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: Re: 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.

Jim Carter wrote:
> 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?

There is no such regulation, per se. For 121 ops the FSDO will approve
only charts that meet the aeronautical requirements of the FAA. Those
are policy proclamations, not regulations. That means a carrier could
use charts produced by a foreign chart maker, not just NOS or Jeppesen.
In fact, NOS is limited because they cover only the U.S.

As to printing, there is no such requirement but, as a practical matter,
your only source was the printed product. Not so with NOS and Jeppesen
electronic charts. In fact, Je Blue, a Part 121 carrier, is approved to
use Jeppesen electronic approach and departure charts.

No friendly who understands today's system would have any issue with me
using home-printed Jepps or NOS charts for light aircraft,
non-commercial IFR ops, provided they are current. Jeppesen helps me (I
use JeppView) by printing out the currency of the chart at the top of my
home-printed chart.

From somewhere I recall that it is a (part 91?) requirement to have the
textual description of the procedure in the cockpit. I can't find it
though.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

<<That is a common misperception. It is almost folklore now.>>

It is apparently the misconception of the FAA, as well:

============<snip>============


To whom it may concern:

In the interest of aviation safety and to ensure continuity and even
application of the law, the holder of this statement is presenting
this information to you in the spirit in which it was intended.

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation part 91 does not require that a
general aviation pilot operating a small aircraft carry any charts on
board his/her aircraft while it is being operated. Not VFR in VMC nor
IFR (in either VMC or IMC).

The only requirements in the regulations that pertains to charts are:

Title 14 CFR section 91.503 (Large and Turbojet powered aircraft)
Title 14 CFR section 135.83 (Air Carriers-Little Airplane)
Title 14 CFR section 121.549 (Air Carrier-Big Airplanes)

The FAA has rendered interpretations that have stated the foregoing.
The subject of current charts was thoroughly covered in an article in
the FAA's July/August 1997 issue of FAA Aviation News. That article
was cleared through the FAA's Chief Counsel's office. In that article
the FAA stated the following:

1. "You can carry old charts in your aircraft" "It is not FAA policy
to violate anyone for having outdated charts in the aircraft"

2. "Not all pilots are required to carry a chart" "91.503..requires
the pilot in command of large and multiengine airplanes to have
charts". "Other operating sections of the FAR such as Part 121 and
Part 135 operations have similar requirements".

3. "since some pilots thought they could be violated for having
outdated or no charts on board during a flight, we need to clarify an
important issue. As we have said, it is NOT FAA policy to initiate
enforcement action against a pilot for having an old chart on board or
no chart on board". That's because there is no regulation on the
issue.

4. "the issue of current chart data bases in handheld GPS receivers is
a non-issue because the units are neither approved by the FAA or
required for flight." "Nor do panel-mounted VFR-only GPS receivers
have to have a current data base because, like handheld GPS receivers,
the pilot is responsible for pilotage under VFR
..
5. "If a pilot is involved in an enforcement investigation and there
is evidence that the use of an out-of-date chart, no chart, or an
out-of-date database contributed to the condition that brought on the
enforcement investigation, then that information could be used in any
enforcement action that might be taken"

If you, as an FAA Safety Inspector, Designated Pilot Examiner, Flight
Instructor, or other aviation professional are telling pilots
something other than the foregoing then you are incorrect.

Sincerely,
Rick Cremer
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Operations and Airworthiness)
FAA Headquarters, AFS-20
Airline Transport Pilot, DC-9
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
A&P Mechanic
Aircraft Dispatcher
Air Traffic Controller


============<snip>============

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:11:24 GMT, "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?

A related question: How about not printing the plate at all? What if
you just load the PDF into a suitable electronic device and read the
plate from the screen? Of course there are practical constraints to
this idea, a notebook computer on your lap may make it difficult to
actually fly the airplane, and you need power for the device. Still,
you could save help save a tree by not printing every plate. It has
the additional advantage of not requiring you to carry 30 pounds of
paper around while still keeping a handy copy of every plate you might
need.

