AOPA Never Again

ColoPilot

ColoPilot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
604
Location
Colorado
Display Name
Display name:
ColoPilot
I was reading the July Never Again column in the AOPA magazine where the author had inadvertently violated a TFR because he misread the DUAT briefing and the TFR was not correctly depicted on his EFB. What surprised me was the author stated the FAA made these rulings in his case:

Even if a TFR is not depicted via the ADS-B system you are still responsible for avoiding it. In fact, the FAA is not required to publish TFRs to the ADS-B system at all and only does it for convenience.

The use of the EFB to obtain DUATS briefing was ruled a violation of FAR 91.103(a) because it was “not an FAA-approved source of preflight and safety of flight information.”

The author filed a NASA ASRS report, but the FAA rejected it and suspended the pilot's certificate for 30 days without providing a reason for rejecting the ASRS "get out of jail".

It seems there is more to this story -- especially the rejecting of the ASRS waiver of penalty and the use of an EFB for receiving briefings. Is there a place to review FAA enforcement actions (similar to the NTSB accident database)?
 
Welcome to the feds deciding they want to convict somebody. Facts do not matter and will not stand in their way.
 
Interesting. It also supports my position of calling for my brief and talking to a human who is better at decoding crap than I am. It sounds like he ****ed someone off in this process.
 
ColoPilot said:
I was reading the July Never Again column in the AOPA magazine where the author had inadvertently violated a TFR because he misread the DUAT briefing and the TFR was not correctly depicted on his EFB. What surprised me was the author stated the FAA made these rulings in his case:

Even if a TFR is not depicted via the ADS-B system you are still responsible for avoiding it. In fact, the FAA is not required to publish TFRs to the ADS-B system at all and only does it for convenience.

The use of the EFB to obtain DUATS briefing was ruled a violation of FAR 91.103(a) because it was “not an FAA-approved source of preflight and safety of flight information.”

The author filed a NASA ASRS report, but the FAA rejected it and suspended the pilot's certificate for 30 days without providing a reason for rejecting the ASRS "get out of jail".

It seems there is more to this story -- especially the rejecting of the ASRS waiver of penalty and the use of an EFB for receiving briefings. Is there a place to review FAA enforcement actions (similar to the NTSB accident database)?
Click to expand...
Was the DUATS briefing on the EFB what was determined not to be "an approved source", or was it whatever source he was using to depict the TFR?
 
Uh, I just read the July 7 2015 column and it dealt with flight into T-storms. Can you be more specific, so I can read the article and make a semi-cogent comment?

<edit; I found it>
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Was the DUATS briefing on the EFB what was determined not to be "an approved source", or was it whatever source he was using to depict the TFR?
Click to expand...

I believe it was the DUATS briefing on the EFB but I'd like to read the official report.
 
Oh, this one is easy to see where he went wrong right away: "...my lawyer and I..."

So he started out the process confrontational, and did not kowtow to the be-all, end-all of aviation regulation. They were going to pound him no matter how many mistakes the FAA made(and the F-16 driver). He was cooked the minute he filed notice to appear with an atty.

For future reference, bend over, lube up, grab the ankles and ask for it to be quick.
 
docmirror said:
Oh, this one is easy to see where he went wrong right away: "...my lawyer and I..."

So he started out the process confrontational, and did not kowtow to the be-all, end-all of aviation regulation. They were going to pound him no matter how many mistakes the FAA made(and the F-16 driver). He was cooked the minute he filed notice to appear with an atty.

For future reference, bend over, lube up, grab the ankles and ask for it to be quick.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

At least his lawyer told him to not appeal. For a non-professional pilot a 30 day suspension is probably a lot cheaper than an NTSB appeal.
 
docmirror said:
Oh, this one is easy to see where he went wrong right away: "...my lawyer and I..."

So he started out the process confrontational, and did not kowtow to the be-all, end-all of aviation regulation. They were going to pound him no matter how many mistakes the FAA made(and the F-16 driver). He was cooked the minute he filed notice to appear with an atty.

For future reference, bend over, lube up, grab the ankles and ask for it to be quick.
Click to expand...

Well, there is also the fact that he omitted that he wasn't monitoring 121.5, and then there is this little bit:
My letters to the FAA administrator and formal fraud, waste, and abuse complaints were ignored.
Click to expand...

