Is a live briefing still necessary with FF graphical briefing?

nj-pilot

nj-pilot

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Messages
243
Location
Maine
Display Name
Display name:
josh_me
Just read that FF added Graphical Briefing - which, among other things, records that you received a briefing. I've always made it a habit to call for a live briefing (800-wx-brief) prior to any flight, if for no other reason than to document that I did so - thus ensuring that there's a chain of accountability for knowing about NOTAMs, TFRs, etc..

Does this mean that ForeFlight has now accepted the risk that follows if I blow a TFR or land on a closed runway because they failed to alert me to such points?

Before you jump on me to read the fine print more closely and that these things don't really matter in a true legal situation, have a look at their statement from the above link:
"In addition, Graphical Briefings are timestamped and stored on your iPad and iPhone, and in the ForeFlight cloud, to record that you obtained weather and pertinent NOTAMs in compliant manner with 14 CFR 91.103(a) preflight action."
 
Nobody "accepts" the risk other than the pilot for busting airspace. You can argue that you did the appropriate planning if you do make a timely and appropriate briefing with FSS, DUAT, or one of the other QICPs.
 
I've always used fltplan QICP, and as above, they take zero responsibility, as you know in aviation anything that happens 9.9 times out of 10 is the PICs fault, all these site do is make a record that you check the wx at XX time on XX day.
 
Wxbrief.com for me. Wish I could remember who on PoA brought it up about a year or so ago to give him credit but that's what I've used ever since. All the info u need and an official source.
 
There is no such thing as a "legal" or an "official" weather briefing. The real question is whether you can prove to the administrator's satisfaction that you made yourself familiar with all available information pertinent to your flight.
 
bradg33 said:
There is no such thing as a "legal" or an "official" weather briefing. The real question is whether you can prove to the administrator's satisfaction that you made yourself familiar with all available information pertinent to your flight.
Click to expand...

That. Means someone has to write down your tail number and verify that you got a briefing.
 
After taking two weather classes, one with Scott D. I've learned to do a very thorough briefing. I've called flight services 2 times since then and they just do not seem to be as proficient with the information I asked them and I do not call them anymore.

Now could I prove that I did my own briefing? Probably not. I file with Foreflight and that sends me a briefing but how I understand it it's not "legal"

I suppose a workaround (if one really existed) is to do your own briefing (assuming you know how to) and then call and get an abbreviated. Then you would be on record.

But if the federal government, including the FAA wants you, they'll always find a way.
 
nj-pilot said:
Does this mean that ForeFlight has now accepted the risk that follows if I blow a TFR or land on a closed runway because they failed to alert me to such points?
Click to expand...
You fail to get a briefing satisfactory to the FAA and do the above - it's on you.
You get a briefing satisfactory to the FAA and it show's TFR / runway and you do the above - it's on you.
You get a briefing satisfactory to the FAA and it does not show the TFR / runway and you do the above - you get to argue that either the briefing was in error (if the TFR / closing pre-dates your briefing), or it was announced after your briefing, but you got a timely briefing so it's not your fault, or whatever excuse you can come up with and improve the odds that no penalty will be applied on you.
 
I think it holds the same reg weight as a live briefing, however sometimes a live briefing is light years better.

Because of that I only allow my students to get live briefings until several cross-countries are under their belt. I've often cancelled flights just based on the tone of voice from the briefer. I had one guy save my bacon because of the way he explained the situation.

I sometimes wish airlines would have us briefed in person instead of a teletype brick that gets thrown into the trash.
 
Last edited:
I've also had live briefers omit essential notams that I caught with the computerized briefing; nothing is fool poof.

If you need a briefer to tell you VFR is not recommended, you probably need to revisit your training.
 
Briefers are pretty useless for anything other than writing down your tail number.
 
EminiTrader said:
Now could I prove that I did my own briefing? Probably not. I file with Foreflight and that sends me a briefing but how I understand it it's not "legal"
Click to expand...
How is it not "legal"?

