is 91.117. Whatever you do when calling for clearance is your company proceedure. Thank you for telling us about it. It's informative; however, it is not the rule.

Also keep in mind that we will not go above 250 below 10,000 just because we can. We only do it when the min maneuver is higher than 250. Also we will not fly faster than min maneuver. The only way the controller knows that you are heavy is that you are faster than 250. Now in another instance, i I've seen guys get called out in the G-3 all the time. It doesn't have auto throttles. A G-3 gets fast quickly at level off. Even after the gear is up and locked, you have to pull alot of power to keep from over speeding flaps. The controller will ask, whats your indicated speed? Of course the reply is 250 as the PF pulls the throttles back. New G-3 guys all ways have problems with speed. Swapping between 3s and 4s doesn't help either. 4 occasions in the 3 I've heard the controller ask what was the indicated airspeed when a guy was fast. But not one single time in the DC-10. We never asked because of .117D. Now I've flown some other aircraft in the military and exceeded 250 below 10,000 a lot. Didn't request it in that jet either. The controller knew based on aircraft type and call sign. If a controller sees that you are higher than 250, he will check your aircraft type. You better be a heavy or special aircraft if it's the case.

Your wrong because we always ask / inform ATC we need more than 250 below 10 when we request clearence.

 

I guess it might fall under the category of airmanship, because it is impossible for ATC to know from our aircraft type alone what speed we will need. Sometimes we fly out of your airports with 90,000 KGS and fuel to Frankfurt other times we come out empty. (this means a very very wide range in what our minimum clean speed will be)

 

I'm not, actually. Both the FARs and the JO 7110.65 (the controller's handbook to life) are in line with what I'm telling you. The very least of all of the data in my favor is this:

"Pilots are expected to comply with the other provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.117 without notification." (7110.65 Section 7 5-7-1a - NOTE 1). Controllers can not ask pilots to violate the FARs (both the FARs and the 7110.65 explicitly state that in the event a controller makes an error in that regard, the pilot it to reject it).

 

Furthermore, ATC can very easily tell which aircraft can and cannot bust the 250 knot restriction, based on FAR 91.117(d). If you're a heavy, you're permitted, provided it's necessary. It's not up to ATC to determine whether or not it's necessary, but ATC can very clearly see H/MD11/Q, H/B744/W, H/B77L/Q. The H prefix means you're heavy, and therefore, we know you may end up above that restriction. As I mentioned earlier though: ATC are not the police of the sky, and they can't see your indicated anyway.

 

If you're actually asking, then you're not following the procedure correctly here in the States, and based on your assertions, I'm really starting to wonder if you're just someone who has a wealth of connections in the material, and not actually a pilot. I know that's a nasty assertion, but you're really not making a good name for yourself when you have several pilots in here from the United States quoting the actual Federal Aviation Regulations of those States that disagree with your position.

 

Scandinavian13,

 

For what it's worth, I don't think "you're wrong," and I highly doubt that you lack airmanship.

 

Thanks Charles. Much appreciated.

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.

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!

For the record FAR 91.xxx has nothing whatsoever to do with us.. We comply with our AOC and our operations manual.

 

I know an administration who would beg to differ. If your aircraft is here in the United States, you're required to abide by the FARs. End of story. Your assertion otherwise is really just showing how little you do actually know about how this whole thing works.

 

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!)

 

No, they don't. The FARs and the 7110 both say otherwise. However, if you'd like to show us the text on that part 129 cert, I'd be glad to actually concede your point. 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?

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

Both the FARs and the JO 7110.65 (the controller's handbook to life) are in line with what I'm telling you.

 

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.

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.

 

No, it again proves you know less about what you're talking about than you think. The section you quoted is for tower controllers, specifically in environments where they're controlling the innermost ring of Class C or D airspace (none of which you see in your operation, as the ones you listed are all Class B ).

 

5-7 is the only area in which you'll see proper Radar Environment adjustment of speed terminology and requirements appropriate to your operations:

NOTE−

1. A pilot operating at or above 10,000 feet MSL on an assigned speed adjustment greater than 250 knots is expected to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.117(a) when cleared below 10,000 feet SL, within domestic airspace, without notifying ATC. Pilots are expected to comply with the other provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.117 without notification.

