FAA has been violating its own rules FAR 61.53 for over a year, airlines threatened

www.newstreason.com...

This document by Leigh Taylor Dundas attorney, and cosigned by Peter McCullough, RFK Jr and others makes it clear that the FAA broke its own rules in allowing the clot shots to be administered to pilots.

Effectively, the pilot population has become a case study on the long term effects of the shots, if the recommendations are followed by the FAA.

In a rational world the shots would be stopped right now, and the pilots who've taken it, about 80% of most mainline carriers including British Airways, would be monitored for elevated D-Dimer levels and other measures to determine their fitness for flight.

If the link works properly, the document by Dundas is 10 pages long, and must be read in detail.

a reply to: Salander

While I agree with you, it is impossible for the FAA to violate the FAR's.

Definitely a violation of there own policies and rules. However I am quite skeptical anything of substance will come from this. As we have seen over the better part of 2 years, violations by the state are ignored.

We are certainly living in a time where those most accountable for their actions are not held accountable for their actions.
If that makes sense.

a reply to: americanbuffalo1

It makes perfect sense in a time and government of universal deception, yes.

There is no rule of law in this country, and it's been that way for quite some time.

In a rational world, those who've taken the experimental shots would be tested and monitored, but we don't live in a rational time.

JIMC5499

You are supposed to put some sort of emoji up when joking in a post.

There are waivers for everything. I doubt anything of this sort will take place, it would essentially be grounding the whole US fleet, including military.

Not including EMS and life flights, and Aerial Firefighting.

a reply to: Salander

As a mechanic I dealt with the FAA on and off for 29 years. I was not joking.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Salander

As a mechanic I dealt with the FAA on and off for 29 years. I was not joking.

So you want to say that the FAA cannot violate the Federal Airline Regulations because the FAA is not an airline. DUH!

But the FAA is allowing airlines to violate their own rules, effectively forcing them to do so, mollifying their own rules and potentially placing the public at risk.

So let's argue semantics and completely bury the point of the OP..Well done ...

a reply to: incoserv

The FAR's are subject to interpretation by the FAA. I've had an FAA official tell me one thing and another tried to cite me for doing exactly what the first one told me.

The FAR's are what the FAA says they are, so how can they violate them?

Airlines are not the only entities covered by the FAR's.

a reply to: incoserv

The FAR’s are the Federal Aviation Regulations, tons of laws you can search in detail, you can look it up on the FAA website, everything is for public knowledge.

Airlines fall under Part 121

a reply to: JIMC5499

Just as it is impossible for the federal government to violate the Constitution?

a reply to: 38181

If the rule of law reason and common sense prevail in this case, ALL medically certified airmen will be grounded until they are tested with the appropriate tests, as specified in the notice at hand. Perhaps you have not read it yet. It's 10 pages long and full of tiny legal details.

If common sense and the rule of law come into play (I admit that is unlikely because of the atmosphere of lawlessness that prevails inside the Beltway) those airmen who've taken the shots will be studied and monitored to assess the damage done. They will be a separate group of test subjects to find out how these shots damage humans.

The FAA, the DOJ and dozens of other federal agencies do not obey their own rules or the rules of the US Constitution. That is the sad reality. That so many citizens accept that as reality, including several posters here, is testimony to just how sad the state of affairs is.

Yes, if they decide to follow the rules, those airmen can be returned to service if they show no signs of clotting, if they have normal D-Dimer values and troponin values.

Would you approve of having healthy pilots flying your airliner, or would you prefer to be ignorant of pilots in poor health flying the plane?

Yes 121 applies to the airlines, but 61 applies to all. The title of Part 61 is "Certification of Pilots and Flight Instructors". We're dealing with the certification of pilots here, whether they fly for the airlines or private or corporate flying. That is the issue

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: 38181


Would you approve of having healthy pilots flying your airliner, or would you prefer to be ignorant of pilots in poor health flying the plane?

Yes I read it.

Why are you pushing the issue? There’s other laws being ignored but what is you’re Agenda on this?

Plenty of pilots already in poor health, depends on what perspective you look at.

a reply to: 38181

I bring it up for discussion because I've been in the aviation business my entire adult life, and I know there are other pilots who post here at ATS. It doesn't effect me personally because I've not taken the jab, but most of my pilot friends have taken the jab.

I manage a corporate aircraft for a company, and I have a pool of 3 contract pilots who fly with us. 2 of the 3 have taken the shots with no apparent ill effects, and both of them will not be taking the boosters. They had made that decision before this document was delivered to the FAA.

If we had a rational and law-abiding government the solution would be easy, as the document makes clear.

As the document also makes clear, if the right actions are not taken by the regulators, they will all be sued for their criminal malfeasance. I hope. These are the end days of the great American experiment it seems to me.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: JIMC5499

Just as it is impossible for the federal government to violate the Constitution?

Not impossible, but, good luck in getting the Courts to admit it.

a reply to: Salander

I'm on your side in this. It's just like you said "If common sense and the rule of law come into play" If common sense and the rule of law came into play, Hilary Clinton would be sitting in a jail cell right now.