ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

On Thu, 26 May 2005 04:59:48 +0000 (UTC),
wrote in ::

In rec.aviation.owning Dave Stadt wrote:

wrote in message
...

snip

Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

Where is that documented?

Which part? That you need a briefing, that it has to be "official" or
that FS and DUATS are the only briefings that count?

91.103 says you need a briefing and contains the catch all of "all
available information concerning that flight" which to the FAA enforcers
means weather, NOTAMs, TFRs, etc.

AIM 5-1-1 says FS or DUATS.

There was a proposed AC to add other services; I don't know if it was
approved.

There have been articles on AOPA about the consequences of not using
the "official" sources; a search should find them.

Here's a recent article posted by George Patterson which quotes FAA,
spokesman William Shumann who appears to refute the notion of an FAA
requirement for an "official" source under Part 91 operations:


From: George Patterson
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Would a NASA form help?
Message-ID: qwdhe.458$mv5.380@trndny07
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 02:38:14 GMT

Gary Drescher wrote:

Naturally the FAA will want to come down hard on this guy. But
that has no bearing on whether they can take any action against
him if he meets the stated ASRS immunity conditions. (I hope for
his sake that he submits an ASRS report by the deadline.)

Well, they've done it before.

From AvWeb 11/13/03

TFRs, ASRS, And Avoiding Enforcement Action...

The pilot who plodded along in a Mooney M20 above the Potomac
River on Monday morning (11/10/03) flew within eight miles of the
White House, and managed to intrude not only into the Air Defense
Identification Zone, but also its inner ring, the Flight
Restricted Zone, which extends in a radius of 15 nm from the
Washington Monument.

In some cases of piloting errors, filing a reporting form within
the Aviation Safety Reporting System can sometimes offer some
level of "immunity" -- against sanctions, not against prosecution.

FAA, spokesman William Shumann told AVweb, "In those cases where a
penalty was imposed even though an ASRS report was filed, it might
be because the pilot didn't check NOTAMs or otherwise comply with
FAR 91.103, which requires a pilot to 'become familiar with all
available information concerning that flight.'" As for satisfying
those requirements, "If one wants to be legalistic, the Automated
Flight Service Stations are the only 'official' source of
information, and DUAT is the only 'authorized' source outside of
AFSS," but that applies only to Part 121 and 135 -- not Part 91
operators.

Part 91 operators "can use whatever sources of weather and other
information they wish to meet the requirement of getting all the
information necessary for a safe flight," said Shumann. Concerned
Part 91 operators may feel more comfortable using only the
"official" sources listed above -- regardless of the type of
operation.

The Washington ADIZ has been there for six months now, and while
it has not been decreed a permanent fixture, "There is no
indication that it is going to go away anytime soon," says
Shumann. So for pilots not only in the Northeast, but
anywhere, it goes without saying: check NOTAMS and choose your
information sources wisely. And if you ever do find an otherwise
friendly F-16 off your wing, don't forget your intercepting
signals, and intercept procedures.

...In The Aftermath Of Another Incursion

Could Monday's incursion of White House airspace by a Mooney pilot
actually be a blessing in disguise? It may turn out that way if it
highlights what's becoming an increasing frustration for the FAA
-- and GA pilots. Since Feb. 10, when the ADIZ was put in place in
Washington, it has been violated more than 600 times. "Frankly,
we're a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it, and we
don't know why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb yesterday.
"It's on the charts, it's on our Web site."

Pilots who violate the ADIZ (so far none have been discovered to
be full-fledged evil-doers, or even to harbor any ill-intent)
generally get a 30- to 90-day suspension of their certificate,
Shumann said, but each case is handled individually. The range of
possibilities does include revocation. It might be more
understandable that pilots can be tripped up by Temporary Flight
Restrictions that appear with no warning (like those that follow
the president), but it seems it would be tough to miss the ADIZ
and the FRZ. The FRZ has been violated much less often than the
ADIZ, Shumann said.

Jean Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the Secret Service, told The New
York Times the pilot had thought he was abiding by the flight
restrictions around Washington, not realizing they had been
changed after the terrorist attacks. The Secret Service was
satisfied that he had not intended any harm, Mitchell told the
Times.

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.
Your local tower or TV station might tell you the weather is one thing, but
if the FSS says it isn't you could be in violation.

I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for, but I have been
told that I will be wrong if I don't answer the question with the FAA
examiner this way.
--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

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

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Dave Stadt wrote:

wrote in message
...

snip

Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

Where is that documented?

Which part? That you need a briefing, that it has to be "official" or
that FS and DUATS are the only briefings that count?