When first got FF, I entered my CSC Duats account info - every time I get a weather brief/file a flight plan...etc, FF uses my CSC Duats login to obtain the brief/file the flight plan. The briefing contains all the exact same info that I get when I obtain it independent through CSC Duats and has all the info that you would get by calling for a weather briefing.

There is most definitely a record that you obtained the required info.

I am not sure why people think they need to call a person at LockMart to be fully legal?
 
Fearless Tower said:
I am not sure why people think they need to call a person at LockMart to be fully legal?
Click to expand...

Ive had two different instructors tell me this in the last year....i imagine this was a trueism a few years ago, but it sounds like not so much anymore
 
flyingron said:
I've also had live briefers omit essential notams that I caught with the computerized briefing; nothing is fool poof.

If you need a briefer to tell you VFR is not recommended, you probably need to revisit your training.
Click to expand...

Agree there ... but most of my recent long XC flights that were supposed to be CAVU and calm winds were anything but ... my last outbound (solo) called for moderate and worse TB along my route ... trip was glass smooth (DUAT and briefer). Two trips prior supposed to be CAVU El Paso-Austin ... it was at my altitude, except there was fog surface to 2500 MSL below me from Llano to Pecos from Mexico to Amarillo (most of Texas).
 
nj-pilot said:
Ive had two different instructors tell me this in the last year....i imagine this was a trueism a few years ago, but it sounds like not so much anymore
Click to expand...
There are still CFI's telling people they need to actually call to obtain a 'legal' briefing? That is just nuts and the subject was even addressed in the various aviation magazines over a decade ago.

It is one thing if a CFI wants to have the student call a briefer to have the experience and understand that it is an option to obtain a weather brief/file flight plan (like ARFlyer posted above), but to put out false info.....well, I suppose it is like the Transponder Mode C on the ground thing.....some folks just have a hard time keeping current.
 
steingar said:
Briefers are pretty useless for anything other than writing down your tail number.
Click to expand...
Mostly, but not entirely. The one thing you get with a briefer is the ability to interact/ask questions, which can be useful in some cases when you aren't sure what the forecast is doing, especially when you are a beginning pilot. A briefer can give you a lot more than 'VFR not recommended'.

With all of the weather tools available these days, I admit that I haven't called a briefer in a few years, but I do think there is value in having a student get the experience of dealing with a briefer.
 
Fearless Tower said:
A briefer can give you a lot more than 'VFR not recommended'.

With all of the weather tools available these days, I admit that I haven't called a briefer in a few years, but I do think there is value in having a student get the experience of dealing with a briefer.
Click to expand...
That was especially true in the days when you could walk into a local FSS and talk to the briefer face-to-face. You could actually talk to someone with first-hand familiarity with the local weather patterns (he lived in the neighborhood and could look out a window), as opposed to a "rip-n-read" guy three states away.

Sometimes the look in the briefer's eye meant more to your "go/no-go" decision than anything on the thermofaxed prog charts or teletyped sequence reports.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Mostly, but not entirely. The one thing you get with a briefer is the ability to interact/ask questions, which can be useful in some cases when you aren't sure what the forecast is doing, especially when you are a beginning pilot. A briefer can give you a lot more than 'VFR not recommended'.

With all of the weather tools available these days, I admit that I haven't called a briefer in a few years, but I do think there is value in having a student get the experience of dealing with a briefer.
Click to expand...

I've more or less given up on calling Lockheed. In the past, when run by the FAA, I found the briefers to be helpful and informative, frequently helping me find a route that fit my weather comfort. Anymore, every briefer I get refuses to engage in any kind of discussion about trends, etc. They just read me that basic data and refuse to help with any real interpretation/flight planning. Now I do my own briefings, and the Foreflight email briefing is more than enough proof that I got a "briefing."

