Who or What is Right?

Sometimes, during the course of casual "hangar flying," subjects of minor interest can take on a life all their own.

My friend, an active and current certified flight instructor were talking about this and that and during the course of the conversation I mentioned that I have always (and apparently mistakenly) believed that to be "legal" for flight, among other things, CURRENT charts must be carried in the airplane relevant to the geographical area in which the aircraft is operating. My flight instructor buddy was not shy to volunteer that he was a bit hazy on the minutia of the subject so he got in touch with an FAA contact person at the STL FSDO. According to the person he talked to, the position held by at least that FAA official was that in the course of a routine ramp check he would personally BUST a pilot for having an OUT OF DATE chart in the plane but NOT bust him if no chart at all was found on board!

Am I missing something here?

I had always understood that the requirement for current charts comes under the "elastic clause" of the FARs.

91.103 Preflight action. Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

If you don't have a current chart, by definition you don't have all available information. I would think that would also hold true if you don't have any chart.

If you have an old chart in your plane, you should write "Not to be used for Navigation" on both sides. This would be acceptable to carry in your plane, no matter what you use it for.
BUT...what about having an out of date database in your GPS? Especially if you are a VFR type pilot and only get updates every year or so? Hmmmm!

YOU DON'T NEED CURRENT CHARTS/GPS DATA BASE FOR VFR

The only FAA/FAR requirements that pertain 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 "You can carry old charts in your aircraft" "It is not FAA policy to violate anyone for having outdated charts in the aircraft"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.

Above quoted from: http://www.whittsflying.com/Page2.7PTSNavigation.htm, not me.

If you don't have a current chart, by definition you don't have all available information. I would think that would also hold true if you don't have any chart.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but... How many people don't have 3-D weather satellite images, updates to the obstruction database since the chart was printed, etc... every time they fly?

If the regulations don't require a chart at all, it is silly to think an outdated chart would be a violation (unless it is specifically prohibited).

learned something today

tobinbasford said:

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:


3. "....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.

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"

Click to expand...

Number 3 is good to know but number 5 should be enough to convince you to cover yourself. If a local FAA guy can get Bob Hoover in trouble.....imagine the chances for the rest of us. Thanks guys.

Like any other profession some FAA inspectors know their jobs and the regs some do not.

I am presuming your discussion was based on Part 61 and Part 91.

If you are interested I have an Inspectors Guide for ramp inspections and an inspectors "aid"(checklist) for ramp inspections in pdf that I will be happy to e mail to you (16pages). The guide mentions nothing about aeronautical charts as being a legitimate part of the inspection but aeronautical charts is on the check list with a remarks column.


To the best of my knowledge there is no FAR that "requires" current charts nor is there an FAR that prohibits out of date charts.


The AIM references NOAA charts but I find no FARS that designate what an appropriate chart is nor what a current chart is.

My take on the regs is you must familiarize yourself with all pertinent data relative to the planned flight. This says to me I can memorize a sectional or take along a Rand McNally atlas and as long as the flight is conducted safely and I violate no FARs I cannot be violated.

For VFR I consider my EFIS or handheld GPS adequate and legal for the pertinent information for my planned flight from the standpoint of charts.

I also believe the inspector can only inform you of his opinions or concerns and provide you with documentation of same. The inspector cannot violate you, take your license or ground you or your airplane.

I further think the inspector has no right to enter your aircraft to look unless you give him permission.

I believe your only legal obligation is to provide him with your certificates and aircraft documentation for inspection. The inspector may not keep them.

sf3543 said:

..........what about having an out of date database in your GPS? Especially if you are a VFR type pilot and only get updates every year or so? Hmmmm!

Click to expand...

I can add this interesting tidbit offered by the very same FAA official during the original conversation I mentioned. Apparently Jeppeson erred when it updated the software changes to the Class B boundaries to reflect the new runway recently activated at STL. It was exactly because of those recent Class B changes that I elected to update my handheld 296 and panel mounted 430 since I am based within the Mode C boundaries of STL. Now for the good part.....in the case of an inadvertent incursion into the Class B by a pilot relying on the current database loaded into the GPS, the FAA would instantly violate the pilot and Jeppeson would be held blameless. In the view of the FAA, a (VFR) pilot is responsible to navigate in this case by reference to a current sectional or current TCA chart. It is unclear to me if the very latest update to the GPS software has been corrected.

by the very same FAA official

Click to expand...

This guy sounds like he is in training to become a U.S. Congressman

Not quite

N395V said:

This guy sounds like he is in training to become a U.S. Congressman

Click to expand...

Not quite, he didn't have his hand out waiting for a bribe.

redbeardmark said:

Not quite, he didn't have his hand out waiting for a bribe.

Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by N395V
This guy sounds like he is in training to become a U.S. Congressman

...........

Nor his freezer stuffed with $100 bills....

how dumb do those in Congress [or should it be congress] think we citizens are?

Getting upset and thinking that they are imune to laws?

Mark Twain said it best:

First God made fools... this was for practice... then He made Congress [and another occasion: There are fools and congressmen... ahhhh but I repeat myself...]

life long poloticians are the destruction of our great country - our founding fathers never fathomed this situation... regrettably

sorry for the rant but I have young grandchildren and I feel for our future...

John

TACs not required unless...

Rick Galati said:

<snip>... In the view of the FAA, a (VFR) pilot is responsible to navigate in this case by reference to a current sectional or current TCA chart...

Click to expand...

Since VFR Terminal Area Charts (TAC) came to be published (with roots dating back to the 1978 San Diego PSA Flight 182 and subsequent 1986 Cerritos Aeromexico Flight 498 crashes), I believed that TACs were required to be carried in the aircraft to fly in Class B airspace. I always carry current LAS, LAX, SAN and SFO TACs in the plane. I've always thought, "How could you safely navigate this busy airspace without it???"

My buddy John Manduca said "No, you don't need a TAC in the plane." I didn't believe him so I checked with AOPA and found out that John was right...

AOPA told me no charts were required to fly in, around or under the Class B airspace. However, you must carry a current chart if you are going to navigate a special route such as the Hollywood Park, Shoreline or Los Angeles Special Flight Rules routes. This requirement is stated directly in the TAC itself.

After 28 years of flying in Los Angeles' airspace, you'd think I'd of known this. You are never too old to learn Rosie

Dave Cole said:

I
91.103 Preflight action. Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

Click to expand...

"Becoming familiar" with something does not imply having the data on-board. Should this also mean that you need to carry a voice recording of your FSS flight briefing? Also note that it 91.103 states nothing about what should be on-board...only what should be done in pre-flight.