RK Henry

<<textual description of the procedure in the cockpit>>

What you're remembering is a textual description of a SID or STAR
before you accept it, but that's changed to a graphic.

> What you're remembering is a textual description of a SID or STAR
> before you accept it, but that's changed to a graphic.

As a side issue, most SIDs I've seen or flown amount to "depart runway
heading, radar vectors to your initial fix" and a graphic showing a
bunch of VORs. I'm not sure what good they really do.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Scott Draper wrote:
> <<That is a common misperception. It is almost folklore now.>>
>
> It is apparently the misconception of the FAA, as well:
>
Rick Cremer did not issue legal interpretations when he worked for the
FAA. Rick is a good guy and always tried to place the best spin on that
stuff he could.

He has been retired for a few years now. ;-)

Maybe his cheery proclamation could be used as a exhibit for the
defense. ;-)

I have no quarrel with what he says about VFR operations. I do, though,
with IFR operations.

I don't issue legal interps, either, I just work with all the folks who
make the IFR system work. It ain't a chartless system. ;-)

In article >,
Jose > wrote:
>> What you're remembering is a textual description of a SID or STAR
>> before you accept it, but that's changed to a graphic.
>
>As a side issue, most SIDs I've seen or flown amount to "depart runway
>heading, radar vectors to your initial fix" and a graphic showing a
>bunch of VORs. I'm not sure what good they really do.

Most SIDs have a lot more than just that. The Westchester One
(http://www.airnav.com/airport/KHPN) is a pretty simple one, but it
still has:

A heading, a turn, and another heading, plus altitudes at which to
make the turns and at which to level off, for different runways

Radials you should expect to be vectored to, so you cna set up the
radios before you take off

Comm and Nav frequencies to use, and for each VOR, not only it's
identifier, but which en-route charts to find it on

Lost comm instructions

A speed restriction

That's a lot of stuff to have to read to every IFR departure. The SID
puts it all in one convenient place.

All IFR procedures have a text form, the chart office
converts the text to a graphic because a picture is worth a
thousand words.

To do an ILS, all that is needed is the ILS frequency, the
course, the initial approach altitude, the glide slope
intercept altitude and the DH and missed approach procedure.
You can even ask ATC for the pertinent numbers if the
"chart" blew out the window or was left on the table at the
last stop.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
| <<textual description of the procedure in the cockpit>>
|
| What you're remembering is a textual description of a SID
or STAR
| before you accept it, but that's changed to a graphic.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> All IFR procedures have a text form, the chart office
> converts the text to a graphic because a picture is worth a
> thousand words.

That's not exactly the way it works. The text document is the amendment
to Part 97. It provides distances, courses, and minimum altitudes.

It does not provide nav or com frequencies, nor does it provide any
airport information. It is up to the chart maker to gather those
non-regulatory, but essential data from other sources.

The controller uses the NACO charts for his airspace, not the text
document.(the text document may be in a folder at his position, or it
may not..it is useless information to the controller, except for any
alternate missed approach procedure.) The controller may, or may not do
a good job of providing information from the approach chart. Sure would
tie up the comm frequency, though, and take away from the controller's
primary duties, especially during IMC weather.

The text that some controllers have at their position is an alternate,
non-radar missed approach procedure. When published, those are on the
source document, but they are not on the pilot's chart.
>
> To do an ILS, all that is needed is the ILS frequency, the
> course, the initial approach altitude, the glide slope
> intercept altitude and the DH and missed approach procedure.
> You can even ask ATC for the pertinent numbers if the
> "chart" blew out the window or was left on the table at the
> last stop.
>
>
>

Peter wrote:


>
> So any FAA regulation mandating the use of specific charts cannot mean
> anything.

