If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
legal to use home-printed IFR plates?
I've never seen the/a definitive answer to this question:
Are there any negative legal ramifications of using IFR plates obtained from, for instance, the AOPA website, so long as the plate is current (they're now printing the date range of the plate's validity in the margins), printed properly/legibly and in good condition? I.e. - When I see these plates linked to from the "AIRNAV" website for an airport, for instance, it says the following: NOT FOR NAVIGATION. Please procure official charts for flight. FAA instrument procedures published for use between 22 December 2005 at 0901Z and 19 January 2006 at 0900Z. While these two statements almost seem to be contradictory, it's clearly implied that one should NOT use such "home-printed" plates in the cockpit. Any FSDO's out there care to comment? Other opinions? Curious, -- Marty |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
legal to use home-printed IFR plates?
it's clearly implied that one should NOT use such "home-printed"
plates in the cockpit. Given that there's no FAR requirement to use instrument plates at all (current or not) for Part 91 ops, I see no legal ramifications at all. Also, NACO itself publishes them on the web, which is implicit endorsement for the use of home-printed charts. The "not for navigation" appears to be CYA. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
legal to use home-printed IFR plates?
On 1/1/2006 10:11 AM, Marty Ross wrote:
I've never seen the/a definitive answer to this question: Are there any negative legal ramifications of using IFR plates obtained from, for instance, the AOPA website, so long as the plate is current (they're now printing the date range of the plate's validity in the margins), printed properly/legibly and in good condition? I.e. - When I see these plates linked to from the "AIRNAV" website for an airport, for instance, it says the following: NOT FOR NAVIGATION. Please procure official charts for flight. I don't see this statement on the charts I download from the AOPA site. FAA instrument procedures published for use between 22 December 2005 at 0901Z and 19 January 2006 at 0900Z. While these two statements almost seem to be contradictory, it's clearly implied that one should NOT use such "home-printed" plates in the cockpit. Any FSDO's out there care to comment? Other opinions? Curious, -- Marty -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Sacramento, CA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
legal to use home-printed IFR plates?
Not For Navigation would be on a file that is not updated on
the schedule. If the chart date is current, it doesn't matter who or where it was printed. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P "Scott Draper" wrote in message ... | it's clearly implied that one should NOT use such "home-printed" | plates in the cockpit. | | Given that there's no FAR requirement to use instrument plates at all | (current or not) for Part 91 ops, I see no legal ramifications at | all. Also, NACO itself publishes them on the web, which is implicit | endorsement for the use of home-printed charts. | | The "not for navigation" appears to be CYA. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
legal to use home-printed IFR plates?
If the chart date is current, it doesn't matter who or where it
was printed. Except that it doesn't matter anyway, legally, since I don't have to use current charts or any charts at all. But if they supply an outdated chart and I crash, my widow might have grounds to sue them. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
legal to use home-printed IFR plates?
Scott Draper wrote:
If the chart date is current, it doesn't matter who or where it was printed. Except that it doesn't matter anyway, legally, since I don't have to use current charts or any charts at all. But if they supply an outdated chart and I crash, my widow might have grounds to sue them. That's a fairly bold statement. Can you cite any cases where that logic has prevailed? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
legal to use home-printed IFR plates?
That's a fairly bold statement. Can you cite any cases where that
logic has prevailed? You can't prove a negative, but there exists an explicit requirement for such in Large and Turbine powered airplanes, to wit: =========snip=========== § 91.503 Flying equipment and operating information. (a) The pilot in command of an airplane shall ensure that the following flying equipment and aeronautical charts and data, in current and appropriate form, are accessible for each flight at the pilot station of the airplane: (1) A flashlight having at least two size D cells, or the equivalent, that is in good working order. (2) A cockpit checklist containing the procedures required by paragraph (b) of this section. (3) Pertinent aeronautical charts. (4) For IFR, VFR over-the-top, or night operations, each pertinent navigational enroute, terminal area, and approach and letdown chart. =========snip=========== The lack of such an explicit requirement is suggestive. What isn't forbidden is permitted. ;-) If you screwed up while not carrying charts, then you might get a "Careless or reckless" charge, but that'd be the only reg to hang you on. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
legal to use home-printed IFR plates?
