Was The Idiot Legal?

RST Engineering wrote:
Ignore if you will for the moment 91.13, the catch-all "careless/reckless"
provision that can getcha if you sneeze during the approach. Let's see if
"idiot" was legal.

Interesting question, and it brings to my mind a conversation (debate
if you will) with one of my partners in our Archer about the new
electronic flight bag products (EFB).

While not doing any specific research on the topic, I maintained that
there was no requirement (for part 91) for paper charts to be on board
(other than the "all available information" requirement). Just that
any charts you had on board had to be current. Not necessarily safe,
but that wasn't the terms of the debate... Just legality.

He maintained that you had to have paper charts on board for all
airports over your route of flight, except for exercising your
emergency authority.

We went back and forth with various scenarios... what if I had
memorized all the available information in a given approach book given
that I have a photographic memory? What if I scrawled all the
information on the back of various cocktail napkins during a layover?
Etc. Etc. Do you just need the information on the plate? or do you
need it in a specific format? What about really really tiny print? So
on and so on.

So cut to Oshkosh (my first trip by the way), we're walking around the
FAA booth (more like a building) and my partner wrangles an FAA type
and puts the question to her. After much hemming and hawing, and
trying to figure out exactly why we were asking the question, her take
was that you do need paper charts on board, even with an EFB, since the
EFB could fail. I thought that requirement only pertained to part
135/121 crews, but I wasn't going to argue with the woman with the FAA
logo on her shirt.

Suffice it to say, at least one FAA type feels you need to have the
charts on board. At least for IFR flight.

I still think she's wrong. But I'm too lazy to dig out references in
the FARs/AIM. Any aviation lawyer types already done this research and
care to comment?

If the FAA wanted to require the NOTAM, they could just issue a TFR
requiring a copy of the NOTAM to be on board. Then of course you
could get into the further debate... Does it have to be the official
FAA printed form? What if its stored in a PDF file on the pilots
laptop (which accidentally was loaded in the nose baggage compartment
in his Cherokee 6)?, Etc., etc.

Personally, the way to fix this, is to have the EAA collect the top 10
stupid things pilots do on their way to Oshkosh. A sort of "don't do
what this idiot did". The viral marketing nature of the internet alone
will reach more pilots than the NOTAM will.

If 83A's radio communication was put into wider distribution (other
than just on rec.aviation) it's sure that at least one pilot will be
less likely to not do it again.

While not doing any specific research on the topic, I maintained that
there was no requirement (for part 91) for paper charts to be on board
(other than the "all available information" requirement). Just that
any charts you had on board had to be current.

I know of no regulation prohibiting the carriage and transport of
outdated charts.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
While not doing any specific research on the topic, I maintained that
there was no requirement (for part 91) for paper charts to be on board
(other than the "all available information" requirement). Just that
any charts you had on board had to be current.

I know of no regulation prohibiting the carriage and transport of
outdated charts.


Good point.