What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Alternative Briefing Sources--Yes or No?

Guy Prevost

Guy Prevost

Well Known Member
Some discussion in this thread for Dan's Weathermeister special offer http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=49042&highlight=weathermeister made me wonder what others are doing on this front. I'm interested in both peoples opinions as to the quality of service and the legality aspects.

Personally I find DUAT AND DUATS nearly useless. Several times I've logged in and spend 15 minutes trying to enter my flight information in the proper format. Arghh. :mad: I also don't get a lot of good from a briefer on the phone. It's better than nothing, but I don't retain nearly as much information as I do when I look at the information on a computer.

I'll probably take a beating for admitting this, but I basically use weathermester.com and runwayfinder.com to plan my flights. The information is clearly presented and easy to use. Sure they're not official sources, but the quality of information and its presentation are clearly superior. I do carry and use current sectionals. Sometimes I call a briefer ask a couple of pointed questions and then tune him out while I peruse the other information I need online. I do this primarily to get the call logged on the official system.

Here are my questions:
1. Do you use quality easy to understand sources (such as WeatherMeister.com) almost exclusively for your briefings?
2. Do you believe you are meeting the requirement to obtain all relevant information when you do this?

I believe that by using sources that transfer information to me effectively I am more adequately prepared for my flight than if I use an official source that is presented with less clarity. I am not advocating in any way flying without a briefing. That said, I seldom use an official briefing. Anyone else willing to admit this?
 
Weathermeister is my first choice....

....and then sometimes a call to Wx. David pointed out yesterday that it is not incumbent on us to call the "official" wx bureau. Weathermeister is simply getting so much better with time. The value can't be beat, for sure.

Regards,
 
I use weathermeister.com, runwayfinder.com, and the national weather service hourly graphs for all my daily flying. On cross countries I do the same but will log onto DUATS with my iPhone just before take-off to get an official briefing logged. Do not really even look at it but it gets registered. One note is that I am a fair weather flier so do not need the hard core weather stuff. If I see bad or questionable weather I delay or divert so your results may vary.
 
Weathermeister, ADDS, Doug's Weather Links page....heck, I even use th seven-day Outlook from the Weather Channel site. I haven't used DUATS since I got a a Blackberry (now an iphone), and Sunday was the first time I talked to an FSS guy in years (to get a clearance).

I am concerned with getting all the information i need to safely fly - not with leaving a "legal" bread crumb somewhere that isn't technically required (as David pointed out on that other thread). Technology has given us a great assortment of intelligent briefing options that makes the old telephone briefing seem like we were just banging' the rocks together.

I check all the weather sources every day - even on days that I don't fly. I like to keep a synoptic picture in my mind, and watching the forecast, forming my own opinion, then seeing how it turns out is a great way to learn how the weather actually works. The NOAA weather guys that work for us in the Shuttle program do weather forecasts for all of our landing sites every single day, not just when we are flying - that gives them daily practice AND FEEDBACK ON THEIR FORECASTS to get better and better. Imagine calling FSS for a brief every day to do the same thing....

Paul
 
FSS

There was a time when the FSS system worked very well, partly because it was all there was, and there were enough stations to collect and report data. The system has become a dinosaur due to "consolidation" and the advance of technology. As Paul said, getting a phone brief is downright painful. Local knowledge was a big factor in the FSS system but it is history. Having to give a briefer a lesson in geography is frustrating and a waste of my time. Other than to pick up an IFR clearance, I haven't talked to an FSS for 15 years. All the data is available in a number of formats, pick the ones that you find easy to use.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
This thread could not be more timely for me. I made four inquiries with four different FSDOs asking for clarification on 91.103, and what the FAA considers acceptable sources for "weather reports and forecasts." I have received a grand total of zero responses so far (other than one guy forwarding the request to another guy asking him to answer my question).

It appears even the FAA may not have a clear handle on their own requirements. Seems like very convenient omission/ambiguity if you ask me.
 
Per the FARs, the PIC "shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight." You are legally required to know everything.

The FAA has thrown the book at many a unsuspecting pilot who ran afoul of a NOTAM, TFR, etc, even though it didn't come up in their perfectly legal briefing. Just using DUAT(S) or Flight Service probably isn't giving you "ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION."

