Hello,

Are you legal if you have one oft those electronic flight bags with all
the plates/maps? Or do you still need the paper ones in the plane?

-dr

91.175 says that you must use a procedure based on Part 97. Doesn't say
paper, doesn't say electronic, doesn't even say current.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hello,
>
> Are you legal if you have one oft those electronic flight bags with all
> the plates/maps? Or do you still need the paper ones in the plane?
>
> -dr
>

> Are you legal if you have one oft those electronic flight bags with all
> the plates/maps? Or do you still need the paper ones in the plane?
>
I don't know about Canada, but here in the USoA, you are not required
to have either paper or electronic charts unless it is a Part 121 or
Part 135 operation. Part 91...no charts VFR or IFR required by the Regs.

Bob Moore

Part 91 is just a private private?

Any Canadians on here who can sign some light on this for our skies?

-dr


Bob Moore wrote:
> > Are you legal if you have one oft those electronic flight bags with all
> > the plates/maps? Or do you still need the paper ones in the plane?
> >
> I don't know about Canada, but here in the USoA, you are not required
> to have either paper or electronic charts unless it is a Part 121 or
> Part 135 operation. Part 91...no charts VFR or IFR required by the Regs.
>
> Bob Moore

When I flew into Vancouver I brought approach plates that I had printed
off the internet. An instructor at the FBO mentioned to me that those
plates were not legal. Not sure if that is an "authority" or not
though. Sometimes Yanks get away with more too though. BTW: Flying into
Vancouver is an awesome flight. The approach to the West bound runway
(runway 27 or something like that) takes you right over the city. I got
vectored all the way in.

-Robert

wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Are you legal if you have one oft those electronic flight bags with all
> the plates/maps? Or do you still need the paper ones in the plane?
>
> -dr

As we have seen time and time again in the newsgroups, instructors are not
necessarily the font of all knowledge. The one you mention was wrong.

Bob Gardner

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> When I flew into Vancouver I brought approach plates that I had printed
> off the internet. An instructor at the FBO mentioned to me that those
> plates were not legal. Not sure if that is an "authority" or not
> though. Sometimes Yanks get away with more too though. BTW: Flying into
> Vancouver is an awesome flight. The approach to the West bound runway
> (runway 27 or something like that) takes you right over the city. I got
> vectored all the way in.
>
> -Robert
>
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Are you legal if you have one oft those electronic flight bags with all
>> the plates/maps? Or do you still need the paper ones in the plane?
>>
>> -dr
>

The reason he gave is that the actual approaches are copywrited,
intellectual property and that the gov't does not allow you to just
print them out yourself.
One of a number of reasons its more expensive to live in Canada.

-Robert


Bob Gardner wrote:
> As we have seen time and time again in the newsgroups, instructors are not
> necessarily the font of all knowledge. The one you mention was wrong.
>
> Bob Gardner

Enlighten me as to where in any regulation it says that NACO charts are
copyrighted? And which regulation bars their being printed out? I use NACO
charts in my books precisely because they are in the public domain, and good
old Captain Jepp, to whom I entrusted my life for many years, gets uptight
if you use his charts without (in the case of ASA) purchasing permission.

Bob Gardner

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The reason he gave is that the actual approaches are copywrited,
> intellectual property and that the gov't does not allow you to just
> print them out yourself.
> One of a number of reasons its more expensive to live in Canada.
>
> -Robert
>
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> As we have seen time and time again in the newsgroups, instructors are
>> not
>> necessarily the font of all knowledge. The one you mention was wrong.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>

Ohmigawd. I just saw the ".ca" in his address. Mea culpa and all that.

Bob

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The reason he gave is that the actual approaches are copywrited,
> intellectual property and that the gov't does not allow you to just
> print them out yourself.
> One of a number of reasons its more expensive to live in Canada.
>
> -Robert
>
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> As we have seen time and time again in the newsgroups, instructors are
>> not
>> necessarily the font of all knowledge. The one you mention was wrong.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>

In a previous article, "Robert M. Gary" > said:
>The reason he gave is that the actual approaches are copywrited,
>intellectual property and that the gov't does not allow you to just
>print them out yourself.
>One of a number of reasons its more expensive to live in Canada.

