...But we never left the US?!
Aug 9, 2012, 7:13 pm
#61
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 360
I wouldn't bet on all of that like the above post suggests you would, but I am familiar with the FAR to which you are referring.
Which FAR is there that mandates that the airline confirm via reference to ink-on-paper documents that the age of a domestic-flying lap child American infant is what a parent/guardian claims? [Sounds like a "may" above is not even a "may".] Even the annoying, paranoid government busybodies -- claiming "security" to get their way -- have carved out exceptions for young minors when it comes to ID checks.
Which FAR is there that mandates that the airline confirm via reference to ink-on-paper documents that the age of a domestic-flying lap child American infant is what a parent/guardian claims? [Sounds like a "may" above is not even a "may".] Even the annoying, paranoid government busybodies -- claiming "security" to get their way -- have carved out exceptions for young minors when it comes to ID checks.
Aug 9, 2012, 7:36 pm
#62
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 360
What evidence is there of a liability penalty based on the indicated FAR in the event of a plane accident involving a lap child infant? Theoretical claims have evidence too, or they are just wishful thinking.
I wouldn't be as sure as you are that "the airline has the right to refuse carriage to any child that appears to be over the age of two".
The FAR relevant to lap child infants has everything to do with safety and security, even of the financial and/or job (in)security sort.
I wouldn't be as sure as you are that "the airline has the right to refuse carriage to any child that appears to be over the age of two".
The FAR relevant to lap child infants has everything to do with safety and security, even of the financial and/or job (in)security sort.
've never really read your ticket, which technically is not a ticket but, rather, a "contract of carriage." That contract incorporates by reference all of the provisions of the particular airline's "tariff", which really isn't a "tariff" but is called that because that"s what the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) called it, and the bureaucrats are too lazy to change the name to reflect that fact.
Moreover, every Operating Certificate puts the responsibility for assuring compliance with all FARs on the Operator (airline). The effect of a violation of a regulation on civil liability is a matter of state, and not federal, law, but in almost every state, the voilation of a regulation is per se negligence, giving rise to tort liability.
So, to cut through the sophistry here, there is no FAR which says, specifically, that every baby needs a birth certificate. But there also is no FAR that specifically says "You may not point the nose of your MD-80 down to achieve an alpha which results in mach tuck." But I want to see someone do that and try to escape liability because no reg said you couldn't do it.
And by the way, IAAL, retired now but having done aviation law for 35 years.
Aug 9, 2012, 7:58 pm
#63
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: in the sky
Posts: 490
I suspect that like the huge majority of passengers on the airlines, you'
've never really read your ticket, which technically is not a ticket but, rather, a "contract of carriage." That contract incorporates by reference all of the provisions of the particular airline's "tariff", which really isn't a "tariff" but is called that because that"s what the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) called it, and the bureaucrats are too lazy to change the name to reflect that fact.
Moreover, every Operating Certificate puts the responsibility for assuring compliance with all FARs on the Operator (airline). The effect of a violation of a regulation on civil liability is a matter of state, and not federal, law, but in almost every state, the voilation of a regulation is per se negligence, giving rise to tort liability.
So, to cut through the sophistry here, there is no FAR which says, specifically, that every baby needs a birth certificate. But there also is no FAR that specifically says "You may not point the nose of your MD-80 down to achieve an alpha which results in mach tuck." But I want to see someone do that and try to escape liability because no reg said you couldn't do it.
And by the way, IAAL, retired now but having done aviation law for 35 years.
've never really read your ticket, which technically is not a ticket but, rather, a "contract of carriage." That contract incorporates by reference all of the provisions of the particular airline's "tariff", which really isn't a "tariff" but is called that because that"s what the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) called it, and the bureaucrats are too lazy to change the name to reflect that fact.
Moreover, every Operating Certificate puts the responsibility for assuring compliance with all FARs on the Operator (airline). The effect of a violation of a regulation on civil liability is a matter of state, and not federal, law, but in almost every state, the voilation of a regulation is per se negligence, giving rise to tort liability.
So, to cut through the sophistry here, there is no FAR which says, specifically, that every baby needs a birth certificate. But there also is no FAR that specifically says "You may not point the nose of your MD-80 down to achieve an alpha which results in mach tuck." But I want to see someone do that and try to escape liability because no reg said you couldn't do it.
And by the way, IAAL, retired now but having done aviation law for 35 years.
Thank you for stating so succinctly something like what I was trying to say! ;-) So anyways... the carrier can rightly ask for documentation re: the lap child, but can TSA or Border patrol demand the same? (if not for reason of FAR regulation violations but for reason of suspected crimes???) I think this was the original question?
Last edited by loops; Aug 9, 2012 at 8:03 pm Reason: clarification
Aug 10, 2012, 1:17 am
#64
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Annoying, paranoid busybodies can ask for just about anything they wish, but that doesn't mean it is generally legally required.
Your suspicions are suspect to the extent of being patently false.
I am quite familiar with every element that you included in your above posts, so yet another validation of the same is welcome nonetheless.
I am quite familiar with every element that you included in your above posts, so yet another validation of the same is welcome nonetheless.
Last edited by GUWonder; Aug 10, 2012 at 1:25 am
Aug 10, 2012, 4:06 pm
#65
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
So, to cut through the sophistry here, there is no FAR which says, specifically, that every baby needs a birth certificate. But there also is no FAR that specifically says "You may not point the nose of your MD-80 down to achieve an alpha which results in mach tuck." But I want to see someone do that and try to escape liability because no reg said you couldn't do it.