Also, to be clear, there is absolutely no requirement that you have any "record" that you got a briefing. A record simply makes it easier to prove to the FAA that you made yourself familiar with all available/pertinent information. If you can, upon being asked, give a detailed account of how you got your "briefing," you should, in theory, be perfectly fine. Simply saying "I checked online" isn't going to cut it, but if your memory is such that you can say "At approx. xx:xx, I went to X website, checked X data, went to y website, checked y data, checked TFRs here, went to Z website for notams, etc., that's another matter entirely. It's really all about being able to prove to someone's satisfaction that you complied with the regs; that can be done using something other than a "record" that you got a briefing from Foreflight, LockMart, etc.
 
https://support.foreflight.com/hc/en-us/articles/204038815-What-is-the-legality-of-the-weather-briefing-for-FAR-Part-91-operations- said:
What is the legality of the weather briefing for FAR Part 91 operations?
There is ongoing confusion many pilots have about weather briefings. There is not, in fact, such a thing as a "legal weather briefing."
The FARs only require that pilots obtain "all available information" (FAR 91.103). ForeFlight delivers weather, NOTAMs, etc. that help a pilot meet this requirement - especially when obtaining a briefing from the file/brief system.
ForeFlight's weather comes from the National Weather Service / NOAA, which is an approved source of FAA weather.
What pilots typically are concerned about when they discuss a "legal weather briefing" is whether or not they will have some proof or record of their briefing. This is important so that in the event of an incident, they can prove they met the requirements under 91.103. We do keep a record of the briefing you get for 120 days, provided you tap the "Brief" button. If you simply look at METARs and TAFs in the app, such as on the Airports page, we don't keep a record of that. ICAO flight plan briefings are kept by Lockheed Martin Flight Services.
Also, if you are wondering about Qualified Internet Communications Providers (QICP), the Advisory Circular (AC) 00-62, Internet Communications of Aviation Weather and NOTAMs was canceled effective August 15,2013. FAA Flight Standards Service (AFS) no longer requires operators to utilize vendors that are approved QICP.
ForeFlight repackages aviation weather data from various sources including the National Weather Service and Weather Decision Technologies. Our servers continue to meet the previously defined performance criteria established under the QICP program. For more information, please see this BLOG POST.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that things changed in Aug 2013 regarding QICP.
 
FAA thinks you pranged 'cause you didn't get a weather briefing? Nahhh. . .while they are arroogant, bureacratic bullies, somewhere in the conversation you'll be asked if you checked the weather. And if your response is a convincing affirmative on that score, they'll just move on to another reg to hang you with, assuming they want you nailed. . .

If a service you've used records that you briefed, or someone saw you do so on the FBO computer, or you just recall some of the brief details, they won't hang their hat on such a flimsy premise. Especially if you have deep pockets and an embarrasing lawyer. You'll go under the bus for any of a 100 other obscurities.
 
I tell my students about DUATS and 1800WXBRIEF. I have them choose which one they want to use. Doesn't really matter to me.
 
I have got pretty good briefings from lockmart and for longer trips, that's what I do. It is nice to be able to ask for additional detail. For shorter trips I use Foreflight. I find that for longer trips, Foreflight is information overload and it has been hard to distill down what I need. I have not tried the graphical briefing yet, so that could address that.
 
Fearless Tower said:
How is it not "legal"?

When first got FF, I entered my CSC Duats account info - every time I get a weather brief/file a flight plan...etc, FF uses my CSC Duats login to obtain the brief/file the flight plan. The briefing contains all the exact same info that I get when I obtain it independent through CSC Duats and has all the info that you would get by calling for a weather briefing.

There is most definitely a record that you obtained the required info.

I am not sure why people think they need to call a person at LockMart to be fully legal?
Click to expand...

Even better knowing I'm doing it legally!
 
As PIC if 'anything' goes wrong you are responsible - period.
Ya, ya, ya it's nice that you can show that you did due diligence and checked weather and notams because that is just one less charge listed on the indictment.
But even if the briefer/computer swore up and down it was CAVU all day and you flew into the mother of all hurricanes you are responsible for not seeing that the weather was not as predicted and putting your bird back on the ground promptly.
Even the History page on your computer showing you hooked up to any website showing av weather and notams will prove due diligence. But nothing lessens your responsibility.
 