IME if you're not a jackass, you don't get bent over. The dude made a multiplicity of errors because he doesn't know how to operate "out of the system", then acted like a blowhard jackass. If you do that, yeah, you're going to get your ass reamed. Instead of making excuses and trying to defend his errors by trying to blame them on the FAA, and owned up to his mistakes, he would have probably ended up with 'counseling'. Instead he lawyer end up and lost.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Was the DUATS briefing on the EFB what was determined not to be "an approved source", or was it whatever source he was using to depict the TFR?
Click to expand...

The depiction source. He didn't flip the page and complete the process of figuring out all the TFRs.
 
I don't know the specifics of this guy's case, but violating a national security TFR is actually a crime under U.S. Code and is thus an exception to the NASA ASRS waiver of penalty.
 
It seems like there's really got to be another side to this. He says he made it all the way to short final, and the F-16 blew past him close enough to blow him off course, but he didn't see it. Presumably, that wasn't the first intercept attempt. So, a) lookoutsidemuch? and b) are we to believe the Falcon pilot was trying to kill him? What would the point be of forcing him down when he's already landing? No one met him on the ground and gave him a pair of shiny new bracelets? I feel like there is much missing.
 
Now now, I'm sure AOPA fully vetted the story before they published it, knowing that a story like this one could be highly charged and have significant repercussions on what outsiders think of aviation when they read it in their rag. (ROFLMAO)
 
Henning said:
Interesting. It also supports my position of calling for my brief and talking to a human who is better at decoding crap than I am. It sounds like he ****ed someone off in this process.
Click to expand...

Always get a briefing. Those folks are so incredibly helpful.
 
ColoPilot said:
I believe it was the DUATS briefing on the EFB but I'd like to read the official report.
Click to expand...

So if I get the official information through an unofficial device, that's considered a problem by the FAA? By unofficial, I mean something like my iPad or computer's web browser.

I only ask because I don't understand the difference between my iPad and his EFB. At least the EFB is targeted for aviation.

Monitoring 121.5 is legally required or just a good idea? cub?
 
So if I use my iPad to get an electronic briefing on 1800-WX-Brief that's legit?

I think part of the issue going on here is that a lot of electronic products offer essentially the same data that the "official" FAA vendors offer but the FAA has done a really poor job of explaining what the "official" electronic sources are vs sources that just show the same info but haven't been officially chartered to do so.

Back in the day when the only electronic source was a modem you could dial into it was easy to have an "official" number to call... now that info is freely available most everywhere and in many cases the "unofficial" sources do a better job of presenting the info than the "official" ones (eg TFR display in ForeFlight is better than any of the official products... The 'nextgen' on WX-brief is a lot better than what it was but is still not as good as ForeFlight).

Government officials falling way behind the times and failing to keep up with the private sector. Shocking!:rolleyes2::rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
So if I get the official information through an unofficial device, that's considered a problem by the FAA? By unofficial, I mean something like my iPad or computer's web browser.

I only ask because I don't understand the difference between my iPad and his EFB. At least the EFB is targeted for aviation.

Monitoring 121.5 is legally required or just a good idea? cub?
Click to expand...

Your iPad IS an EFB.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
So if I get the official information through an unofficial device, that's considered a problem by the FAA? By unofficial, I mean something like my iPad or computer's web browser.

I only ask because I don't understand the difference between my iPad and his EFB. At least the EFB is targeted for aviation.

Monitoring 121.5 is legally required or just a good idea? cub?
Click to expand...


21.5 should be monitored when able I believe. If you're comming in and have ATC on comm 1, CTAF on comm 2 and don't have a comm 3, you're not able :dunno:


From reading some of the FAA "hearings" they really just do as they want, doesn't seem like they have to prove you were guilty as much as you need to prove to them you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Looks like the story only gives the points ,the pilot believes to be important,for his side of the story. Wonder how much research AOPA put in ,before posting the story.
 
If they decide to get you they will.
If they are really, really, really wrong and you sue and they know they will lose in court they just shrug and drop the penalty against you and the judge dismisses your suit with prejudice - while they simply wait for the next chance to get you.
Meanwhile you have spent a ton of money and they get an 'attaboy' for their diligence in promoting public safety.

If you are in the wrong, beg forgiveness.
If you are not in the wrong, beg forgiveness.
It ain't fair - but neither is life.
If you think life is tough here as a pilot, move to Europe.
 
