ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

snip

I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't "Official"
as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).

DUATS has been an official briefing for a few years now.

Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on the
screen?

No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

snip

I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't
"Official"
as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).

DUATS has been an official briefing for a few years now.

Site?


Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on
the
screen?

No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.


Which is why I print everything.

In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

snip

I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't
"Official"
as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).

DUATS has been an official briefing for a few years now.

Site?

http://www.duats.com/faq.html

"When getting a briefing on DUATS, is this considered to be a legal
pre-flight briefing, with the same standing as a briefing I'd get by
calling Flight Service?

Yes. A DUATS route briefing contains the same elements as a route
briefing which is provided by an FAA Briefer. The briefing is recorded
by DUATS, and your receipt of the data can be proven, should the need
arise. (Of course, this requires you to sign on to DUATS using your own
DUATS Access Code or Personal Access code!) The DUAT service is paid for
by the FAA, and is certified by the FAA as being equivalent to a live
Flight Service Specialist for pre-flight briefings."

Good enough for you?

Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on
the
screen?

No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.


Which is why I print everything.

Which is totally, absolutely useless for legal purposes.

Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow
wrote:

snip

I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan
of
NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't
"Official"
as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).

DUATS has been an official briefing for a few years now.

Site?

http://www.duats.com/faq.html

"When getting a briefing on DUATS, is this considered to be a legal
pre-flight briefing, with the same standing as a briefing I'd get by
calling Flight Service?

Yes. A DUATS route briefing contains the same elements as a route
briefing which is provided by an FAA Briefer. The briefing is recorded
by DUATS, and your receipt of the data can be proven, should the need
arise. (Of course, this requires you to sign on to DUATS using your own
DUATS Access Code or Personal Access code!) The DUAT service is paid for
by the FAA, and is certified by the FAA as being equivalent to a live
Flight Service Specialist for pre-flight briefings."

Good enough for you?

Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data
on
the
screen?

No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.


Which is why I print everything.

Which is totally, absolutely useless for legal purposes.

Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

Where is that documented?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.owning Dave Stadt wrote:

wrote in message
...

snip

Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

Where is that documented?

Which part? That you need a briefing, that it has to be "official" or
that FS and DUATS are the only briefings that count?

91.103 says you need a briefing and contains the catch all of "all
available information concerning that flight" which to the FAA enforcers
means weather, NOTAMs, TFRs, etc.

AIM 5-1-1 says FS or DUATS.

There was a proposed AC to add other services; I don't know if it was
approved.

There have been articles on AOPA about the consequences of not using
the "official" sources; a search should find them.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Dave Stadt wrote:

wrote in message
...

snip

Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

Where is that documented?

Which part? That you need a briefing, that it has to be "official" or
that FS and DUATS are the only briefings that count?

91.103 says you need a briefing and contains the catch all of "all
available information concerning that flight" which to the FAA enforcers
means weather, NOTAMs, TFRs, etc.

That's not what 91.103 says.

AIM 5-1-1 says FS or DUATS.

It suggests FSS or DUATS.

There was a proposed AC to add other services; I don't know if it was
approved.

I have seen FAA statements to that effect but only for part 91 flights.

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.
Your local tower or TV station might tell you the weather is one thing, but
if the FSS says it isn't you could be in violation.

I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for, but I have been
told that I will be wrong if I don't answer the question with the FAA
examiner this way.
--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

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

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Dave Stadt wrote:

wrote in message
...

snip

Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

Where is that documented?

Which part? That you need a briefing, that it has to be "official" or
that FS and DUATS are the only briefings that count?

91.103 says you need a briefing and contains the catch all of "all
available information concerning that flight" which to the FAA enforcers
means weather, NOTAMs, TFRs, etc.

That's not what 91.103 says.

AIM 5-1-1 says FS or DUATS.

It suggests FSS or DUATS.

There was a proposed AC to add other services; I don't know if it was
approved.

I have seen FAA statements to that effect but only for part 91 flights.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 04:59:48 +0000 (UTC),
wrote in ::

In rec.aviation.owning Dave Stadt wrote:

wrote in message
...

snip

Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

Where is that documented?

Which part? That you need a briefing, that it has to be "official" or
that FS and DUATS are the only briefings that count?