Dr. O said:
As PIC if 'anything' goes wrong you are responsible - period.
Ya, ya, ya it's nice that you can show that you did due diligence and checked weather and notams because that is just one less charge listed on the indictment.
But even if the briefer/computer swore up and down it was CAVU all day and you flew into the mother of all hurricanes you are responsible for not seeing that the weather was not as predicted and putting your bird back on the ground promptly.
Even the History page on your computer showing you hooked up to any website showing av weather and notams will prove due diligence. But nothing lessens your responsibility.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If it's CAVU and you run into unexpected weather there's not much you can do about it. But it you didn't get a briefing and run right into a thunderstorm which would have been in the briefing, the FAA isn't really going to like that.
 
wayne said:
I love it when they tell me that when I'm filing an IFR flight plan.
Click to expand...

It's like when ATC tells you to maintain VFR and there's not a cloud or other restriction to visability in any direction.
 
Dr. O said:
As PIC if 'anything' goes wrong you are responsible - period.
Ya, ya, ya it's nice that you can show that you did due diligence and checked weather and notams because that is just one less charge listed on the indictment.
But even if the briefer/computer swore up and down it was CAVU all day and you flew into the mother of all hurricanes you are responsible for not seeing that the weather was not as predicted and putting your bird back on the ground promptly.
Even the History page on your computer showing you hooked up to any website showing av weather and notams will prove due diligence. But nothing lessens your responsibility.
Click to expand...


Out here in the CA Central Valley, weather really doesn't change that fast. Most of the time I get a briefing, it is for NOTAMs and TFRs and for those, a provable and timely briefing has been shown to be of value. There have been some cases discussed on this very board about that topic.
 
WX Briefings from LM vary. Recent trip up to OK made me think about renting a car but that might have been too dangerous according to the LM briefer. Took off and proceeded by our planned route with rain and thunderstorms on either side. Called Flightwatch passing to the west of DFW and was advised to land immediately....I was at 6500 feet under an estimated 12000 foot overcast with about 50 mile vis and all showers to the east. My wife was asking me where the bad weather was and I said "right here" ???????

After the Scott Crossfield wx accident, briefers have had to be more cautious due to their leaving out a thunderstorm area report on that flight (at least to the best of my recollection).

ARflyer. I have worked for one airline that did face to face wx briefings and they were nice and trustworthy. Now we are bombarded with reams of notams for Outer Mongolia for a domestic flight that most never read...would take hours to figure out where all the places were only to find out they are on another continent. I have found some of the notams from FF contain European notams for a flight in Texas.

Call the dispatcher! Recent flight with snow on the runway and our performance data said we needed 1800 feet more to land than available. Went to the charts to confirm and called dispatch on the Satcom. Was told that the MU readings were 35-40 and two of our aircraft landed and reported "fair" braking. I asked what types and was told an Airbus and a 757...we diverted. With our new performance computer and using ICAO there is no such thing as fair braking. We were told that a pilot report outweighed a the official wx report....I kid you not. I asked which one would the FAA use at the hearing?
 
As I am still a low time pilot, most of my cross country flights are only 100-200nm. In CA, the weather is pretty easy to read, and as another has said, doesn't change that quickly.

I don't care for the live briefings. They speak too fast, and I always end up with rather unintelligible notes afterward. With FF or online sources, I have the luxury of studying the weather carefully and therefore understanding it fully. I've also noticed that the forecasts for aviation seem to be on the CYA side. Ninety percent of the time, the weather I encounter is far better than what was forecast.

If I am to become a competent, safe pilot, I need to be able to not only interpret weather data to make go/no-go decisions, but I also need to be able to read the weather that I see as I fly. I don't need a meteorologist, in a different state, who speed-reads a dozen of briefings per hour, to tell me whether or not my VFR flight is recommended. That's my job as PIC.

That said, if I do not understand the weather data I am reading, I will call a briefer in order to clear up my confusion. I have done just that on two occasions, and they have been quite helpful.
 
I still call occasionally when I am not near a computer. I miss the "old days" of walking into an FSS - I used to plan cross county stops to land where one was operational.

Electronic briefings have evolved to be better than listening to someone else read them to me. The briefers are usually pretty good, although I did have one warn me of "mountain obscuration" at my destination when I was going to Huron, SD. i think the highest mountain within a 20 miles might be 100' high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top