Presidential TFRs I have seen on Garmin Pilot are usually published days in advance. Like the one for Cape Cod now. It was showing non-active for a few days before activation. Even the NY Presidential roadshow done a couple of years ago showed the moving TFR in advance. Something isn't adding up for me.

I would like to understand what was said in the article when the FAA admitted the ADS-B was "incomplete".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
1) 1-800-WX-BRIEF
2) Flight Following
 
I recently filled out a NASA form for my inadvertent uninvited incursion into Chicago Class "B" space. I remember reading where the investigators are looking for a "contrite" attitude from people they investigate. So be contrite.
 
Any time there's a chance for a TFR or airspace restriction around the Chicagoland area I always call for a briefing. I do it on the drive to the airport, so there's no additional time taken out of my day.

Unfortunately many pilots are of the stubborn variety. They'll never learn.
 
frfly172 said:
Looks like the story only gives the points ,the pilot believes to be important,for his side of the story. Wonder how much research AOPA put in ,before posting the story.
Click to expand...

I think the "lesson learned" also lacks some introspection. It seems like just an opportunity to trash ADS-B.
 
Dr. O said:
If they are really, really, really wrong and you sue and they know they will lose in court they just shrug and drop the penalty against you and the judge dismisses your suit with prejudice .
Click to expand...

Can you post a case where this happened?

Out side of the Hoover sage/fiasco I can't think of anything remotely like that happening, and most of us can't cause the ruckus he did when he get screwed over.


Pilots who do dumb stuff should face the music yes, but the FAA should also work like a real court proceeding.
 
A little more info from another source.

Apparently, he used the default no-password option on FF, which does not associate his tail number with the DUATS briefing, making it unofficial in the FAA's eyes.

The way I read this, if he had used his DUATS password on FF, he would have had a legal briefing.

Not sure why this wasn't included in the AOPA article.

http://macsblog.com/2014/06/do-we-still-need-telephone-weather-briefings/

Mac is correct that ForeFlight would access DUATS/DUAT to get the weather data. You have an option to load your personal user ID and password for DUATS/DUAT into the app and ForeFlight will retrieve your briefing using your credentials. If not, ForeFlight will use their credentials to get your briefing. Only from the FAAs perspective, as I painfully discovered from my TFR incident, if the FAA cannot find that your credentials were used to get the briefing then you simply did not get the briefing and will be cited for violation of 91.103(a). It makes no difference that you got exactly the same information using ForeFlight’s credentials vice your own. I would add the following April 29, 2014 quote from the FAA’s Regional Administrator in a letter to Senator Warner on my behalf, “ForeFlight provides a service that is not an FAA-approved source for preflight or safety of flight information.” Quite telling of the FAAs position on this matter if you ask me. Surprisingly ForeFlight received the FAA’s Qualified Internet Communication Provider (QICP) certification back in 2012, prior to my incident. The FAA canceled the requirement to use approved QICPs effective August 15th in Advisory Circular (AC) OO-62. Some of this may explain the illogical behavior of the FAA in my case holding a pilot accountable for depending on inaccurate data from the FAA – that the FAA has no less admitted was in error. So you tell me what constitutes a legal FAA briefing? I can assure you that even if you get something that the FAA has approved, you remain screwed if you cannot prove you got the information when they come after your certificate.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Translated loosely as...

"I always knew the FAA wanted a record of pilot briefings for just such an event, but I was sure they weren't referring to me..."?
 
Or...

"I got this gee-whizzy-cool EFB, but didn't really understand how it worked, so..."?

Edit...kinda like me with this board, apparently...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
It's kinda cute that some folks think this still had ANYTHING to do with some aviation legalese i dotting or t crossing. Some techno-babble from some gizmo this or that. Cute.
 
This is really simple. The FAA wants you to get a briefing in a way that someone (human or machine) writes down the dial number associated with the briefing. That way they know you received the briefing. If you go and get the info off the NOAA website (which is where the FAA gets it, by the way) there is no paper trail to verify that you did so. The FAA only has your word, which really isn't all that good if you just caused F16s to scramble.

You call the guy and ask if there are TFRs and you're good to go. If one springs up after you launch the FAA will not prosecute you for it, since you did due diligence in obtaining all the information relative to the flight.
 
