Originally Posted by
HuggyU2
I don't think it was a public use aircraft. ATSI is a private contractor doing gov't work. As such, I don't believe they qualify as 'public use'.
Originally Posted by
Grumble
My understanding is that since it has an "N" number, and operates under the guise of the FAR's and NTSB 830, it falls on the NTSB to investigate. The only thing the Navy had to do with it was the point of origin/destination.
It was a bad situation, they got painted into a corner before anyone knew what happened, and he just happened to be flying the jet with no gas. There are a million "what if's" with this one, none of which will change anything.
Huggy. Different company - ATAC -vs- ATSI, but in any case they do operate under 'public use'. The name may be misleading but it is a different set of rules.
Section 40102(a)(37) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended to read as follows:
"(37) 'public aircraft' means an aircraft operated
by or on behalf of the United States Government, a
State, the District of Columbia, a territory or
possession of the United States, or a political
subdivision of one of these governments, but only when
operated under the conditions specified by sections
40125(b) or 40125(c) of this title, or as described in
section 40125(d) of this title.".
Grumble: It is an 'N' registered aircraft, but since it operates under those rules we are mentioning above then the NTSB usually doesn't investigate. Remember the July '10 mishap? Neither the NTSB nor the military investigated that mishap for example.
USMCFLYR