"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
snip What else can getcha? 91.103 might be a good start. Lessee, it
starts off with a catch-all that says you have to have "all available
information" regarding the flight, but it goes on to enumerate what the
author of this section finds important -- weather, fuel, alternates,
delays, and performance figures (takeoff and landing distances). Hmmm ...
nothing about notams or VFR charts that I can see.


Your post represents some of the often untaught subtleties of the FARs....
what they DON'T say is illegal.

Google FAA 91.103 and the first result is an AOPA legal article about a
fellow that hopped over to a local airport to refuel his Grumman in
preparation for transporting a heart transplant patient. A noble mission by
a cautious pilot who wanted to be prepared to transport the patient. But,
it was 9/11/01 and he didn't read the NOTAM that all airports were closed.
The FAA hit him with a 240 day suspension and he appealed to the NTSB.

From the article:
"The NTSB's interpretation of FAR 91.103, "Preflight action," one of the
violations charged in this case, is especially important for pilots to know.
This is the regulation that begins with the all-encompassing words, "Each
pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all
available information concerning that flight." Not very helpful. The rule is
better remembered for what follows, that is, a very specific listing of
information that a pilot must know before beginning a flight. None of the
specifics involve notams or security regulations. They are confined to such
things as applicable weather reports and forecasts and fuel requirements but
only for flights under IFR and flights not in the vicinity of an airport.
The regulation also requires familiarity with runway lengths, and the
takeoff and landing distance requirements for the airport and aircraft being
used - again, nothing specific about notams or security regulations.

So it becomes important for pilots to know that the NTSB interpreted the
very broad introductory language, "all available information," to include
notams. The board rejected the argument that in the circumstances (a short
flight, good weather, and familiar aircraft and airports) other pilots might
act similarly. In tough language the board said, "They would do so at their
own risk." It went on to say, "Indeed, given what he knew about what
happened earlier that day in the East, respondent's [the pilot's] lack of
consultation with the FAA prior to his flight was highly irresponsible and
personally dangerous." This is unusually strong language coming from the
board.

One lesson that could be drawn from this case is that pilots should check
notams before every flight. Failure to do so could be considered by the FAA
and NTSB as a violation of FAR 91.103."

Obviously this was and will continue to be a unique situation, however, if
an accident or incident occurred at OSH and was caused by a non-NOTAM'd
pilot, the FAA and NTSB could use their broader interpretation of 91.103 to
hang the guy.

As Jim points out, nothing in the regs that says he HAD to have the NOTAM.
In fact, the EAA site uses language that is even more mild than the NOTAM
itself, merely "urging" pilots to obtain and become familiar with the NOTAM,
not even mentioning that it would be a good idea to have it in the airplane.

I hate to even type the letters, but there is the TFR alternative. 91.145
would be adaptable to special airshow restrictions, say such as requiring
familiarity with and operation under the NOTAM.

Jim