TODR
 
ADDS and AOPA

I primarily use ADDS and some of AOPAs weather resources. I agree that the depictions given there are much clearer and help me to get the "big picture" of the weather before flying. AOPAs flight planner has a script that will log on to DUATS and spit out the "official" wx brief. I use that textual log mostly for NOTAMS, although I do skim it quickly to ensure it jives with what I see on ADDS. I made a few IFR flights in Indiana over the last couple of weeks using this method, and it has worked very well for me. YMMV.

edit: I also like the flight plan filing feature of the AOPA flight planner.
 
Last edited:
For 121 and 135 operators, the FAA is very specific

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.




dan said:
This thread could not be more timely for me. I made four inquiries with four different FSDOs asking for clarification on 91.103, and what the FAA considers acceptable sources for "weather reports and forecasts." I have received a grand total of zero responses so far (other than one guy forwarding the request to another guy asking him to answer my question).

It appears even the FAA may not have a clear handle on their own requirements. Seems like very convenient omission/ambiguity if you ask me.
Click to expand...
 
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?


tcone1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
dan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
dan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
And all that you have cited as being true TODR, is why I just don't worry too much about having my "briefing" recorded. the FAA can violate just about ANY pilot on just about ANY flight (if they want to), so instead of being concerned about satisfying the feds, i concern myself with actual, honest-to-goodness safety of flight, in every way that makes sense. For me, that includes getting accurate, readable weather information from an intelligent source. Compare a DUATS from ten years ago to any of the modern briefing services. That's right - there is no comparison.

Do the right thing,

Paul
 
Ironflight said:
And all that you have cited as being true TODR, is why I just don't worry too much about having my "briefing" recorded. the FAA can violate just about ANY pilot on just about ANY flight (if they want to), so instead of being concerned about satisfying the feds, i concern myself with actual, honest-to-goodness safety of flight, in every way that makes sense. For me, that includes getting accurate, readable weather information from an intelligent source. Compare a DUATS from ten years ago to any of the modern briefing services. That's right - there is no comparison.

Do the right thing,

Paul
Click to expand...
Correct. The point of my rant was to indicate the very broad scope of 91.103 so that we understand that getting an official briefing does not satisfy 91.103 since you are not getting "all available information". It would be prudent to use multiple sources to get your data.

Once again, dissimilar redundancy is your friend. :)

TODR
 
I figure that between the "Weather Underground" which also displays current weather maps in addition to forecasts, the AOPA flight planner which overlays weather on a printable sectional type map, Air NAV for notams, and my XM weather being displayed on the Garmin 696................that I have the bases covered. Great thing about the Garmin & XM, is that it will display current TFRs & an explanation of what they are. I consider the "in-flight" XM weather as ultimately the best of all.

Between those listed above, and the SPOT satellite tracker to take place of a flight plan, I never call for briefs anymore. Yet I'm getting what I consider to be "all the available information" that I need. I no longer file flight plans because I may change course on a whim, and prefer not to fly by schedules.

edit: The Weather Underground also has current NOTAMs on the airport page (middle left under full report --- aviation).
http://www.wunderground.com/


L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Last edited:
Weathermeister is by far the best weather brief I have found. That coupled with XM weather on my 496 hasn't had me talk to a FSS briefer, other than
a departure brief at OSH, in years. I do talk to Flight Watch en-route to give
PIREPS. Honestly I could care less about covering my a.. from a legal standpoint. Being safe is far more important. Also, I use the full weathermeister site on my Iphone. It may be slow to load at non 3G areas
but still works great.
 
One advantage of Flight Service....

I use Navmonster as my starting point for most weather/Notam/TFR into. I like the way it groups the data for my route of flight.

However, one thing you don't get online is an interpretation/opinion on the suitability of the weather for a given fliglht. This you do get from Flight Service. I have been surprised twice this year by FS telling me "VFR not recommended" when I thought the wx was Ok. Not great, but Ok. In both cases, they were probably correct.

So, I use the online resources as my primary info. However, if the outlook is not crystal clear, then I like to see what FS has to say and why.

John
 
AOPA

Guy Prevost said:
Personally I find DUAT AND DUATS nearly useless. Several times I've logged in and spend 15 minutes trying to enter my flight information in the proper format. Arghh. :mad: I also don't get a lot of good from a briefer on the phone. It's better than nothing, but I don't retain nearly as much information as I do when I look at the information on a computer.
Click to expand...

