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

dmccormack said:
Then you do the same as I do and don't purchase a paper copy for every TPP you may fly over enroute.
Click to expand...
definitely not, but I don't go outside of florida often... Heck, I've been outside of florida (flying) only... I think 5 times.

Since I'm all the way in the south I rarely find myself going somewhere where my TPP doesn't reach, which is why I don't buy it for everywhere I go, because for example I go to North Carolina about 3 times a year. I ain't gonna buy it 3 times... I'll just print what I need.
 
elmetal said:
definitely not, but I don't go outside of florida often... Heck, I've been outside of florida (flying) only... I think 5 times.

Since I'm all the way in the south I rarely find myself going somewhere where my TPP doesn't reach, which is why I don't buy it for everywhere I go, because for example I go to North Carolina about 3 times a year. I ain't gonna buy it 3 times... I'll just print what I need.
Click to expand...

Well, when I fly from PA to GA or NC.... there are several TPP books.

I print out my destination and an alternate or two along with some intermediate alternate.

I subscribe to the PA-WV bound TPP since I'm flying here lots.
 
elmetal said:
The thing I don't get is: if you haven't been to an airport in 2 years, shouldn't you kinda check it out before you just blastoff? I mean for all you know the airport is closed... the runway destroyed, who knows....

Maybe it's just me
Click to expand...

Not just you. If you haven't been to an airport in 2 *days*, you'd better be able to say you had any NOTAMS...

Runways close, taxiways close, obstructions are erected, lights burn out on existing obstructions, etc etc etc.
 
denverpilot said:
... lights burn out on existing obstructions, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

I know it's part of the brief, but I think it's somewhat humorous to hear the list of "towers 5.7 NM northeast, 158' light OTS..."

If I'm 158' AGL 5.7 NM from the airport on an instrument approach, I've got other problems. I doubt I'll be thinking, "Oh yeah! there's a tower right about there I need to miss!"

But I know why it's briefed and that's fine.
 
dmccormack said:
I know it's part of the brief, but I think it's somewhat humorous to hear the list of "towers 5.7 NM northeast, 158' light OTS..."

If I'm 158' AGL 5.7 NM from the airport on an instrument approach, I've got other problems. I doubt I'll be thinking, "Oh yeah! there's a tower right about there I need to miss!"

But I know why it's briefed and that's fine.
Click to expand...
I always think the same thing if I have FSS on the phone and he asks if I want tower notams and I'm like look man, 100 feet agl more than a mile from the runway really doesn't matter to me, I ain't plotting these on the map, if something happens where I'm that low that far away, I won't be looking at a map or trying to remember towers...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
In that case, 91.13 is the least of your worries. :frown2:
Click to expand...
Point taken. However, a violation of 91.103 is sufficient for the FAA to tack on a 91.13 violation whether there is a clear endangerment of another person or not. See Administrator v. Money.

Respondent also argues that the section 91.13(a) finding must be reversed because there was no actual or potential endangerment, and that precedent supports dismissal of that charge. Respondent misconstrues case law. Administrator v. Pritchett, NTSB Order EA-3271 (1991) at fn. 17, and cases cited there, as well as many other more recent Board decisions, establish that a violation of an operational regulation is sufficient to support a finding of a "residual" or "derivative" carelessness violation.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
Two days, nothing. Granted, there were aggravating circumstances (and probably some history), but here's a case of a guy who was busted for not knowing about a NOTAM issued eight minutes before he took off.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4083.PDF
Click to expand...
THAT is total BS. Anybody with a reasonable brain and knows even the slightest bit of aviation knows that 8 minutes before he took off he was probably already engine running ready to go. If not he was at the VERY LEAST preflighting which does not include "check for last minute notams"

that sucks....
 
Ron Levy said:
Point taken. However, a violation of 91.103 is sufficient for the FAA to tack on a 91.13 violation whether there is a clear endangerment of another person or not. See Administrator v. Money.
Click to expand...

You cannot "tack on" another violation unless the Inspector can show each element of the regulation was in fact violated. The Regional Counsel will drop it from the EIR if each element does not contain a IOP.
 
elmetal said:
THAT is total BS. Anybody with a reasonable brain and knows even the slightest bit of aviation knows that 8 minutes before he took off he was probably already engine running ready to go. If not he was at the VERY LEAST preflighting which does not include "check for last minute notams"

that sucks....
Click to expand...

Not quite. According to the report, the NOTAM was issued 22 minutes before he took off but that's irrelevant because the guy hadn't checked NOTAMs since over 3 hours before his flight. This story reeks of some backstory history of malcontent between this guy and the airport. What's BS is that he got reported for what he did but it's hard to argue that lining up on a runway with a truck sitting on it while carrying a heavy load of spray and putting the hammer down was a responsible and safe thing to do - regardless of NOTAMs.

From reading this NTSB report the moral of the story is stay on good terms with your airport neighbors and it'll never come to "he said, she said" about buzz jobs or what passes for entrapment by the airport guys who knew they'd "get him" with what they were doing.
 
Perhaps for this reason, Mr. Wilson did not tell respondent
that he intended to park at the end of the runway, when he most
likely knew that respondent would soon take off since he was refueling
the aircraft at the time Wilson drove past him.
Click to expand...

It sounds like Mr Wilson finally got his nemesis.

I hate it when legal actions facilitate petty animosities.
 
