Alternative Briefing Sources--Yes or No?

[kenmorris]

Dan, check this out.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...erations/qicp/

[dan]

Yeah, I'm all over the QICP thing already (Weathermeister should hopefully be a QICP early next year). But my question is...where in the *regs* (admittedly I've been focused on 91, not 121 or 135) does it mention anything about QICP?

Originally Posted by tcone1

Sharpie,

You might check into this:

This Qualified Internet Communications Provider's (QICP) servers and communication interfaces are approved by the FAA as secure, reliable and accessible in accordance with AC00-62.

This QICP approval does not ensure the quality and currency of the information transmitted to you. The user assumes the entire risk related to the information and its use.

[gkimbrough]

I ran into some guys a couple of years ago at Oshkosh and started using their site experimentally.
It's "www.enflight.com" I get an unsophisticated flight plan and complete briefing and a chart with a line on it. It's not all I use but it is nice to have. I'm old enough that I still like to call them up and talk to a real person sometimes.

[dan]

Originally Posted by dan

Yeah, I'm all over the QICP thing already (Weathermeister should hopefully be a QICP early next year). But my question is...where in the *regs* (admittedly I've been focused on 91, not 121 or 135) does it mention anything about QICP?

Just got off the phone with Matt Galica over at the Louisville FSDO. He was very helpful in clarifying the FAA's stance on this. What I'm about to say is may be pretty obvious to most of us, although he definitely did clear up a few of the finer points for me. It's nice to hear it from the FAA rather than hearsay on the internet.

The regs are intentionally ambiguous because they don't want to prescribe how you get your preflight weather information. As long as you get the data prior to the flight, and as long as you can prove that you did, then you won't have an issue with 91.103.

How do you prove it? With FSS, having identified your tail number at the beginning of the session, your briefing is thus logged. With DUATS, if you log in properly, then your briefings will also be logged.

What about other web sites that present the same data? Matt mentioned that most other sites, ADDS included, don't keep a log of anything -- and in those cases, you're basically out of luck because you can't prove anything. But he did say that if a site is QICP certified and maintains a log of your briefings, then you should have no problem demonstrating that you did in fact get a briefing. This was the clarification I was looking for.

I also spoke with Matt about violations. I asked how often non-compliance with 91.103 comes into play for accidents that aren't weather-related. In other words, if I get into an accident that has nothing to do with weather, but I didn't comply with 91.103, could the FAA use that as ammo against me? He said no. If it's not a weather-related accident, then 91.103 is not likely even to enter the realm of consideration. And in so many words...in most weather-related accidents, there's usually not even a pilot left to violate.

Matt spoke quite a bit about the "intent" of the regulation rather than the literal translation. Are we as pilots taking everything we possibly can into consideration in order to make a good decision? That is the key.

There's much more covered by 91.103 than just preflight weather briefings, but for obvious reasons (www.weathermeister.com) I was most concerned about the weather end of it. I think I have a better understanding now...and one that I can trust more since it came directly from the FAA.

Bottom line for me: QICP, logged, you should be able to prove compliance.

[Mike S]

Dan, I have no idea what "QICP" is, but my computer remembers what sites I visit.

That should be enough of a record for the feds.

Good to see you active here again.

[Davepar]

And just to bring it full circle, a friend of mine was talking to some FSS briefers at Oshkosh. Turns out they use Runwayfinder.com (among others I'm sure) in addition to official weather sources. Looking at the network used by the visitors to my site, sure enough Lockheed Martin is #1, even in front of the internet service providers like Comcast, RoadRunner, Verizon, etc. So what is official anyway?

Dave

[David-aviator]

Originally Posted by dan

Just got off the phone with Matt Galica over at the Louisville FSDO. He was very helpful in clarifying the FAA's stance on this. What I'm about to say is may be pretty obvious to most of us, although he definitely did clear up a few of the finer points for me. It's nice to hear it from the FAA rather than hearsay on the internet.

The regs are intentionally ambiguous because they don't want to prescribe how you get your preflight weather information. As long as you get the data prior to the flight, and as long as you can prove that you did, then you won't have an issue with 91.103.

How do you prove it? With FSS, having identified your tail number at the beginning of the session, your briefing is thus logged. With DUATS, if you log in properly, then your briefings will also be logged.

What about other web sites that present the same data? Matt mentioned that most other sites, ADDS included, don't keep a log of anything -- and in those cases, you're basically out of luck because you can't prove anything. But he did say that if a site is QICP certified and maintains a log of your briefings, then you should have no problem demonstrating that you did in fact get a briefing. This was the clarification I was looking for.