If you want the "official" briefing, you could try using the AOPA Internet Flight Planner. It stores your aircraft information and will connect to DUATS automatically once you enter your route info.

It's not quite as useful as some of the other sources mentioned here, but it does provide an easy and painless way to log the "official" briefing if needed.
 
FSS almost useless.

I have used weathertap.com for a number of years. They really have just about everything I've ever needed as far as weather goes. They have a QICP page as wel.

I also have Pilot mycast on my cell phone and I use fltplan.com for free flight planning and filing (if necessary).

Finally, Airnav.com for fuel planning and airport information and the AOPA flight planner (sometimes).

Last Sunday, I called up the FSS because we were going to go from KLRU to KENV via KGCN and cross the Grand Canyon for a photo op.

The FSS briefer was CLUELESS about the Canyon airspace. Took almost forever for him to search, search and search again before coming up empty.

15 minutes on the internet yielded the GC chart. 10 minutes and I had my flight plan programmed to take us through Dragon Corridor. A breathtaking flight I might add.

I will call FSS if there is no other option, but only then.

Just my two cents.
JP
 
I mostly use NOAA

This site:
http://aviationweather.gov/

to do my serious weather planning.

My flight planning software, Flightsoft from RMS, is set to access DUAT automatically when I tell it to. I do that so there is an "official" record that I checked the weather. It downloads the weather report based on my route, time, etc, but I rarely read it.

However, Flightsoft allows me to click on airport icons to get METAR's of TAF's for that airport. I do use that feature. The data is either from DUAT or is downloaded from NOAA like sites.

Sometimes I use my hand held (CE based phone) to access DUAT in a pinch
 
Wake up call

I had a little experience today that may make me more likely to get an official DUATS briefing.

I have been keeping tabs on an interesting facility in the desert near Carlsbad. Normally on weekends there is no one there. Today I briefed at a commercial website I like then flew out for some photos. The facility was very busy with people, cars, trucks, two airplanes, including a C-130 and a helicopter. Since it was so busy I just did a U turn over the facility then flew back home.

DSC05526_2.jpg

As I approached the airport I got a call on unicom that Albuquerque Center wanted to talk to me. UH-OH, did I miss something and will I lose my license?

It turns out that I didn't violate any FARs but I was told that the military was "very unhappy" with me because they had to suspend their operation while I was in the area. Now keep in mind this is private ranch land with many victor airways in the vicinity. The guy at center was nice and didn't make any threats or tell me not to go out there again.

I checked back with my briefing source and could not find the NOTAM which later was found by going to DUATS. The NOTAM is for an area of nearly 1,000 square miles from the surface up though FL200 and as I stated many airways go through it (SFL VOR NOTAM #460) and it is for pretty much all day every day till nearly the end of October. The NOTAM advises of parachuting operations. In other words it is meaninglessly vague and general but I do wish I had seen it.

An interesting thing about the NOTAM is that it exactly pinpoints this facility that I would think they wouldn't want all that many people to know about. Another interesting thing is that just about all east-west air traffic in the southern US pretty much has to go through the area of the NOTAM because of the monstrous restricted areas over the very nearby military reservations. Go figure!
 
Last edited:
n5lp said:
I checked back with my briefing source and could not find the NOTAM which later was found by going to DUATS. The NOTAM is for an area of nearly 1,000 square miles from the surface up though FL200 and as I stated many airways go through it (SFL VOR NOTAM #460) and it is for pretty much all day every day till nearly the end of October. The NOTAM advises of parachuting operations. In other words it is meaninglessly vague and general but I do wish I had seen it.
Click to expand...

Doh!

FWIW, Weathermeister does show that NOTAM:
notams.png
 
dan said:
Doh!

FWIW, Weathermeister does show that NOTAM:
notams.png
Click to expand...
Dan, more and more it appears that your site is very reliable.

I also like how you break things up. While investigating this I became newly aware of how difficult it can be to pick the small nuggets of wisdom out of the thousands of words about things hundreds of miles away from the relevant route.
 
Last edited:
More investigation

I have just been looking at this stuff some more.

My original briefing source for my flight over toward SFL VOR was NavMonster. I have retried it repeatedly with different routes and route widths and cannot get the NOTAM that I missed. This NOTAM wasn't a big deal, like a missed TFR would be, but I would have been more assertive with ATC had I known just what it said.