There isn't any such regulation. The FAA would have no problem with me
using charts for the U.S. produced in the U.K. or anywhere else,
provided they were in an acceptable form and met generally acceptable
aeronautical charting standards.

<<Rick Cremer did not issue legal interpretations when he worked for
the FAA.>>

Nor did he in this case. He merely reiterated FAA Policy. Notice
that he said "cleared through the FAA's Chief Counsel's office." ?

Unless he was lying, it is not FAA policy to violate a pilot for not
carrying charts, because there is no regulation that would support the
violation.

I do agree that you can't function IFR without charts, but I also
think the lack of a legal requirement to carry charts is important to
note here because it puts this question about "can I use downloaded
charts" into perspective. The question then becomes "is it safe?"
rather than "is it legal?"

Scott Draper wrote:

> <<Rick Cremer did not issue legal interpretations when he worked for
> the FAA.>>
>
> Nor did he in this case. He merely reiterated FAA Policy. Notice
> that he said "cleared through the FAA's Chief Counsel's office." ?
>
> Unless he was lying, it is not FAA policy to violate a pilot for not
> carrying charts, because there is no regulation that would support the
> violation.
>
> I do agree that you can't function IFR without charts, but I also
> think the lack of a legal requirement to carry charts is important to
> note here because it puts this question about "can I use downloaded
> charts" into perspective. The question then becomes "is it safe?"
> rather than "is it legal?"

Sure, he passed it by legal. But, it was a snapshot in time.

Downloading charts is not an issue in any case. If it were, NACO
wouldn't have their charts on an official FAA web site. ;-)

wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
>
>>
>> So any FAA regulation mandating the use of specific charts cannot mean
>> anything.
>
>
> There isn't any such regulation. The FAA would have no problem with me
> using charts for the U.S. produced in the U.K. or anywhere else,
> provided they were in an acceptable form and met generally acceptable
> aeronautical charting standards.


They don't have to meet any standard. You want to write down the
numbers pertinent to you feel free.

wrote:


>
> The controller uses the NACO charts for his airspace,

Well we used to. The approach plates at my facility have been stripped
down so they do not have to be replaced with every charting cycle. The
inbound course is on there, the graphical missed approach is there.
There are no minimums listed.

Print them from AOPA and they don't have that warning. They are fully
legal.

-Robert

Newps wrote:

>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The controller uses the NACO charts for his airspace,
>
>
> Well we used to. The approach plates at my facility have been stripped
> down so they do not have to be replaced with every charting cycle. The
> inbound course is on there, the graphical missed approach is there.
> There are no minimums listed.
>
Thanks for the update!

Wouldn't you "love" having a pilot request that you provide him with all
the pertinent IAP info?

Newps wrote:

>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Peter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So any FAA regulation mandating the use of specific charts cannot mean
>>> anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> There isn't any such regulation. The FAA would have no problem with me
>> using charts for the U.S. produced in the U.K. or anywhere else,
>> provided they were in an acceptable form and met generally acceptable
>> aeronautical charting standards.
>
>
>
> They don't have to meet any standard. You want to write down the
> numbers pertinent to you feel free.

So, are you saying that if I feel no numbers are pertinent to me because
I know Newps will give me all that stuff when I sign on to his frequency?

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Print them from AOPA and they don't have that warning. They are fully
> legal.
>
> -Robert
>
Print them from the NACO web site and remove all doubt.

Also, even though the NACO PDF files has a date on the right hand side
of the plate, you can compare a number on the bottom left corner of the
plate that you have printed previously and see if it has changed. If
that number agrees with what's on the NACO site your existing plate is
still current, irregardless of what the date says.

That number says something like "Amdt 6 05020". 05020 is the number
that you need to verify. It means the plate was last modified on the
20th day of 2005.

--M

wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > Print them from AOPA and they don't have that warning. They are fully
> > legal.
> >
> > -Robert
> >
> Print them from the NACO web site and remove all doubt.