Is it illegal to fly without a current afd and sectional?

G

Giannid

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
26
Display Name
Display name:
Gianni
The ones I had in the plane with me when I was flying with my old instructor were out dated. Actually only the afd was. The sectional I had was current. He told me it was not legal to fly without these. New instructor says its not the case. I do have current ones in my plane now. I just cant find anywhere in the FAR that states this. Who is right?
 
Your new instructor is correct.

There is no requirement in the FARs to have current charts in the airplane for VFR flight.

HOWEVER, if you come to grief and having the current charts and A/FD would have prevented it, you can be sure the FAA will add violations of 91.3 (Careless and Reckless) and 91.103 (preflight action) to the list.
 
Giannid said:
The ones I had in the plane with me when I was flying with my old instructor were out dated. Actually only the afd was. The sectional I had was current. He told me it was not legal to fly without these. New instructor says its not the case. I do have current ones in my plane now. I just cant find anywhere in the FAR that states this. Who is right?
Click to expand...

The FAA has a FAQ on this you and your old instructor should read:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/faq/#q2f

Basically if you are flying under Part 91, you are not required to use current charts.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Basically if you are flying under Part 91, you are not required to use current charts.
Click to expand...


But, like Tim said, don't get in trouble that could have been prevented by having current charts:

>>
"If a pilot is involved in an enforcement investigation and there is evidence that the use of an out-of-date chart, no chart, or an out-of-date database contributed to the condition that brought on the enforcement investigation, then that information could be used in any enforcement action that might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."
<<

You are responsible for getting *all* available information:
>>
FAR 91.103 Preflight action.
Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
<<
 
Consider this a case of where it shouldn't take a Federal regulation to get you to do the smart/safe thing by carrying current flight publications.
 
Why do I have the sinking feeling that if your engine takes a dump over a forest at night, the FAA will say having a current chart could have prevented the outcome?
 
Because you might be a little paranoid?

OTOH, if you crashed in the woods, injuring your passenger and a newer sectional showed the small airfield with PCL you passed right over on the way to the crash site because you didn't know it was there...
 
Ron Levy said:
Consider this a case of where it shouldn't take a Federal regulation to get you to do the smart/safe thing by carrying current flight publications.
Click to expand...

I think there is still room for some common sense on this - if all you do is pattern work at your home airport, then there really is no point in buying a new sectional and AFD every few months. Kind of like paying Garmin to update your VFR GPS every 28 days.
 
One possible alternative would be to update it every couple of months when they publish the changes to the charts...

Of course, in my case, I'm happy when they publish the new one, because my current sectional is already falling apart from use with students.
GPS? We don't need no stinking GPS...

Ryan
 
TMetzinger said:
Your new instructor is correct.

There is no requirement in the FARs to have current charts in the airplane for VFR flight.

HOWEVER, if you come to grief and having the current charts and A/FD would have prevented it, you can be sure the FAA will add violations of 91.3 (Careless and Reckless) and 91.103 (preflight action) to the list.
Click to expand...


I think what you intended was 91.13 (Careless and Reckless), however I can't see how not having up to date charts could invoke that regulation.

I've copied the following to give anyone that's interested an idea of what must happen to actually be violated.

From Order 2150.3B

Chapter 4. Investigation of Violations

8. Principles for Applying Investigative Findings to Regulations Believed Violated.

b. Elements of Regulations. Regulations consist of multiple elements. To prove a
violation of a regulation, there must be evidence to prove each of the individual elements. This
makes the ability to identify the individual elements of a regulation a critical investigative skill.
Appendix E contains an example of how FAA enforcement personnel establish a violation by
proving each element of a regulation.

Appendix E. Examples

1. Elements of Regulations. A frequently-cited regulation is 14 C.F.R. § 91.13, Careless or
Reckless Operation. This seemingly simple regulation has numerous elements. The actual
wording is:
CARELESS OR RECKLESS OPERATION
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may
operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an
airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or
discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or
property of another.
a. Subparagraphs of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13. The regulation has two subparagraphs.