If I use the AOPA Flight Planner the NOTAM does show up in the DUATS briefing, if you can pick it out of thousands of words with no line breaks, which is really really hard.

I have known that Dan's Weathermeister is a real good site but I have always felt I can do fine with free sources (as an ex briefer myself), but I just signed up for the free trial and find that Weathermeister has a superior presentation and I can find the stuff I actually need. Although I don't see why the official sources can't do a decent job, I think I will end up paying Dan.
 
Feedback from NavMonster

I emailed NavMonster and asked about the missing NOTAM. Here is their reply:

Oops. SFL is a VOR (as opposed to an airport), and it looks like we
missed this one. And some other VORs too. I hope to have it fixed
within 24 to 48 hours. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
 
n5lp said:
An interesting thing about the NOTAM is that it exactly pinpoints this facility that I would think they wouldn't want all that many people to know about.
Click to expand...

Ok, so now my curiosity is piqued. What exactly is this facility, what is going on there, and is there really any parachuting involved? Somebody tell me or I will be forced to fly out there and check it out myself, no doubt causing the entire military to come to a standstill : ). Or worse, I will have the Discovery Channel do an expose, complete with alien autopsy records, etc

erich
 
erich weaver said:
Ok, so now my curiosity is piqued. What exactly is this facility, what is going on there, and is there really any parachuting involved? Somebody tell me or I will be forced to fly out there and check it out myself,...
Click to expand...
Please do come check it out. They seem to be annoyed at my little black RV buzzing around.

If you haven't seen it my photos are at: http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html

Within the last year it has gone from a single metal building to quite a facility including covered picnic area and control? tower and transport planes and even a Russian helicopter.
 
n5lp said:
I have just been looking at this stuff some more.

My original briefing source for my flight over toward SFL VOR was NavMonster. I have retried it repeatedly with different routes and route widths and cannot get the NOTAM that I missed. This NOTAM wasn't a big deal, like a missed TFR would be, but I would have been more assertive with ATC had I known just what it said.

If I use the AOPA Flight Planner the NOTAM does show up in the DUATS briefing, if you can pick it out of thousands of words with no line breaks, which is really really hard.

I have known that Dan's Weathermeister is a real good site but I have always felt I can do fine with free sources (as an ex briefer myself), but I just signed up for the free trial and find that Weathermeister has a superior presentation and I can find the stuff I actually need. Although I don't see why the official sources can't do a decent job, I think I will end up paying Dan.
Click to expand...


That's exactly my perspective. Presentation quality is almost as important as the data itself. If I can't find the right information it might as well not be there.
 
n5lp said:
...As I approached the airport I got a call on unicom that Albuquerque Center wanted to talk to me. UH-OH, did I miss something and will I lose my license?

It turns out that I didn't violate any FARs but I was told that the military was "very unhappy" with me because they had to suspend their operation while I was in the area. Now keep in mind this is private ranch land with many victor airways in the vicinity...
Click to expand...
Today, a month after this incident, I was again contacted by the FAA asking for a call back to the FSDO for counseling.

This should be interesting. I was flying in open public airspace but there was a NOTAM out for parachuting activity, not associated with any charted airport and covering an area of 935 square miles, 78% of the area of the state of Rhode Island. Nine airways go through the area and it includes the often traveled Guadalupe Pass. It was in effect for daylight hours for many days from the surface up through FL200 or sometimes FL220.

Someone is going to a lot of trouble over this!
 
n5lp said:
Today, a month after this incident, I was again contacted by the FAA asking for a call back to the FSDO for counseling.
Click to expand...
Counseling? Sounds a bit ominous.

Best of luck. Might be time to chat with a lawyer so you are fully prepared for your meeting. Probably best to not take them with you unless you know the FAA's lawyers will be there too.

TODR
 
Enflight and qicp

Although Enflight is not qicp certified, it is a front end to Duats. It's impossible to get a briefing from Enflight without it being recorded at Duats, which IS qicp certified. As it happens, the FAA doesn't really care that much whether a site is qicp certified. When they're doing an investigation they accept data logged directly by sites like Enflight and others that maintain such logs.
 
i go with the meister and 496...............

on IFR flights i will call FSS for their stuff. IFR is the best = I Fly Rvs.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top