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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.