PittsDriver said:
From reading this NTSB report the moral of the story is stay on good terms with your airport neighbors and it'll never come to "he said, she said" about buzz jobs or what passes for entrapment by the airport guys who knew they'd "get him" with what they were doing.
Click to expand...
agreed
 
Nowhere in the FAR does it require you to have up to date charts for vfr flights. However, remember the phrase "All available information" I know im not going to land anywhere without looking at an up to date AFD and Sectional for that area. Fly Safe not Sorry!
 
Rotor&Wing said:
You cannot "tack on" another violation unless the Inspector can show each element of the regulation was in fact violated. The Regional Counsel will drop it from the EIR if each element does not contain a IOP.
Click to expand...
You said, "I can't see how not having up to date charts could invoke that regulation." The cited case shows that it can happen and be sustained all the way to the NTSB.
 
elmetal said:
THAT is total BS. Anybody with a reasonable brain and knows even the slightest bit of aviation knows that 8 minutes before he took off he was probably already engine running ready to go. If not he was at the VERY LEAST preflighting which does not include "check for last minute notams"

that sucks....
Click to expand...
As I said, this was an extreme case, and if you read between the lines, you can see that Mr. Ferguson already had some history with the FSDO and this event gave them the legal grounds to nail him. However, it exists and provides precedent, so y'all make sure you don't launch without all the current data in one form or another.
 
Ron Levy said:
As I said, this was an extreme case, and if you read between the lines, you can see that Mr. Ferguson already had some history with the FSDO and this event gave them the legal grounds to nail him. However, it exists and provides precedent, so y'all make sure you don't launch without all the current data in one form or another.
Click to expand...

Sorry, all this case proves is that if someone is out to get you, be careful -- they probably will.
 
Ron Levy said:
Two days, nothing. Granted, there were aggravating circumstances (and probably some history), but here's a case of a guy who was busted for not knowing about a NOTAM issued eight minutes before he took off.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4083.PDF
Click to expand...

/7500

This brings up a question I'd like to know the answer to - For a discretionary (non-emergency) closing of a runway, is there a time delay requirement between issuing the NOTAM and actually closing it? Suppose a different case were I've been enroute to this same airport for, heck, 30 minutes (it was 22 minutes between the NOTAM and trucks on the runway) and I land there on a NOTAM'd closed runway - how would I know it was closed absent any big X's on the runway (which doesn't sound like were present in this case)?

It's not illegal to land or take off from a closed runway on a part 91 flight anyway and you'd only be guilty of reckless operation if you actually did something reckless (which this guy did IMO). Actually, let me rephrase that - you'd be guilty of reckless operation if any knucklehead that watched you thought you were reckless and reported you.

I'm actually curious about this for another reason. We issue NOTAMs for active aerobatic performance space over airports all the time. We usually get it done hours before we use it but I'd be interested to know if there's a specific requirement that keeps us out of the NTSB weeds if something bad happens?
 
PittsDriver said:
For a discretionary (non-emergency) closing of a runway, is there a time delay requirement between issuing the NOTAM and actually closing it?
Click to expand...
I know of no standard for that.

Suppose a different case were I've been enroute to this same airport for, heck, 30 minutes (it was 22 minutes between the NOTAM and trucks on the runway) and I land there on a NOTAM'd closed runway - how would I know it was closed absent any big X's on the runway (which doesn't sound like were present in this case)?
Click to expand...
Well, one might see the trucks and people on the runway, or one might be told by the FSS providing AAS/RAAS or by ATC or by someone on UNICOM.

I'm actually curious about this for another reason. We issue NOTAMs for active aerobatic performance space over airports all the time. We usually get it done hours before we use it but I'd be interested to know if there's a specific requirement that keeps us out of the NTSB weeds if something bad happens?
Click to expand...
Technically, unless it's SUA which is closed to outsiders, there's no direct violation for someone flying through an active aerobatic box. Of course, if a near-collision occurred, the pilot who didn't check NOTAMs and consequently unwittingly flew through the box thus creating the collision hazard might be written up for 91.111, 91.103, and 91.13. But that's not the same as a runway being closed.
 
"all available information" is the craziest thing of which I've ever heard. No one can have all the available information except Odin. The FAA has put in place a surrogate, you can fulfill the requirement if you get the information from one of their approved sources. But it is such a catch-all that if someone in the FAA gets it into their head that they want to bust you, they will be able to do so.
 
Ron Levy said:
Technically, unless it's SUA which is closed to outsiders, there's no direct violation for someone flying through an active aerobatic box. Of course, if a near-collision occurred, the pilot who didn't check NOTAMs and consequently unwittingly flew through the box thus creating the collision hazard might be written up for 91.111, 91.103, and 91.13. But that's not the same as a runway being closed.
Click to expand...

That's all my understanding as well but I've seen and heard of instances where an interloper ran through the box and was met by a ramp checker from the FSDO on the ramp. Those guys are frequently around at aerobatic events looking for something to do and by the time the interloper arrives, we've usually made pretty good friends with them. Just sayin' - be sure to check NOTAMs even if it's a 15 minute flight over the next county for a burger. Ya just never know.
 
Ron Levy said:
You said, "I can't see how not having up to date charts could invoke that regulation." The cited case shows that it can happen and be sustained all the way to the NTSB.
Click to expand...

The Ron Levy "twist it to make my point" is in action yet again. My post that you quote me on was in reference to out of date charts and the application of 91.13.

You post a case of an individual running out of fuel. So please show us a case where someone with out of date charts was violated on 91.13.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top