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.

 

The legal opinion of the person writing this message on behalf of the FAA is specifically addressing the scenario the writer offered, which specifically mentions the use of a B739. Furthermore, if you look at the FAA's quoting of his scenario, you'll see that captain is specifically looking for clarification about (b.) of 91.117, where the pilot would be operating in the surface area of Class C or D airspace (a 4nm, in radius, ring around the primary airport), below 2500'. I can't think of a valid reason to be operating any aircraft that low, that close to a field above 200 knots. 4 nm is covered in about 1 minute (and 5.5 seconds), assuming you're flying at 220, which is probably much less than your FR speed anyway. This is also not including accelerating up to that speed, which would mean you'd be well clear of that 4nm ring anyway before even getting to a point where you'd clean up and get past 250 anyway.

 

So, yes, if you fly your large jet (B739) into a Class D field and manage to break 250 knots before getting above 2500', then yes, you're operating illegally. Here's the catch though: NADP1 profiles have you at V2+10 until 3000' anyway, and even if you're flying NADP2 or none, you're still going to have to accelerate to get past 250 within 4nm, which I'd say is a stretch. If you're light enough to accel that quickly, I doubt you'll need 250+ clean (I could be wrong - I don't fly an MD-11, so I don't have flap tables for it). Even so, since the MD-11 is a heavy and would require speeds above 200 even at FR, you're subject to (d.), as stated in the FAA opinion.

 

In any case, you're using a case to argue your point when the case referenced is a completely different operating environment: different aircraft, specifically <2500' AGL, within 4nm of a Class C/D airport.

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.

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.

DLH, I have some scenario based questions for ya.

The scenario is that you are in a MD11 departing airfield X. The departure has a min climb gradient of 320 FPM, & ATC gradient of 400 FPM up to 13,000ft due to cumulus granite. You are weight limited by the min gradient and your climb speed/clean min man is higher than 250 below 10,000ft.

Normally you will use level change at accel height, accel through FR and SR up to your climb speed. That's the FAA certified Micky D-11 climb schedule/profile.

1. Do you think that the FAA's intent is for you to stay configured to remain below 250? If so, how can you ensure that you meet the climb gradient?

2. If you lost the engine at V1, will you meet the 320 gradient while configured?

3. During aircraft certification of heavy aircraft, do you think the FAA takes in consideration the climb speeds/profiles of these aircraft at heavy weights.

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.

Looking back, when I was first qualified in the 10, this question came up. I asked the question and was told that ATC knows the potential of exceeding 250 based on type. I was also refered to that reg. We operated 60 DC-10s, well 59 after one burned to the ground during mx. Never in those 10 years did I or anyone else I knew request permission to exceed 250 below 10. Interestingly, never in 10 years did any one ever get called out for being above 250 below 10. No fines or calls at all. At our max certified weight, clean min maneuver was 295kts. We departed at that weight all the time around the clock. Now we have had calls from the FAA for other reasons in regard to clearance issues. But in this case, we can all agree to disagree. I flew my McDonnell Douglas FAA approved profile every time. The same profile that the FAA check airman was required to see during sim checks.

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

Our company proceedures contain numerous things that are not allowed under the FARs. We are permitted to do them because our proceedures have been approved by the FAA (by the Administrator). We do not have to ask permission each time we do one of these items. The permission has already been granted. I think the 250 below 10000 clean for heavies falls into this same category. The company proceedures have been approved, and so long as the crew is operating according to those proceedures, they are not violating any regs and do not need permission each time they do it (so long as the company proceedures do not state that they need to say something to ATC).

 

I think that the standard reg applies when no FAA company approved proceedure exists.

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?

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?

 

Stay out or below 250 kias until reaching 10000 MSL, or get a 91.117(a) waiver.

 

Stay out or below 250 kias

 

Stay at* or below

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

Want to see another unclear stance of the FAA? Take a look at RSC information. They waiver on runway surface conditions

Hi gents, I dusted off some old AF general flight rules regs that I had while serving. I find them interesting. The general flight rules basically take FAA regs and apply/adjust them to mil ops.

5.9. Aircraft Speed.

5.9.2. In the National Air System. The PIC will:

5.9.2.1. Not allow their aircraft to exceed 250 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS) below

10,000 ft. MSL unless the MAJCOM has approved a higher speed IAW paragraph 5.9.5.

5.9.2.2. Not allow their aircraft to exceed 200 KIAS at or below 2,500 ft. AGL within 4

NMs of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area unless authorized by

ATC, or required to maintain the minimum safe maneuvering airspeed specified in the

aircraft AFM

5.9.2.3. Not allow their aircraft to exceed 200 KIAS in the airspace underlying a Class B

airspace area or in a VFR corridor designated through Class B airspace area, unless

required to maintain the minimum safe maneuvering airspeed specified in the aircraft

AFM

5.9.3. Outside the National Air System. The PIC will not allow the aircraft to exceed 250 KIAS below

10,000 ft. MSL unless: in international airspace and mission requirements dictate; ICAO or

host nation rules permit or it is necessary to maintain the minimum safe airspeed in the

aircraft AFM

5.9.4. Holding. Conduct holding at airspeeds prescribed in FLIP or AFM.

5.9.5. FAA Speed Authorization. The FAA recognizes that certain military operations and

training requirements cannot be met under the terms of the 14 CFR §91.117, Aircraft Speed,

and has therefore granted a speed authorization to the USAF.

5.9.5.1. Use of FAA Speed Authorization. In the NAS, PICs may operate USAF

aircraft in excess of 250 KIAS, below 10,000 ft. MSL, only under the following

conditions

 

5.9.5.1.5. When the aircraft AFM requires or recommends a higher speed in order to

maintain safe maneuverability. If the safe maneuvering airspeed in the AFM is listed

as a range, fly the slowest speed practical in that range, based on weight and

configuration. This provision is primarily to accommodate climbs/descents and

terminal area operations. Airspeeds applicable to this exemption must be published

in the aircraft AFM.

 

In this reg i see 2 separate ways to exceed 250 below 10,000. One is if the aircraft flight manual requires/recommends it. The other is the FAA speed authorization.

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.

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....