91.103 says you need a briefing and contains the catch all of "all
available information concerning that flight" which to the FAA enforcers
means weather, NOTAMs, TFRs, etc.

AIM 5-1-1 says FS or DUATS.

There was a proposed AC to add other services; I don't know if it was
approved.

There have been articles on AOPA about the consequences of not using
the "official" sources; a search should find them.

Here's a recent article posted by George Patterson which quotes FAA,
spokesman William Shumann who appears to refute the notion of an FAA
requirement for an "official" source under Part 91 operations:


From: George Patterson
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Would a NASA form help?
Message-ID: qwdhe.458$mv5.380@trndny07
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 02:38:14 GMT

Gary Drescher wrote:

Naturally the FAA will want to come down hard on this guy. But
that has no bearing on whether they can take any action against
him if he meets the stated ASRS immunity conditions. (I hope for
his sake that he submits an ASRS report by the deadline.)

Well, they've done it before.

From AvWeb 11/13/03

TFRs, ASRS, And Avoiding Enforcement Action...

The pilot who plodded along in a Mooney M20 above the Potomac
River on Monday morning (11/10/03) flew within eight miles of the
White House, and managed to intrude not only into the Air Defense
Identification Zone, but also its inner ring, the Flight
Restricted Zone, which extends in a radius of 15 nm from the
Washington Monument.

In some cases of piloting errors, filing a reporting form within
the Aviation Safety Reporting System can sometimes offer some
level of "immunity" -- against sanctions, not against prosecution.

FAA, spokesman William Shumann told AVweb, "In those cases where a
penalty was imposed even though an ASRS report was filed, it might
be because the pilot didn't check NOTAMs or otherwise comply with
FAR 91.103, which requires a pilot to 'become familiar with all
available information concerning that flight.'" As for satisfying
those requirements, "If one wants to be legalistic, the Automated
Flight Service Stations are the only 'official' source of
information, and DUAT is the only 'authorized' source outside of
AFSS," but that applies only to Part 121 and 135 -- not Part 91
operators.

Part 91 operators "can use whatever sources of weather and other
information they wish to meet the requirement of getting all the
information necessary for a safe flight," said Shumann. Concerned
Part 91 operators may feel more comfortable using only the
"official" sources listed above -- regardless of the type of
operation.

The Washington ADIZ has been there for six months now, and while
it has not been decreed a permanent fixture, "There is no
indication that it is going to go away anytime soon," says
Shumann. So for pilots not only in the Northeast, but
anywhere, it goes without saying: check NOTAMS and choose your
information sources wisely. And if you ever do find an otherwise
friendly F-16 off your wing, don't forget your intercepting
signals, and intercept procedures.

...In The Aftermath Of Another Incursion

Could Monday's incursion of White House airspace by a Mooney pilot
actually be a blessing in disguise? It may turn out that way if it
highlights what's becoming an increasing frustration for the FAA
-- and GA pilots. Since Feb. 10, when the ADIZ was put in place in
Washington, it has been violated more than 600 times. "Frankly,
we're a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it, and we
don't know why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb yesterday.
"It's on the charts, it's on our Web site."

Pilots who violate the ADIZ (so far none have been discovered to
be full-fledged evil-doers, or even to harbor any ill-intent)
generally get a 30- to 90-day suspension of their certificate,
Shumann said, but each case is handled individually. The range of
possibilities does include revocation. It might be more
understandable that pilots can be tripped up by Temporary Flight
Restrictions that appear with no warning (like those that follow
the president), but it seems it would be tough to miss the ADIZ
and the FRZ. The FRZ has been violated much less often than the
ADIZ, Shumann said.

Jean Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the Secret Service, told The New
York Times the pilot had thought he was abiding by the flight
restrictions around Washington, not realizing they had been
changed after the terrorist attacks. The Secret Service was
satisfied that he had not intended any harm, Mitchell told the
Times.

Matt Barrow wrote:
Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on the
screen?

No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.

Which is why I print everything.

It seems to me that creating a written record can't do anything but
harm, legally.

The FAA can't prove anything about your briefing if you keep no records.
If you do, it makes it easy for them to point out where it was
lacking. And if your briefing missed something vital, which would
probably be the case if you're being charged with "not having all
available information concerning that flight," how is a written record
of your missing it going to help?

Charles.
-N8385U