Subparagraph (a) covers "Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation". Subparagraph
(b) covers "Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation". Because the two
subparagraphs cover two different conditions, i.e., for the purpose of air navigation vs. other than
for the purpose of air navigation, there must be an item of proof (IOP) that provides evidence to
identify one or the other as appropriate. If evidence shows that an aircraft was being taxied from
the hanger to the line, subparagraph (b) would be appropriate. But if evidence shows an aircraft
to have been on a take-off roll, then subparagraph (a) would be appropriate. There must be
evidence to support the choice. Assume, for example, that the operation was for the purpose of
air navigation and sub-paragraph (a) applies. The elements that must be included as an IOP are:
(1)A person.
(2)Operate (for purpose of air navigation).
(3)An aircraft.
(4)Careless or reckless.
(5)Endangerment.
(6)Life or property of another.
b. First Element. The first element is identifying the person, putting them in the aircraft,
and proving that this person was an operator of the aircraft. Identifying the person and showing
his or her operation of the aircraft may be done through witness statements, a response to the
letter of investigation, documents such as logbooks, or training records, or Air Traffic reports.
The form of the evidence can vary, but who the person is must be documented. For certificated
airman, such as pilots and mechanics, ISIS data on qualifications will be an additional IOP.
c. Second Element. The second element to prove is that the aircraft was being operated for
purposes of air navigation. For an aircraft that is airborne, or taxiing in from a flight, this is

easy. For an aircraft that is on the ramp, or a taxiway, you will need some evidence to establish
whether subparagraph (a) or (b) is the appropriate choice.
d. Third Element. The third element to prove is that an aircraft was involved. A
definition of aircraft is found in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1, General Definitions. Aircraft means a device
that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air. The specific form of the evidence can
vary, but a specific aircraft must be identified through IOPs. A supporting IOP will be a copy of
aircraft registration data from the Integrated Safety Information System (ISIS). [Note:
Ultralights are not aircraft, they are vehicles, with their own definition under 14 CFR part 103.]
e. Fourth Element. The fourth element is selecting between careless or reckless and
providing evidence to support the decision. Careless indicates a lack of care, an act a reasonably
prudent person would not commit if mindful of the potential consequences. Reckless can be
alleged when there is evidence that a person intended to do what they did. It is not necessary to
prove, or even allege, that they knew that their action was a violation of any regulation. For
either choice, the careless/reckless element must be supported by evidence in one or more IOPs.
(1) Example of reckless IOP. For example, during the investigation of a gear-up landing
incident, the evidence may include a statement from the aircraft owner who had personally
advised the pilot the gear system was inoperative or a statement from a passenger who was told
by the pilot that the normal gear system was inoperative. This evidence may indicate that a
charge of reckless is appropriate.
(2) Example of careless IOP. On the other hand, the evidence may include a picture of
the aircraft on the runway with the gear-handle up, a statement from a mechanic saying the gear
operated normally when tested, or a statement from the pilot saying he was preoccupied with
other traffic. This evidence may indicate that a charge of careless is appropriate.
(3) Evidence indicating no violation. If the evidence included a mechanic’s statement
and repair order stating that the gear malfunctioned because of a broken part, then there may be
no violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13.
f. Fifth Element. The fifth element in this regulation is endanger. An IOP in a gear-up
landing might consist of evidence documenting the aircraft damage that endangered the property
of another. It is not necessary to show actual endangerment, evidence of potential endangerment
is sufficient. Appropriate evidence in a low flying case might include pictures of a school
playground that was flown over, statements from teachers describing children in the playground
at the time, and the altitude of the aircraft relative to terrain features. Potential endangerment can
often be best explained in the section B analysis.
g. Sixth Element. The sixth and final element in this example requires evidence that the
endangerment was to the life or property of another. If the above gear-up landing example is in
a rented aircraft, the evidence to prove this element could be an ISIS report showing that the
owner is another. Evidence of a passenger in the aircraft would also support this element, as the
passenger is another. If an aircraft flown solo was entirely owned by the violator, and if there is
no nearby property or persons to be endangered, there very well may be no violation.

2. Summary. To summarize, all enforceable regulations include some number of elements and
evidence to support each of the elements must be included in an EIR to support a violation.
 
My CFI had a way of pounding the need for an A/FD into students. It went like this:

"OK - next flight you need to flight plan from KABC to KXYZ and back. Oh, yeah, we'll might divert to K123 somewhere along the way."

Student shows up for the next flight, flies from ABC to XYZ. Stops for food and fuel. Along the way back, at night, CFI says - "OK. Divert to K123."

Student does just fine, navigates to K123 and then tries to turn on the pilot controlled lights. Airport stays dark, CFI doesn't say anything, and student knows he screwed up. Had the student really paid attention when he flight planned, he would have noticed in the fine print of the A/FD that the PCL frequency at that airport is different from CTAF. Now, student has to rummage through flight bag to find A/FD and get proper frequency.

Student doesn't make same mistake twice.
 