Let's not forget the minor fact that even if he had logged in with his identity established, he still didn't disseminate the information correctly or completely and still would have busted the TFR.

The reason he got violated and suspended though was not for his errors, I know first hand that the FAA is quite tolerant of errors; he was suspended for his attitude. The FAA is very leery of people who display "hazardous attitudes", because they are the ones who will most likely repeat their errors. Show them that you understand your error and own it, rather than trying to shift the blame, and they are happy with the knowledge that you are not likely to repeat that error.

When the FAA inspector climbed in my 310 he laughed because the gear switch was still in the up position, "First time I've seen that."
 
I virtually always call FSS right before takeoff to ask about TFR's or other National Security Issues and any NOTAMS that might affect my departure and arrival airports and my route of flight.

As an aside, Saturday I got put on an extended hold for FSS for the first time. At the 5 minute mark I gave up and went with the fact that no TFR's were shown for either TN or GA. But in general, I'd like it on record with a human being that I did, in fact, ask.
 
Lindberg said:
I think the "lesson learned" also lacks some introspection. It seems like just an opportunity to trash ADS-B.
Click to expand...


Well, a multi-billion dollar system they can say isn't an "official source" is kinda an enormous waste of time, really.

steingar said:
This is really simple. The FAA wants you to get a briefing in a way that someone (human or machine) writes down the dial number associated with the briefing. That way they know you received the briefing. If you go and get the info off the NOAA website (which is where the FAA gets it, by the way) there is no paper trail to verify that you did so. The FAA only has your word, which really isn't all that good if you just caused F16s to scramble.



You call the guy and ask if there are TFRs and you're good to go. If one springs up after you launch the FAA will not prosecute you for it, since you did due diligence in obtaining all the information relative to the flight.
Click to expand...


I'd love to know if they asked to see his iPad and looked to see if Foreflight stored a briefing in it, or if they were just ultra lazy and said that without the login, he didn't.

I noticed one of the Foreflight upgrades removed my DUATS login information recently from one of the iPads. It was in there... Now it's not. Something to watch out for, I guess.
 
denverpilot said:
Well, a multi-billion dollar system they can say isn't an "official source" is kinda an enormous waste of time, really.




I'd love to know if they asked to see his iPad and looked to see if Foreflight stored a briefing in it, or if they were just ultra lazy and said that without the login, he didn't.

I noticed one of the Foreflight upgrades removed my DUATS login information recently from one of the iPads. It was in there... Now it's not. Something to watch out for, I guess.
Click to expand...

What does it matter if it stored the briefing? :dunno: He failed to evaluate it correctly then went on to blame everyone and everything besides himself. In the end the issue was not the error, rather the attitude, that busted him.
 
I haven't gotten a phone briefing in years. I do get an official briefing logged into DUATS or LMFS. And I think it would be reasonable for the FAA to have a regulation that requires pilots to get a provable official briefing.

However, 91.103 is not such a regulation. By 91.103, we are required to get a briefing, not to get a provable briefing. And if the FAA wants to establish a violation of 91.103, the burden of proof should be on them to show guilt, not on the pilot to show innocence.

Of course, in this case, the pilot demonstrably failed to obtain the appropriate information (among other infractions), so the provability of the briefing is moot.
 
comanchepilot said:
Wow - so a DUATS brief is not an official source to the FAA?

I'm thinking that perhaps he used Foreflight - not DUATS. There sare two options in a FF brief - you can get the official or what apparently is not any longer - and the DUATS brief.
Click to expand...

Read it again, that's not what it says.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
A little more info from another source.

Apparently, he used the default no-password option on FF, which does not associate his tail number with the DUATS briefing, making it unofficial in the FAA's eyes.

The way I read this, if he had used his DUATS password on FF, he would have had a legal briefing.

Not sure why this wasn't included in the AOPA article.

http://macsblog.com/2014/06/do-we-still-need-telephone-weather-briefings/
Click to expand...


This quote tracks quite nicely with the two most important truisms in the bureaucratic world - if it is not written down it did not happen and, if you cannot prove it happened, then it did not.

[incorrect conclusion deleted Henning]
 
bflynn said:
Monitoring 121.5 is legally required or just a good idea?
Click to expand...

For almost 14 years now, monitoring 121.5, if able, has been required by FDC 4/4386, which you should see on every briefing you get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top