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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 02:26 PM |
Light Sport Aircraft for Private Pilots (Long) | Jimbob | Owning | 17 | March 1st 05 03:01 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 |