Although I am still just a student, I did go to the minor additional expense of using Sporty's subscription services so I would automatically get the latest local sectionals and A/FD. So far the updates have arrived in the mail on the dates the old ones expired - not bad service.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Although I am still just a student, I did go to the minor additional expense of using Sporty's subscription services so I would automatically get the latest local sectionals and A/FD. So far the updates have arrived in the mail on the dates the old ones expired - not bad service.
Click to expand...

I used them also. Great service. :thumbsup:
 
One of my IR stus went to try another CFI at my suggestion (plateaued). He came back having not flow with the new guy. "He didn't even have FFR charts".

The guy passed his ride a few years ago and when we go somewhere he says, "Would I EVER not have charts?"
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I used them also. Great service. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Yup - and I must say that charts are such a tiny portion of aviating expenses that the only reason not to have the latest is the hassle involved in keeping them current. For some odd reason I agonized over whether to get the subscriptions - then realized I probably spend as much on EAA, AOPA, and SSA memberships per year (oh, and a subscription to Kitplanes magazine.) None of those expenses help me in flight!
 
I believe it is safe and legal to comply with 91.103 any way you can, as long as you do comply, and the requirement to carry the current charts is not what the rule says.

The way the rule is written, allows the pilot to use their I-phone, GPS or any other method and be legal.

Legal, yes, Smart, Maybe.:)
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I think what you intended was 91.13 (Careless and Reckless), however I can't see how not having up to date charts could invoke that regulation.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the case precedents for 91.13? And the fact that they get to retroactively interpret the regulation however they want?
I think they would have no problems making 91.13 stick. They've stretched other regulations a lot further to 'get' someone.
 
You need the information - How you get it is up to you. A/FD style data is available from numerous sources. As for the sectional - Well, if I'm going VFR to Watertown for example, I don't need one - I know this area well! But whether it's a real sectional or one of those new Jepp VFR charts or a printout from fltplan.com or whoever, or ForeFlight on the iPad (my personal favorite) - It's all just different ways of getting the information you need. Same with getting your approach plates in a book from NACO, or printing them out from AOPA or one of the other numerous sources online, or buying Jepps, or using ForeFlight.
 
PilotAlan said:
Have you seen the case precedents for 91.13? And the fact that they get to retroactively interpret the regulation however they want?
I think they would have no problems making 91.13 stick. They've stretched other regulations a lot further to 'get' someone.
Click to expand...

Read the summary of what I posted : To summarize, all enforceable regulations include some number of elements and evidence to support each of the elements must be included in an EIR to support a violation.

What I was pointing out is 91.13 is an overused regulation when pertaining to enforcement. And for any regulation to be used the Inspector must include evidence (IOP: Item of Proof) to support each one of the elements of the cited regulation.
 
Flew with a guy once on a cross-country to a pretty big airport (day VFR) - took off, and he assigned me a heading. After a while, I asked for the chart so I could familiarize myself with the area, and he said "Don't have any."

But he knew every frequency (COM, VOR, LOC), every runway, every detail I could think of for the entire flight.

I'd rather fly with someone like that, no charts, than a clueless numb-nuts fumbling with charts and books all the time (oops, just described myself!).
 
Thinking about it, I am wondering if us pilots have the right to due process with a trial by a jury of our peers (peers being other pilots) before any enforcement action?
 
SCCutler said:
Flew with a guy once on a cross-country to a pretty big airport (day VFR) - took off, and he assigned me a heading. After a while, I asked for the chart so I could familiarize myself with the area, and he said "Don't have any."

But he knew every frequency (COM, VOR, LOC), every runway, every detail I could think of for the entire flight.

I'd rather fly with someone like that, no charts, than a clueless numb-nuts fumbling with charts and books all the time (oops, just described myself!).
Click to expand...

Remember the good old days when gas stations gave away free road maps? Way back I've seen many of these in cockpits. :D
 
skidoo said:
Thinking about it, I am wondering if us pilots have the right to due process with a trial by a jury of our peers (peers being other pilots) before any enforcement action?
Click to expand...

Nope. Flying is a privilege, remember ;)

But you do have the right to appeal a certificate action to a ALJ working for a theoretically-independent third agency (NTSB) with addl steps beyond that.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Nope. Flying is a privilege, remember ;)

But you do have the right to appeal a certificate action to a ALJ working for a theoretically-independent third agency (NTSB) with addl steps beyond that.
Click to expand...


So is Driving...

So, if you are accused of "Careless and Reckless Operation", because you are flying, you are presumed "guilty" without due process available, but if you are accused of "Careless Driving", you have the right to due process. What is the difference, both are "privileges".
 
skidoo said:
So is Driving...

