A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old May 27th 05, 11:59 AM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, Dave A. posted:

Well, quite possibly because the FAA inspector was technically wrong.
Whether you're legal VFR or not depends on the conditions at your
point in space and time, not what some weather station several miles
away might be reporting.


The question was, what is a legal briefing and where is it stated in
the regulations. If you take off in the conditions stated by George
Patternson you are technically flying illegal.

Then, why do Pireps trump briefings? Whether one is "flying illegal" is
determined by the conditions where one is flying, not the conditions
elsewhere.

The philosophizing on the subject aside, all indications given by
the FAA is that the FSS and DUATS weather and NOTAMS are your only
proof should legal proceedings take place that you followed 91.103.

This is a somewhat different matter. Should one need such proof, FSS and
DUATS may be the only sources that are not to be challenged in court.
However, if you crash at a fogged-in airport because FSS and/or DUATS
report CAVU elsewhere, good luck trying to use those reports to defend
yourself.

Neil


  #132  
Old May 27th 05, 12:20 PM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, Dave A. posted:

We are taught for the Oral exam that the only way you can prove you
took off into legal minimums for VFR flight is to obtain a weather
briefing from the FSS or DUATS.
It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that
determines if you are legally allowed to be flying based on your
restrictions, whatever they may be.

So... you depart from a non-weather reporting airport that is below
minimum, while the reporting airport is CAVU, and you think you have
"proof" that you took off into legal minimums? Think again.

Around here, there are lots of airports, most non-reporting. It is not at
all unusual for one of the reporting airports to be below minimums while
others are above, or even CAVU. When you call for a briefing under such
conditions, the briefer offers pireps if they have them, and if they
don't, they leave it up to the pilot to determine the actual conditions.
It's not unusual to arrive at the non-reporting airport to find other
planes in the pattern, and any one of those pilots and/or tower can be
valid proof in court that conditions were above minimums. Essentially,
pireps trump briefings.

Regards,

Neil


  #133  
Old May 27th 05, 12:36 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave A." wrote in message
news:hzCle.4554$Fb.1419@trndny07...
The philosophizing on the subject aside, all indications given by the FAA
is that the FSS and DUATS weather and NOTAMS are your only proof should
legal proceedings take place that you followed 91.103.


FSS and DUATS are the only services whose use is supposed to generate
*automatic* proof of the briefing, with no further effort on your part. But
if you get the same information elsewhere, you *may* still be able to prove
that you did so (witnesses, notes, saved or deleted data on your computer,
etc.).

--Gary


  #134  
Old May 27th 05, 10:50 PM
Dave A.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Suit yourself.


--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...
Recently, Dave A. posted:

We are taught for the Oral exam that the only way you can prove you
took off into legal minimums for VFR flight is to obtain a weather
briefing from the FSS or DUATS.
It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that
determines if you are legally allowed to be flying based on your
restrictions, whatever they may be.

So... you depart from a non-weather reporting airport that is below
minimum, while the reporting airport is CAVU, and you think you have
"proof" that you took off into legal minimums? Think again.

Around here, there are lots of airports, most non-reporting. It is not at
all unusual for one of the reporting airports to be below minimums while
others are above, or even CAVU. When you call for a briefing under such
conditions, the briefer offers pireps if they have them, and if they
don't, they leave it up to the pilot to determine the actual conditions.
It's not unusual to arrive at the non-reporting airport to find other
planes in the pattern, and any one of those pilots and/or tower can be
valid proof in court that conditions were above minimums. Essentially,
pireps trump briefings.

Regards,

Neil




  #135  
Old May 28th 05, 05:57 PM
Darrel Toepfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron Garret wrote:

NOT an instructor. A private pilot. Now a former pilot. The student
will get to fly again simply because even if he was manipulating the
controls, the private pilot was the pilot in command.


But does he get to log the time as PIC?


And did he mail that letter to NASA within 24 hours?
  #136  
Old May 28th 05, 06:41 PM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Neil Gould wrote:

Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at
gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed, not
the least of which is that they didn't exit their Vehicle of Terror with
guns blazing.

Neil


Surely that is not the first time you've seen a "felony traffic stop" on
TV.. even if it WAS the first time you may have seen it applied to a
pilot in a plane.

The ground guys did their job, just like they were trained to. Everyone
got to go home alive that night.

Dave

  #137  
Old May 28th 05, 09:22 PM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, Dave S posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being
spread-eagled at gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that
someone is unarmed, not the least of which is that they didn't exit
their Vehicle of Terror with guns blazing.

Neil


Surely that is not the first time you've seen a "felony traffic stop"
on TV.. even if it WAS the first time you may have seen it applied
to a pilot in a plane.

The ground guys did their job, just like they were trained to.
Everyone got to go home alive that night.

Suffice it to say that you are easier to please than I. I expect to go
home alive every night with one exception, and I don't expect that
exception to be at the hands of some paranoid idiot with a badge
over-reacting to what should have been a non-event. Their lack of common
sense is more worrisome than the hazard they misperceived.

Neil


  #138  
Old May 29th 05, 01:33 AM
Roy Page
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Dave S posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being
spread-eagled at gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that
someone is unarmed, not the least of which is that they didn't exit
their Vehicle of Terror with guns blazing.

Neil


Surely that is not the first time you've seen a "felony traffic stop"
on TV.. even if it WAS the first time you may have seen it applied
to a pilot in a plane.

The ground guys did their job, just like they were trained to.
Everyone got to go home alive that night.

Suffice it to say that you are easier to please than I. I expect to go
home alive every night with one exception, and I don't expect that
exception to be at the hands of some paranoid idiot with a badge
over-reacting to what should have been a non-event. Their lack of common
sense is more worrisome than the hazard they misperceived.

Neil


Neil,
You are right on the money, perfectly said and totally accurate.

--
Roy
N5804F - PA28-181 Piper Archer II


  #139  
Old May 30th 05, 02:52 AM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Duniho wrote:

I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points
out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation.


If you fly into a war zone, the hazards are also not of your creation;
nevertheless, *you* will have placed all occupants of the plane in a hazardous
situation, and *you* are responsible.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
Light Sport Aircraft for Private Pilots (Long) Jimbob Owning 17 March 1st 05 04:01 AM
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. Bush Air Home Built 0 May 25th 04 06:18 AM
Older Pilots and Safety Bob Johnson Soaring 5 May 21st 04 01:08 AM
UK pilots - please help by completeing a questionnaire Chris Nicholas Soaring 0 September 15th 03 01:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.