91.103 says you need a briefing and contains the catch all of "all
available information concerning that flight" which to the FAA enforcers
means weather, NOTAMs, TFRs, etc.

That's not what 91.103 says.

AIM 5-1-1 says FS or DUATS.

It suggests FSS or DUATS.

There was a proposed AC to add other services; I don't know if it was
approved.

I have seen FAA statements to that effect but only for part 91 flights.

Both the written exam and the oral exam bear absolutely no resemblance to
anything in the real world. It is a rite of passage and damned little else
(both for pilots and mechanics).

Jim

I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for, but I have
been told that I will be wrong if I don't answer the question with the FAA
examiner this way.

Dave A. wrote:

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.

I'd say it's the fact of the actual weather at the time and place that you are
flying that determines whether you are legally allowed to be flying, regardless
of what FSS or DUAT says.

In some kind of legal proceeding, you might use the reports from FSS or DUAT to
substantiate that the weather is/was what you say, but it's the actual weather
conditions that determine whether your flying is legal.

Dave

In some kind of legal proceeding, you might use the reports from FSS or
DUAT to substantiate that the weather is/was what you say, but it's the
actual weather conditions that determine whether your flying is legal.

I agree, and I believe that is the point. I am told the reasons are
anecdotal. Bear in mind that I am passing the standing of the instructors
of my flight school.

Lawyers and pilot advocates look at how the FAA rules and how the FAA
interprets the regulations for those rules.

Based on the history of FAA rulings (the sole interpreter and judge of such
rules, similar to the FCC in authority) lawyers determine that the FAA does
in fact consider the regulation to mean that a pilot is required to check
with FSS or DUATS, give a tail number and use that interaction as proof in a
legal proceeding.

a random example I made up off the top of my head;

You land VFR in less than 3 miles visibility. This alerts an FAA
representative and he spot checks you for an IFR ticket.
You have none. The only recourse you have is the FAA's weather reporting
stations and did you check it.
The local news forecast is of no use because you can't prove you checked it
and it has no legal bearing on the situation even if you could prove it.

So the wording may no be there but that is cold comfort when you have your
license suspended with no recourse.

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-
"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1117119150.93476@sj-nntpcache-5...
Dave A. wrote:

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.

I'd say it's the fact of the actual weather at the time and place that you
are flying that determines whether you are legally allowed to be flying,
regardless of what FSS or DUAT says.



Dave

"Dave A." wrote in message
news:HEkle.274$zb.28@trndny02...
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.

How does FSS or DUATS know what the conditions are at the thousands of
airports without weather reporting?

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.

Actual conditions outrank FSS or DUATS. Think about it.

Your local tower or TV station might tell you the weather is one thing,
but
if the FSS says it isn't you could be in violation.

I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for, but I have
been
told that I will be wrong if I don't answer the question with the FAA
examiner this way.
--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

Actual conditions outrank FSS or DUATS. Think about it.

I did. Then I remembered lawyers.


--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

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


"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Dave A." wrote in message
news:HEkle.274$zb.28@trndny02...
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.

How does FSS or DUATS know what the conditions are at the thousands of
airports without weather reporting?

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.



Your local tower or TV station might tell you the weather is one thing,
but
if the FSS says it isn't you could be in violation.

I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for, but I have
been
told that I will be wrong if I don't answer the question with the FAA
examiner this way.
--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

"Dave A." wrote in message
news:fcwle.3544$zb.3181@trndny01...
Actual conditions outrank FSS or DUATS. Think about it.

I did. Then I remembered lawyers.

So you would launch if actual conditions were below minimums but FSS said
things were OK. Interesting, but not condusive to a long life.

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

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

Dave Stadt wrote:

So you would launch if actual conditions were below minimums but FSS said
things were OK. Interesting, but not condusive to a long life.

I think he meant the other way 'round. When I was based at Kupper, the nearest
reporting station was Newark. Newark's on the coast and frequently has IMC when
Kupper is VFR. I remember an FAA inspector telling a safety meeting group that
we were technically illegal if we flew VFR when EWR was IFR. I don't think any
of us changed our habits as a result of that statement. I certainly didn't.

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.

In article x2xle.2405$Lb.1000@trndny05, George Patterson wrote:
Kupper is VFR. I remember an FAA inspector telling a safety meeting group that
we were technically illegal if we flew VFR when EWR was IFR. I don't think any
of us changed our habits as a result of that statement. I certainly didn't.

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. Otherwise, the corollary of what the FAA inspector
says is that you are technically LEGAL if it's 200 and 1/2 so long as
EWR is reporting VFR.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"