Aside from a call or visit to an FSS, or DUATS, are there any other
"legal" sources from which a pilot is allowed to obtain weather reports?
I'm not talking about what's actually *useful* here...hell, sometimes
the weather channel is the most useful thing out there...I'm interested
in what's *legal*. What weather sources *must* we consult as pilots
from an FAA standpoint to prove that we have "become familiar with
all available information concerning that flight", as per FAR 91.103?

There are a whole slew of web sites offering "aviation weather" products,
such as:

http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/
http://weather.unisys.com/aviation/
http://www.weathertap.com/
http://www.flightbrief.com/

How many (if any) of these are a "legal" source of pre-flight weather
information as stipulated by FAR 91.103, which states:

Sec. 91.103 - Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with
all available information concerning that flight. This information must
include --

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport,
weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of which
the pilot in command has been advised by ATC



-- Dane

Only the NOAA site, to the best of my knowledge. And that is fairly
recently. When I read NTSB cases I note that the administrative law judges
put a lot of faith in government sources and blow off non-government
sources.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that the other sources you cite have their
own data-gathering mechanisms but rather massage what they get from
government sources. That is certainly true of the weather channel.

Bob Gardner

"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
> Aside from a call or visit to an FSS, or DUATS, are there any other
> "legal" sources from which a pilot is allowed to obtain weather reports?
> I'm not talking about what's actually *useful* here...hell, sometimes
> the weather channel is the most useful thing out there...I'm interested
> in what's *legal*. What weather sources *must* we consult as pilots
> from an FAA standpoint to prove that we have "become familiar with
> all available information concerning that flight", as per FAR 91.103?
>
> There are a whole slew of web sites offering "aviation weather" products,
> such as:
>
> http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/
> http://weather.unisys.com/aviation/
> http://www.weathertap.com/
> http://www.flightbrief.com/
>
> How many (if any) of these are a "legal" source of pre-flight weather
> information as stipulated by FAR 91.103, which states:
>
> Sec. 91.103 - Preflight action.
>
> Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar
> with
> all available information concerning that flight. This information must
> include --
>
> (a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport,
> weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available
> if
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of
> which
> the pilot in command has been advised by ATC
>
>
>
> -- Dane

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:24:02 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:

> Only the NOAA site, to the best of my knowledge.

Bob,

See
http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/Aviation/CFI/Weather%20Briefing%20Slides.doc
for what appears to be a reasonable list of official weather sources.

It's dated 2002, but I couldn't find anything to show NOAA sites as an
allowable weather source either?

Allen

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Only the NOAA site, to the best of my knowledge. And that is fairly
> recently. When I read NTSB cases I note that the administrative law judges
> put a lot of faith in government sources and blow off non-government
> sources.

Seems to me from reading all those NTSB reports and some enforcement
cases, for most G/A ops, it is either a FSS or DUAT/DUATS briefing.

But, a lot of the corporate guys have a paid weather flight plan/weather
service, such as that provided by Jeppesen. They make records of
briefing and flight plan activity.

Then, most of the airlines have their own systems, which are accepted by
the FAA as being "legal."

Having said that, there is nothing that says the pilot can't use other
sources as supplements to the official briefing.

No one cares unless there is an incident or accident.

A recorded briefing from 1-800-wx brief puts the ball back on the feds
side of the court if there is a legal dispute...
The government has lost at least one suit by the pilot's widow over a
briefer failing to fully inform the pilot... Recently I wanted only a
specific piece of information from the briefer about fog along the
lakeshore, but he wasn't having any of that... He insisted on going
through wx, SA for the route of flight, forecast, winds aloft, notams,
tfr, etc... I suspect their legal department had a warning out over
condensed briefings...

He ended with the usual VFR flight not recommended <so what's new>...
I countered with "driving home after working a long shift not
recommended"... He laughed...

denny

I saw a news release in 2005 (or maybe 2006) announcing that the NWS/NOAA
sites were official. I don't have time today to research it.

