AirTalk.org

Marty Ross · Guest

I've never seen the/a definitive answer to this question:

Are there any negative legal ramifications of using IFR plates obtained
from, for instance, the AOPA website, so long as the plate is current
(they're now printing the date range of the plate's validity in the
margins), printed properly/legibly and in good condition?

I.e. - When I see these plates linked to from the "AIRNAV" website for an
airport, for instance, it says the following:

NOT FOR NAVIGATION. Please procure official charts for flight.
FAA instrument procedures published for use between 22 December 2005 at
0901Z and 19 January 2006 at 0900Z.

While these two statements almost seem to be contradictory, it's clearly
implied that one should NOT use such "home-printed" plates in the cockpit.

Any FSDO's out there care to comment? Other opinions?

Curious,

-- Marty

Scott Draper · Guest

< plates in the cockpit.>>

Given that there's no FAR requirement to use instrument plates at all
(current or not) for Part 91 ops, I see no legal ramifications at
all. Also, NACO itself publishes them on the web, which is implicit
endorsement for the use of home-printed charts.

The "not for navigation" appears to be CYA.

Mark Hansen · Guest

On 1/1/2006 10:11 AM, Marty Ross wrote:

Jim Macklin · Guest

Not For Navigation would be on a file that is not updated on
the schedule. If the chart date is current, it doesn't
matter who or where it was printed.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Scott Draper" <nospamforme (AT) spamless (DOT) com> wrote

Scott Draper · Guest

<< If the chart date is current, it doesn't matter who or where it
was printed.>>

Except that it doesn't matter anyway, legally, since I don't have to
use current charts or any charts at all. But if they supply an
outdated chart and I crash, my widow might have grounds to sue them.

Stubby · Guest

Scott Draper wrote:

Scott Draper · Guest

< logic has prevailed?>>

You can't prove a negative, but there exists an explicit requirement
for such in Large and Turbine powered airplanes, to wit:

=========<snip>===========
§ 91.503 Flying equipment and operating information.
(a) The pilot in command of an airplane shall ensure that the
following flying equipment and aeronautical charts and data, in
current and appropriate form, are accessible for each flight at the
pilot station of the airplane:
(1) A flashlight having at least two size D cells, or the equivalent,
that is in good working order.
(2) A cockpit checklist containing the procedures required by
paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) Pertinent aeronautical charts.
(4) For IFR, VFR over-the-top, or night operations, each pertinent
navigational enroute, terminal area, and approach and letdown chart.
=========<snip>===========

The lack of such an explicit requirement is suggestive. What isn't
forbidden is permitted. Wink

If you screwed up while not carrying
charts, then you might get a "Careless or reckless" charge, but that'd
be the only reg to hang you on.

Tim@Backhome.com · Guest

Scott Draper wrote:

Tim@Backhome.com · Guest

Scott Draper wrote:

Jim Carter · Guest

Tim,
I don't think Scott was disagreeing with you -- the question is
what are "appropriate charts", as you wrote. Has anyone any reference to
a regulation or bulletin that directs the approach or departure plates
have to be printed by a specific and approved organization?

Tim@Backhome.com · Guest

Jim Carter wrote:

Jose · Guest

From somewhere I recall that it is a (part 91?) requirement to have the
textual description of the procedure in the cockpit. I can't find it
though.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Scott Draper · Guest

<

It is apparently the misconception of the FAA, as well:

============<snip>============

To whom it may concern:

In the interest of aviation safety and to ensure continuity and even
application of the law, the holder of this statement is presenting
this information to you in the spirit in which it was intended.

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation part 91 does not require that a
general aviation pilot operating a small aircraft carry any charts on
board his/her aircraft while it is being operated. Not VFR in VMC nor
IFR (in either VMC or IMC).

The only requirements in the regulations that pertains to charts are:

Title 14 CFR section 91.503 (Large and Turbojet powered aircraft)
Title 14 CFR section 135.83 (Air Carriers-Little Airplane)
Title 14 CFR section 121.549 (Air Carrier-Big Airplanes)

The FAA has rendered interpretations that have stated the foregoing.
The subject of current charts was thoroughly covered in an article in
the FAA's July/August 1997 issue of FAA Aviation News. That article
was cleared through the FAA's Chief Counsel's office. In that article
the FAA stated the following:

1. "You can carry old charts in your aircraft" "It is not FAA policy
to violate anyone for having outdated charts in the aircraft"

2. "Not all pilots are required to carry a chart" "91.503..requires
the pilot in command of large and multiengine airplanes to have
charts". "Other operating sections of the FAR such as Part 121 and
Part 135 operations have similar requirements".

3. "since some pilots thought they could be violated for having
outdated or no charts on board during a flight, we need to clarify an
important issue. As we have said, it is NOT FAA policy to initiate
enforcement action against a pilot for having an old chart on board or
no chart on board". That's because there is no regulation on the
issue.

4. "the issue of current chart data bases in handheld GPS receivers is
a non-issue because the units are neither approved by the FAA or
required for flight." "Nor do panel-mounted VFR-only GPS receivers
have to have a current data base because, like handheld GPS receivers,
the pilot is responsible for pilotage under VFR
..
5. "If a pilot is involved in an enforcement investigation and there
is evidence that the use of an out-of-date chart, no chart, or an
out-of-date database contributed to the condition that brought on the
enforcement investigation, then that information could be used in any
enforcement action that might be taken"

If you, as an FAA Safety Inspector, Designated Pilot Examiner, Flight
Instructor, or other aviation professional are telling pilots
something other than the foregoing then you are incorrect.

Sincerely,
Rick Cremer
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Operations and Airworthiness)
FAA Headquarters, AFS-20
Airline Transport Pilot, DC-9
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
A&P Mechanic
Aircraft Dispatcher
Air Traffic Controller

============<snip>============

RK Henry · Guest

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:11:24 GMT, "Marty Ross" <noodnik2 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

Scott Draper · Guest

<

What you're remembering is a textual description of a SID or STAR
before you accept it, but that's changed to a graphic.