ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

So you would launch if actual conditions were below minimums but FSS said
things were OK. Interesting, but not condusive to a long life.


No no, other way around.

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Dave A." wrote in message
news:fcwle.3544$zb.3181@trndny01...
Actual conditions outrank FSS or DUATS. Think about it.

I did. Then I remembered lawyers.


--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

Well, quite possibly because the FAA inspector was technically wrong.
Whether you're legal VFR or not depends on the conditions at your point
in space and time, not what some weather station several miles away
might be reporting.

The question was, what is a legal briefing and where is it stated in the
regulations. If you take off in the conditions stated by George Patternson
you are technically flying illegal.

The philosophizing on the subject aside, all indications given by the FAA
is that the FSS and DUATS weather and NOTAMS are your only proof should
legal proceedings take place that you followed 91.103. Being that the FAA
is the regulatory body, they will impose the fine based on their judgments.





--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article x2xle.2405$Lb.1000@trndny05, George Patterson wrote:
Kupper is VFR. I remember an FAA inspector telling a safety meeting group
that
we were technically illegal if we flew VFR when EWR was IFR. I don't
think any
of us changed our habits as a result of that statement. I certainly
didn't.

Otherwise, the corollary of what the FAA inspector
says is that you are technically LEGAL if it's 200 and 1/2 so long as
EWR is reporting VFR.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:x2xle.2405$Lb.1000@trndny05...
Dave Stadt wrote:

So you would launch if actual conditions were below minimums but FSS said
things were OK. Interesting, but not condusive to a long life.

I think he meant the other way 'round.

Thanks George, thought I was going crazy.


--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

When I was based at Kupper, the nearest
reporting station was Newark. Newark's on the coast and frequently has IMC
when Kupper is VFR. I remember an FAA inspector telling a safety meeting
group that we were technically illegal if we flew VFR when EWR was IFR. I
don't think any of us changed our habits as a result of that statement. I
certainly didn't.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

Recently, Dave A. posted:

Well, quite possibly because the FAA inspector was technically wrong.
Whether you're legal VFR or not depends on the conditions at your
point in space and time, not what some weather station several miles
away might be reporting.

The question was, what is a legal briefing and where is it stated in
the regulations. If you take off in the conditions stated by George
Patternson you are technically flying illegal.

Then, why do Pireps trump briefings? Whether one is "flying illegal" is
determined by the conditions where one is flying, not the conditions
elsewhere.

The philosophizing on the subject aside, all indications given by
the FAA is that the FSS and DUATS weather and NOTAMS are your only
proof should legal proceedings take place that you followed 91.103.

This is a somewhat different matter. Should one need such proof, FSS and
DUATS may be the only sources that are not to be challenged in court.
However, if you crash at a fogged-in airport because FSS and/or DUATS
report CAVU elsewhere, good luck trying to use those reports to defend
yourself.

Neil

Recently, Dave A. posted:

We are taught for the Oral exam that the only way you can prove you
took off into legal minimums for VFR flight is to obtain a weather
briefing from the FSS or DUATS.
It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that
determines if you are legally allowed to be flying based on your
restrictions, whatever they may be.

So... you depart from a non-weather reporting airport that is below
minimum, while the reporting airport is CAVU, and you think you have
"proof" that you took off into legal minimums? Think again.

Around here, there are lots of airports, most non-reporting. It is not at
all unusual for one of the reporting airports to be below minimums while
others are above, or even CAVU. When you call for a briefing under such
conditions, the briefer offers pireps if they have them, and if they
don't, they leave it up to the pilot to determine the actual conditions.
It's not unusual to arrive at the non-reporting airport to find other
planes in the pattern, and any one of those pilots and/or tower can be
valid proof in court that conditions were above minimums. Essentially,
pireps trump briefings.

Regards,

Neil

"Dave A." wrote in message
news:hzCle.4554$Fb.1419@trndny07...
The philosophizing on the subject aside, all indications given by the FAA
is that the FSS and DUATS weather and NOTAMS are your only proof should
legal proceedings take place that you followed 91.103.

FSS and DUATS are the only services whose use is supposed to generate
*automatic* proof of the briefing, with no further effort on your part. But
if you get the same information elsewhere, you *may* still be able to prove
that you did so (witnesses, notes, saved or deleted data on your computer,
etc.).

--Gary

Suit yourself.


--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...
Recently, Dave A. posted:

We are taught for the Oral exam that the only way you can prove you
took off into legal minimums for VFR flight is to obtain a weather
briefing from the FSS or DUATS.
It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that
determines if you are legally allowed to be flying based on your
restrictions, whatever they may be.

So... you depart from a non-weather reporting airport that is below
minimum, while the reporting airport is CAVU, and you think you have
"proof" that you took off into legal minimums? Think again.

Around here, there are lots of airports, most non-reporting. It is not at
all unusual for one of the reporting airports to be below minimums while
others are above, or even CAVU. When you call for a briefing under such
conditions, the briefer offers pireps if they have them, and if they
don't, they leave it up to the pilot to determine the actual conditions.
It's not unusual to arrive at the non-reporting airport to find other
planes in the pattern, and any one of those pilots and/or tower can be
valid proof in court that conditions were above minimums. Essentially,
pireps trump briefings.

Regards,

Neil

Ron Garret wrote:

NOT an instructor. A private pilot. Now a former pilot. The student
will get to fly again simply because even if he was manipulating the
controls, the private pilot was the pilot in command.

But does he get to log the time as PIC?

And did he mail that letter to NASA within 24 hours?

Neil Gould wrote:

Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at
gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed, not
the least of which is that they didn't exit their Vehicle of Terror with
guns blazing.

Neil


Surely that is not the first time you've seen a "felony traffic stop" on
TV.. even if it WAS the first time you may have seen it applied to a
pilot in a plane.

The ground guys did their job, just like they were trained to. Everyone
got to go home alive that night.

Dave

Recently, Dave S posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being
spread-eagled at gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that
someone is unarmed, not the least of which is that they didn't exit
their Vehicle of Terror with guns blazing.

Neil


Surely that is not the first time you've seen a "felony traffic stop"
on TV.. even if it WAS the first time you may have seen it applied
to a pilot in a plane.

The ground guys did their job, just like they were trained to.
Everyone got to go home alive that night.

Suffice it to say that you are easier to please than I. I expect to go
home alive every night with one exception, and I don't expect that
exception to be at the hands of some paranoid idiot with a badge
over-reacting to what should have been a non-event. Their lack of common
sense is more worrisome than the hazard they misperceived.

Neil