Bob Gardner

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:24:02 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> Only the NOAA site, to the best of my knowledge.
>
> Bob,
>
> See
> http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/Aviation/CFI/Weather%20Briefing%20Slides.doc
> for what appears to be a reasonable list of official weather sources.
>
> It's dated 2002, but I couldn't find anything to show NOAA sites as an
> allowable weather source either?
>
> Allen

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> ... Recently I wanted only a
> specific piece of information from the briefer about fog along the
> lakeshore, but he wasn't having any of that... He insisted on going
> through wx, SA for the route of flight, forecast, winds aloft, notams,
> tfr, etc... I suspect their legal department had a warning out over
> condensed briefings...
>
> He ended with the usual VFR flight not recommended <so what's new>...
> I countered with "driving home after working a long shift not
> recommended"... He laughed...

Denny, did you say the magic word "Abbreviated?" during the request? My
experience in NY is that when I say that I want an Abbreviated Briefing, the
briefer will take my info and then ask, "OK, what would you like?"

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Dane, would AIM 7-1-11(d) give you the assurance you are looking for?

Bob Gardner

"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
> Aside from a call or visit to an FSS, or DUATS, are there any other
> "legal" sources from which a pilot is allowed to obtain weather reports?
> I'm not talking about what's actually *useful* here...hell, sometimes
> the weather channel is the most useful thing out there...I'm interested
> in what's *legal*. What weather sources *must* we consult as pilots
> from an FAA standpoint to prove that we have "become familiar with
> all available information concerning that flight", as per FAR 91.103?
>
> There are a whole slew of web sites offering "aviation weather" products,
> such as:
>
> http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/
> http://weather.unisys.com/aviation/
> http://www.weathertap.com/
> http://www.flightbrief.com/
>
> How many (if any) of these are a "legal" source of pre-flight weather
> information as stipulated by FAR 91.103, which states:
>
> Sec. 91.103 - Preflight action.
>
> Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar
> with
> all available information concerning that flight. This information must
> include --
>
> (a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport,
> weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available
> if
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of
> which
> the pilot in command has been advised by ATC
>
>
>
> -- Dane

Well, I finally found what I was looking for: the FAA approved list of
QICP's (Qualified Internet Communications Providers):

http://www.faa.gov/ats/ars/qicp/list%20of%20qicp.html

This is the list of organizations that are authorized to provide access to
aviation weather and Notices to Airmen via the internet, as per FAA
Advisory Circular 00-62:

http://www.faa.gov/ats/ars/qicp/AC.doc

-- Dane


In article >,
Bob Gardner > wrote:
>Dane, would AIM 7-1-11(d) give you the assurance you are looking for?
>
>Bob Gardner
>
>"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
>> Aside from a call or visit to an FSS, or DUATS, are there any other
>> "legal" sources from which a pilot is allowed to obtain weather reports?
>> I'm not talking about what's actually *useful* here...hell, sometimes
>> the weather channel is the most useful thing out there...I'm interested
>> in what's *legal*. What weather sources *must* we consult as pilots
>> from an FAA standpoint to prove that we have "become familiar with
>> all available information concerning that flight", as per FAR 91.103?
>>
>> There are a whole slew of web sites offering "aviation weather" products,
>> such as:
>>
>> http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/
>> http://weather.unisys.com/aviation/
>> http://www.weathertap.com/
>> http://www.flightbrief.com/
>>
>> How many (if any) of these are a "legal" source of pre-flight weather
>> information as stipulated by FAR 91.103, which states:
>>
>> Sec. 91.103 - Preflight action.
>>
>> Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar
>> with
>> all available information concerning that flight. This information must
>> include --
>>
>> (a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport,
>> weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available
>> if
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of
>> which
>> the pilot in command has been advised by ATC
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Dane
>
>

> These sources may be "authorised" but is there anything in the FARs
> which makes the sourcing of weather data from other providers illegal?

No, you can check weather anywhere. If you do not check weather from an
authorized source (in addition to whatever else you do) then you would
be deemed to not have "checked all available information".