I also spoke with Matt about violations. I asked how often non-compliance with 91.103 comes into play for accidents that aren't weather-related. In other words, if I get into an accident that has nothing to do with weather, but I didn't comply with 91.103, could the FAA use that as ammo against me? He said no. If it's not a weather-related accident, then 91.103 is not likely even to enter the realm of consideration. And in so many words...in most weather-related accidents, there's usually not even a pilot left to violate.

Matt spoke quite a bit about the "intent" of the regulation rather than the literal translation. Are we as pilots taking everything we possibly can into consideration in order to make a good decision? That is the key.

There's much more covered by 91.103 than just preflight weather briefings, but for obvious reasons (www.weathermeister.com) I was most concerned about the weather end of it. I think I have a better understanding now...and one that I can trust more since it came directly from the FAA.

Bottom line for me: QICP, logged, you should be able to prove compliance.

Or carry a printed copy.

When I did this stuff for a living we never got a briefing from anyone, but we did carry a printed copy of the current wx, the forecast for arrival, special wx alerts, and applicable notams. I am sure it is still done that way today, briefers cost money and computers got rid of them a long time ago.

I feel ok using your service as per the above premise but if you can do the QICP thing, better yet.

[Phil]

I use WeatherTap for my weather and it's a great service. It is a QICP service and every time I log in to get weather, I have to enter in my name and tail number.

http://www.weathertap.com

I'm also greeted with this message.

This Qualified Internet Communications Provider (QICP) servers and communication interfaces are approved by the United States Federal Aviation Administration as secure, reliable, and accessible in accordance with AC 00-62. As a Qualified Internet Communications Provider, WeatherTAP is not required to ensure the quality and currency of the information transmitted to you. You the user, assumes the entire risk related to the information and its use.

Weathermeister isn't a QICP service....

I still grab some info from Adds and other sources, I'd be stupid to not cross reference information from other sources. But WeatherTap is my primary source for weather related information. For flight planning and routing, I use: http://www.fltplan.com

Phil

[the_other_dougreeves]

Originally Posted by dan

I also spoke with Matt about violations. I asked how often non-compliance with 91.103 comes into play for accidents that aren't weather-related. In other words, if I get into an accident that has nothing to do with weather, but I didn't comply with 91.103, could the FAA use that as ammo against me? He said no. If it's not a weather-related accident, then 91.103 is not likely even to enter the realm of consideration. And in so many words...in most weather-related accidents, there's usually not even a pilot left to violate.

I have to say that I'm confused. 91.103 isn't limited to weather - it says (emphasis added):

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

It then goes on to say that this information must include weather and runway information, but 91.103 is clearly not limited to anything. If it's relevant to the flight, you need to know it, and it's clearly your responsibility. TFRs, runway closures, ADs, weather, known medical conditions of your passengers ... as PIC, you have to know everything that (a) is knowable and (b) concerns the flight. Think about the implications of that for a moment.

If you have an incident / accident that is related to you not knowing something and somewhere, someone has made that bit of knowledge "available", you are clearly in violation of 91.103, since it is your responsibility to become familiar with all available information.

If you have an incident / accident that is related to information that is not "available", such as a manufacturing flaw in your particular engine that was not noticed in any of your (properly documented, of course) inspections, then you are not in violation of 91.103.

Now, whether the FAA decides to initiate enforcement action is a separate matter. However, one should not count on the kindness of the feds to not come after you. If they decide to show enforcement discretion, great, but the are not required to in a regulatory sense.

Yes, this is a harsh and strict interpretation of the FARs, but the problem here isn't the interpetation, it's that the rule is very broad and puts all the responsability on the pilot. Imagine the difference if instead it said "The pilot in command shall obtain an appropriate briefing from an official source."

Sorry to sound so grouchy, but a big part of my job is interpreting federal rules (not FARs) for clients, and they are sometimes subject to similar broad rules. It's difficult to understand exactly where the scope of such rules stops and the lack of certainty for the regulated entity is frustrating.

TODR

PS - If you have legal questions, consult your attorney. I am not an attorney, I don't play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[roadrunner20]

I am a subscriber to http://www.weathermeister.com but also use
http://navmonster.com/mobile/ especially on my iPhone.

I prefer navmonster on my iPhone as I believe it's a far superior user interface and use it quite often on cross country flights when I am without my laptop.