Scott Draper wrote:
it's clearly implied that one should NOT use such "home-printed" plates in the cockpit. Given that there's no FAR requirement to use instrument plates at all (current or not) for Part 91 ops, I see no legal ramifications at all. Also, NACO itself publishes them on the web, which is implicit endorsement for the use of home-printed charts. That is a common misperception. It is almost folklore now. The requirment is stated for turbines and commercial ops to close any possible loopholes. AOPA has fought to keep a specific chart requirement from light aircraft Part 91, but it means little. If you are ramp checked after landing on an IFR flight and don't have the appropriate charts in some form you are going to have a problem with the friendlies. If, in flight, you cause an incident because of lack of charts you definately will feel the crunch. The "not for navigation" appears to be CYA. They "CYA" because they are not a legal source. The NACO site is a legal source. for approach and departure charts. But, you probably still need to buy en route charts. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
legal to use home-printed IFR plates?
Scott Draper wrote:
That's a fairly bold statement. Can you cite any cases where that logic has prevailed? You can't prove a negative, but there exists an explicit requirement for such in Large and Turbine powered airplanes, to wit: =========snip=========== § 91.503 Flying equipment and operating information. (a) The pilot in command of an airplane shall ensure that the following flying equipment and aeronautical charts and data, in current and appropriate form, are accessible for each flight at the pilot station of the airplane: (1) A flashlight having at least two size D cells, or the equivalent, that is in good working order. (2) A cockpit checklist containing the procedures required by paragraph (b) of this section. (3) Pertinent aeronautical charts. (4) For IFR, VFR over-the-top, or night operations, each pertinent navigational enroute, terminal area, and approach and letdown chart. =========snip=========== The lack of such an explicit requirement is suggestive. What isn't forbidden is permitted. ;-) If you screwed up while not carrying charts, then you might get a "Careless or reckless" charge, but that'd be the only reg to hang you on. That is a hopeful interpretation. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
legal to use home-printed IFR plates?
Tim,
I don't think Scott was disagreeing with you -- the question is what are "appropriate charts", as you wrote. Has anyone any reference to a regulation or bulletin that directs the approach or departure plates have to be printed by a specific and approved organization? -----Original Message----- From: ] Posted At: Monday, January 02, 2006 7:44 AM Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr Conversation: legal to use home-printed IFR plates? Subject: legal to use home-printed IFR plates? Scott Draper wrote: it's clearly implied that one should NOT use such "home-printed" plates in the cockpit. Given that there's no FAR requirement to use instrument plates at all (current or not) for Part 91 ops, I see no legal ramifications at all. Also, NACO itself publishes them on the web, which is implicit endorsement for the use of home-printed charts. That is a common misperception. It is almost folklore now. The requirment is stated for turbines and commercial ops to close any possible loopholes. AOPA has fought to keep a specific chart requirement from light aircraft Part 91, but it means little. If you are ramp checked after landing on an IFR flight and don't have the appropriate charts in some form you are going to have a problem with the friendlies. If, in flight, you cause an incident because of lack of charts you definately will feel the crunch. The "not for navigation" appears to be CYA. They "CYA" because they are not a legal source. The NACO site is a legal source. for approach and departure charts. But, you probably still need to buy en route charts. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Exclusive Custom Home Plans, and Essential information about building your New Home | orange tree | Home Built | 4 | November 20th 05 04:37 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
Home Inspection Listings | Patrick Glenn | Home Built | 4 | April 26th 04 11:52 AM |
MAKE QUICK CASH RIGHT NOW!!! 100% LEGAL, INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS POST!! | RobertR237 | General Aviation | 4 | December 14th 03 04:28 PM |