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

There are "other" (private) weather services that if they predict
minimums on their TAF that are ok for you to go (part 135 and 23 etc),
and the govt has them below min, you can use them and you are good to
go. Some airlines use them. I do not know which ones or how they are
"certified", but they do (or did) exist.

On 28 Mar 2006 08:34:28 -0800, "Denny" > wrote:

>A recorded briefing from 1-800-wx brief puts the ball back on the feds
>side of the court if there is a legal dispute...
>The government has lost at least one suit by the pilot's widow over a
>briefer failing to fully inform the pilot... Recently I wanted only a
>specific piece of information from the briefer about fog along the
>lakeshore, but he wasn't having any of that... He insisted on going

I request an "abbreviated briefing" and specify what I want. I haven't
had them argue yet although I have had them ask for clarification.
Usually I ask if there are any TFRs likely to pop up along the route,
SUAs , and I may tell them I've already have the weather for the route
and have been following DUATs for the past two days as well as the
current maps.

>through wx, SA for the route of flight, forecast, winds aloft, notams,
>tfr, etc... I suspect their legal department had a warning out over
>condensed briefings...
>
>He ended with the usual VFR flight not recommended <so what's new>...
>I countered with "driving home after working a long shift not

I've mentioned this one before, but...
Maybe it was that the weather was so bad any way, but that time coming
out of Kansans some years back when it was "expect ceilings 1500 or
less, visibility 5 or less with both much less in many instances of
heavy rain", followed by "have a good trip" for a VFR briefing.
Surface winds were 30 G 50 and over a 100 knots at 500 feet with
tornado watches out for the route and warnings out a bit farther.
Around here it they would have said everything except, "don't go".
OTOH I'd been talking with these guys regularly over the previous few
days while flying in some "interesting" weather.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>recommended"... He laughed...
>
>denny

Peter wrote:

>
> These sources may be "authorised" but is there anything in the FARs
> which makes the sourcing of weather data from other providers illegal?
>
> This is particularly relevant to N-reg aircraft flying outside the
> USA... they do that sometimes :)

No one cares unless there is an accident or serious incident. If there
is, which involves weather, and there is no record of an official
briefing, the FAA can reasonable conclude that you failed to obtain the
necessary preflight information. The burden is upon the pilot (or his
estate~) to prove compliance when there is no FAA or approved vendor record.

The biz jets that often fly outside the U.S. invaribly use one of the
approved vendors on that FAA list.

The U.S. air carriers have their own approved weather services so they
are always covered.

Peter wrote:

>>If there
>>is, which involves weather, and there is no record of an official
>>briefing, the FAA can reasonable conclude that you failed to obtain the
>>necessary preflight information. The burden is upon the pilot (or his
>>estate~) to prove compliance when there is no FAA or approved vendor record.
>
>
> I am not doubting you, but do you have a FAR reference for this?

FAR 91.103 (a)

Isn't the implicit burden apparent?

On 2006-04-01, Sam Spade > wrote:
> No one cares unless there is an accident or serious incident. If there
> is, which involves weather, and there is no record of an official
> briefing, the FAA can reasonable conclude that you failed to obtain the
> necessary preflight information.

So print out the weather from the 'unofficial' source, so when you do
crash, they'll find your weather self-briefing in the wreckage. Of
course, if you're dead it's not going to do you a lot of good, but at
least you won't be posthumously convicted of not getting all the
information...

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-04-01, Sam Spade > wrote:
>> No one cares unless there is an accident or serious incident. If there
>> is, which involves weather, and there is no record of an official
>> briefing, the FAA can reasonable conclude that you failed to obtain the
>> necessary preflight information.
>
> So print out the weather from the 'unofficial' source, so when you do
> crash, they'll find your weather self-briefing in the wreckage.

Unless it burns up, blows away, gets drenched, etc. Leaving it at home is
probably a better idea. (When we do Angel Flights, we have to mail the
signed liability waivers before the flight rather than taking the waivers on
the plane.)

--Gary