So, if you are accused of "Careless and Reckless Operation", because you are flying, you are presumed "guilty" without due process available, but if you are accused of "Careless Driving", you have the right to due process. What is the difference, both are "privileges".
Click to expand...

You have the right to due process in a certificate action too. It doesn't involve a presumption of innocence nor a jury of your peers.

Neither does your scenario require a jury, in most states.
 
Giannid said:
The ones I had in the plane with me when I was flying with my old instructor were out dated. Actually only the afd was. The sectional I had was current. He told me it was not legal to fly without these. New instructor says its not the case. I do have current ones in my plane now. I just cant find anywhere in the FAR that states this. Who is right?
Click to expand...

iPad + Foreflight for the win! :cornut: :thumbsup:

As long as I remember to update it at cycle change-over, and the thing is in the cockpit with me, I'm never without current charts. :D
 
skidoo said:
So is Driving...

So, if you are accused of "Careless and Reckless Operation", because you are flying, you are presumed "guilty" without due process available, but if you are accused of "Careless Driving", you have the right to due process. What is the difference, both are "privileges".
Click to expand...
Careless driving in many states is a misdemeanor - a criminal offense that requires the right to a jury trial. If, however, your state, classifies it as an administrative violation with purely administrative sanctions, it can set up an purely administrative procedure that involves no courts at all.

It's not privilege v. non-privilege. It's the form of enforcement process and they types of penalties that can be imposed.

And you're not "presumed guilty" (although the phrase doesn't really apply since it's not criminal). Just that the burden of proving the violation is smaller (the civil more likely than not vs. the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt).
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Careless driving in many states is a misdemeanor - a criminal offense that requires the right to a jury trial. If, however, your state, classifies it as an administrative violation with purely administrative sanctions, it can set up an purely administrative procedure that involves no courts at all.

It's not privilege v. non-privilege. It's the form of enforcement process and they types of penalties that can be imposed.

And you're not "presumed guilty" (although the phrase doesn't really apply since it's not criminal). Just that the burden of proving the violation is smaller (the civil more likely than not vs. the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt).
Click to expand...

Actually, you have no right to a jury trial in many states and in the federal system for misdemeanors either, if the possible sentence is less than six months imprisonment and the possible fine is not extraordinarily large.

The Sixth Amendment requirement for a jury has always been held to apply only to crimes greater than a "petty offense" - which has been more clearly defined in the second half of the 20th century by the SCOTUS.

And the Seventh Amendment only applies to civil law as it existed at the time; new theories of law that have come into existence since that time (such as administrative law surrounding federal regulation) do not fall within its protections. Of course it's more complicated than that, but generally true.

And in an administrative law action, though there is no presumption of "guilt" there are certainly presumptions of facts and law that work for the agency and against the respondent.
 
skidoo said:
So is Driving...

So, if you are accused of "Careless and Reckless Operation", because you are flying, you are presumed "guilty" without due process available, but if you are accused of "Careless Driving", you have the right to due process. What is the difference, both are "privileges".
Click to expand...

Do you really believe the traffic cop thinks you are innocent when he writes the ticket? ever go to traffic court and try to prove different?
 
steingar said:
Why do I have the sinking feeling that if your engine takes a dump over a forest at night, the FAA will say having a current chart could have prevented the outcome?
Click to expand...


I'll wait as the experts locate the NTSB report and subsequent FAA action.

:rolleyes2:


(It will be a long wait)
 
midlifeflyer said:
Here's how

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/4449.pdf

It's not the lack of charts that's the violation. It's the other violation caused by the lack of charts (which I think is what he was referring to)
Click to expand...

Now we are discussing the difference between "no" charts and out of date charts.

In the case you cited it appears the 91.13 was in support of the 91.131(a)(1) violation which a good case could be made it meets all the elements of the regulation (91.13). However I do not believe the 91.13 was made due to lack of charts.

Without having read the EIR and not identifying the IOP's listed therein, it's pure speculation.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Now we are discussing the difference between "no" charts and out of date charts.

In the case you cited it appears the 91.13 was in support of the 91.131(a)(1) violation which a good case could be made it meets all the elements of the regulation (91.13). However I do not believe the 91.13 was made due to lack of charts.

Without having read the EIR and not identifying the IOP's listed therein, it's pure speculation.
Click to expand...

I don't think so -- it isn't the lack or date of charts, but the pilot's airspace transgression that's at the center of this case.

So the case cited doesn't answer the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top