 

 

Interestingly, you comment on how certain ICAO things are more restrictive (which is generally referenced in the way of "follow the more restrictive rule"), yet when we're telling you about a thousand different ways of how the FARs are more restrictive here, you won't listen.

 

Also interestingly, since we're talking about FAR 129, you may want to brush up on FAR 129.19, specifically 129.19(a.) and (c.). Note that (c.) basically states that foreign air carriers are subject to the same rules as the 121 (US) carriers.

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.

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)

[...]

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.

 

Because there are no exceptions to that rule. First, you quoted the wrong portion of the rules - you quoted a tower controller's (Terminal) section, and unless you're really light, you're not going to be in the tower controller's environment when you're busting 250. Generally, you're talking to a radar controller at that point, so you would need to cite something out of the Radar section (which I did). That section specifically mentions that pilots are supposed to comply without notification.

 

If you notify them, of course they're going to "approve" you. First, they see you're H/MD11/Q, so they can't technically deny you. What else are they going to say? A clever controller would simply say something non-descript like "proceed as requested," meaning go ahead, but note the phrase doesn't specifically use the word "approved" if anything came of it. You'll hear all kinds of pilots asking for stuff that ATC can neither approve nor reject. The other day, just outside class D airspace, I heard "tower, this is N123AB, requesting clearance to do some aerial photography work to the northwest." Tower controller just came back with "proceed as requested." What could he say? Approved? No, because it's not in his airspace. Denied? No, because it's not in his airspace.

 

The same goes for your scenarios. You tell the delivery controller that you need 280 knots, and he can't deny it as part of .117(d). If you tell a radar controller, he can't deny it as part of .117(d), so he should be saying "proceed as requested," but if he says "approved" it's not technically wrong either. The issue is, however, that it's not up to him or her. It's up to the FARs, which have already provided you a specific exemption.

 

Sure, you might see it as a nice thing, but that's like me telling the approach controllers "hey, just letting you know, my Cessna is only gonna give you about 110 knots at cruise." They already know. They've seen MD11s before. Trust me.

DLH_FRA

 

Please let me be very clear. With the way the FAA works, the operating manual's requirement of a manuevering speed higher than 250kias IS a waiver in the eyes of the FAA. The FAA has to approve any operating manual used in the US. If they approve it knowing that it has a requirement for speeds in excess of 250kias, they have essentially given the waiver to the operator operating according to that approved manual.

 

Essentially, it's "6 of 1, half-a-dozen of the other."

 

The manual you (Lufthansa) is operating under while inside the US is approved by the FAA. If it hadn't been approved, you wouldn't be flying according to it while in the US. When it was compiled, and everytime a change is made to it, the FAA is involved in the process. At least as long as your company desires to fly in US airspace.

 

If your manual states that you must notify ATC, then you must notify ATC. Just understand that is NOT the normal proceedure. Also understand that you can talk about "it's nice to tell them" all you want, but if a frequency is congested (and yes, clearance frequencies DO get congested - why do you think PDC has become so popular? Watch what happens to that CLC freq when PDC goes down.), the controller doesn't want to hear useless information. Just like center controllers don't need the phrases "checking in," or "with you." Espicially when they are busy. "Inbound to land" is one for tower controllers. Tower controllers assume you are generally flying toward the airport when you make contact. They would like to know if you intend to do a full stop, touch and go, full stop - taxi back, or stop and go, but they don't need the word "inbound." Along with all of this, unless your manual requires you to inform them, they don't need to know that your min. man. speed is going to exceed 250kias in the MD-11F you're flying today. If you go faster, they know why.

 

Again, for anyone NOT operating under your company's manual, what your manual says is "nice to know" information. The rest of us have to operate under the FARs. Those FARs were the basis for what's in your manual for operating in the US, and your manual was approved by the FAA. If it wasn't approved by the FAA, anything you do contrary to the FARs while in the US would be subject to enforcement action by the FAA. No matter what country you fly over, that country makes the rules while you're there. They made a rule that allows you to use a single manual so long as they approve the proceedures in that manual.

 

In response to your posting of 3-1-11 Surface Area Movements. Please remember that there is also a 200 kias speed restriction within 4nm of the primary use airport inside Class C and D airspace while within 2,500 ft of the surface. With that in mind, this section permits a local controller to approve a speed higher than 200 kias - if requested - but reminds them not to approve anything above 250 kias unless it is an operational necessity.

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.