Actually, I think before they privatized ATC, the approach plates were
not copyright like that. I know that when I first started to build my
navaid.com web site, Energy Mines and Resources Canada web site had
information on access to digital aeronautical data for a nominal fee, the
same way the FAA does, but when I inquired they said that this was under
review pending the transfer of the ownership of the data to NavCanada, and
when I asked a few months later they said "sorry, it's not our data any
more".

It always annoys me when data that your government collects using your tax
dollars isn't available to you for the cost of the materials.

Of course when I first started looking at what would become navaid.com,
the FAA data was available only on 9-track tapes, which were hideously
expensive and hard to find somebody who could read them. I told them that
if they gave me free access to the data, I'd be pleased to donate a
computer with a CD burner so they could come into the current century, and
a few years later they did finally start doing the data via CD. Now I
wish they'd just put it on an FTP site (like I do at ftp://xcski.net/ -
ssshhhh, don't tell anybody). There's no pleasing some people.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Usenet is a co-operative venture, backed by nasty people -
follow the standards.
-- Chris Rovers

So is this one (or perhaps the main) reason that airnav.com doesn't
have any Canadian info? Is this something you plan on adding or is it
too difficult to deal with Nav Canada?

-dr


Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, "Robert M. Gary" > said:
> >The reason he gave is that the actual approaches are copywrited,
> >intellectual property and that the gov't does not allow you to just
> >print them out yourself.
> >One of a number of reasons its more expensive to live in Canada.
>
> Actually, I think before they privatized ATC, the approach plates were
> not copyright like that. I know that when I first started to build my
> navaid.com web site, Energy Mines and Resources Canada web site had
> information on access to digital aeronautical data for a nominal fee, the
> same way the FAA does, but when I inquired they said that this was under
> review pending the transfer of the ownership of the data to NavCanada, and
> when I asked a few months later they said "sorry, it's not our data any
> more".
>
> It always annoys me when data that your government collects using your tax
> dollars isn't available to you for the cost of the materials.
>
> Of course when I first started looking at what would become navaid.com,
> the FAA data was available only on 9-track tapes, which were hideously
> expensive and hard to find somebody who could read them. I told them that
> if they gave me free access to the data, I'd be pleased to donate a
> computer with a CD burner so they could come into the current century, and
> a few years later they did finally start doing the data via CD. Now I
> wish they'd just put it on an FTP site (like I do at ftp://xcski.net/ -
> ssshhhh, don't tell anybody). There's no pleasing some people.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Usenet is a co-operative venture, backed by nasty people -
> follow the standards.
> -- Chris Rovers

Two websites to refer to:

www.adrsoft.com

&

www.paperlesscockpit.com

also...

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/b5de2a1cac2e1f7b86256ced00786888/$FILE/AC120-76A.pdf



> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hello,
>
> Are you legal if you have one oft those electronic flight bags with all
> the plates/maps? Or do you still need the paper ones in the plane?
>
> -dr
>
>

In a previous article, said:
>So is this one (or perhaps the main) reason that airnav.com doesn't
>have any Canadian info? Is this something you plan on adding or is it
>too difficult to deal with Nav Canada?

I can't speak for Paulo Santos (owner of airnav.com) but navaid.com does
have *some* Canadian data, mostly because of the Digital Aeronautical
Flight Information File (DAFIF) (which is going away in October, by the
way), and partly because of the generosity of some of my users.

I once spent some time begging NavCanada to release the data, and they
said they'd need their lawyer to draw up a legal indemnity, and I said go
ahead, I'd sign it. So then they said the lawyer was too busy to draw it
up or review it, and when I said I'd pay their expenses to get it drawn
up, they stopped answering my email.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware
has limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing
machines are so poor at I/O.

TMcDonald wrote:
> also...
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/b5de2a1cac2e1f7b86256ced00786888/$FILE/AC120-76A.pdf

What does the FAA have to do with Transport Canada?

-Robert

wrote:
> Part 91 is just a private private?
>
Part 91 is slang for not subject to the commercial operator
regulations (part 135--Air Taxi, part 121 -- Air Carrier, etc).

Actually everybody is subject to part 91, it's just that GA
is subject to ONLY part 91.