Airborn, I think maybe a separate thread would be a better way to discuss this further. Interesting we have so different views on how this work.
LeSving wrote:
The responsibility of the PIC is to bring along the necessary information from the AIP in a suitable format. This is explained in the AMC.
There is no mention of AIP wither in the Regulation or in the AMC/GM.
Anyway, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagreeing about what NCO.GEN.135 means.
Rwy20 wrote:
So if you take a paper chart and it gets sucked out the window/door/lavatory or your dog eats it, and you don’t have a second one as a backup, you are “indeed breaking the rules” as well?
Of course!!! But that is more of an unexpected accident thing, and if you now the place, well. A pad going black with every bit of information on it, is something that should be expected, because they do go black from time to time.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That would be a practical impossibility. Does your interpretation of part-NCO mean that the ICAO 1:500.000 charts are also “convenience services”? Is the AIP a “convenience service”? If not, why not?
There is a difference between an app on a pad and the AIP and ICAO charts. The AIP is the official source of all information, and the ICAO chart is an official chart. You cannot bring with you the AIP, actually you can with a pad/phone/pc, but it’s not expected and not necessary, and not very practical in a busy cockpit. It’s the relevant information there that shall be brought along, and SD is a way of doing that, it will show you the relevant information where you are, when you need it. The ICAO chart is of course a convenience service if you will, there are better charts around, and there is nothing on the ICAO charts that isn’t also to be found in the AIP, except charting of the geography itself.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I can not possibly see how the responsibility of the PIC can extend to guaranteeing the trustworthiness all sources (s)he is using
This has nothing to do with it. It is not about guaranteeing. Guaranteeing requires specs. You cannot guarantee anything unless you have specs to relate the guarantee with. There are no certified information database for VFR, there are no specs. The AIP is all there is. The responsibility of the PIC is to bring along the necessary information from the AIP in a suitable format. This is explained in the AMC.
I just don’t think this stuff is well defined – simply because there aren’t going to be many (any?) test cases which make it to a court and result in a prosecution which can then be published.
Common sense tells you that if you busted some prohibited area which is not in the notams and not shown on the printed VFR charts, a prosecution must fail, in any civilised country. This didn’t stop the DGAC going after me in 2003 but, had I travelled back to France for it, a prosecution would have still failed – having cost me many thousands on a local lawyer. I say this because I have recently been fairly reliably informed that none of the often mentioned €10k nuclear station TRA fines have ever been imposed. The UK CAA would have never even attempted such an action.
It gets a bit more hazy if the data is some 3rd party commercial tablet software, but again how many pilots have done a major (politically provocative i.e. p1sses off somebody important) bust as a result of an omission in say SD? There are extremely few such busts anyway. In the UK, you would need to bust a major air show with the Red Arrows displaying; that might (on past record) get you a 5k fine. But all that stuff is notamed so the software is irrelevant. So I bet this has never happened in Europe.
So it is a theoretical risk. You could debate it for ever.
VFR is more laborious to plan with regard to restrictions and, in the context of this thread, there is more to go wrong with doing any sort of briefing pack for a fly-in. Not only are you looking at VFR enroute charts (which if supplied would, in Europe, inevitably be bootleg/pirated) but also enroute notams. IFR pilots usually disregard enroute notams. So for VFR pilots one might be looking at a lot of hand-holding. I recall one fly-in, UK to Germany, which was done by another forum quite some years ago, and they held several “planning workshops” for most of the group at which they worked out the route. They got a high turnout but they may as well have flown it in a formation…. I thought it was a bit ridiculous because with that much hand-holding nobody learns much from it.
LeSving wrote:
Well, if you completely disregard the responsibility and duties of the PIC that is true, but that is definitely not according to Part NCO.
I don’t follow your argument at all. I can not possibly see how the responsibility of the PIC can extend to guaranteeing the trustworthiness all sources (s)he is using. That would be a practical impossibility. Does your interpretation of part-NCO mean that the ICAO 1:500.000 charts are also “convenience services”? Is the AIP a “convenience service”? If not, why not?
So if you take a paper chart and it gets sucked out the window/door/lavatory or your dog eats it, and you don’t have a second one as a backup, you are “indeed breaking the rules” as well?
Airborne_Again wrote:
If SD is actually a “convenience service” it is because that’s what it is held out to be — not because of anything written in part-NCO.
Well, if you completely disregard the responsibility and duties of the PIC that is true, but that is definitely not according to Part NCO. Part NCO does not care what you use, only that the information you have available on board is up to date and roughly corresponds to the AMC. You can use your own drawings and paper notes or draw stuff on the back of your hand if you want, or any combination of whatever is available. It is not important what you have, as long as you have the information available in the cockpit when flying, that is what NCO.GEN 135 a) 10) and NCO.GEN 135 d) (and b, c) say.
No matter how much SD wants to “down rate” their software in their disclaimer, it does indeed contain every single bit of information that a VFR pilot needs according to part NCO and the AMC, in my opinion at least. Updated aviation maps, current AIRAC, radio frequencies, airspaces and so on.
It is not EASA, not ICAO, not SkyDemon not EasyVFR that is responsible, it’s the PIC – always. There exists no such thing as a certified VFR database, so this leaves no other possibility. It isn’t a requirement that all information is 100% “correct”, only that it is relevant for aviation purposes and up to date and is available in the cockpit. The requirement for availability would suggest a backup of some kind is a good idea, pads and phones do fail and then all information is gone. If that happens, and you have no backup device or anything, you are indeed breaking the rules in Part NCO and are not allowed to fly.
According to NCO, SD could very well say they guarantee everything a VFR pilot would ever need in terms of info laid out in the AMC. It wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. For SD that would be a very stupid thing to do, because everyone could demand their money back for every little miss.
LeSving wrote:
You cannot sue SD if you suddenly find out that the app no longer is “current and suitable”. If I remember the disclaimer correct, they are only meant to be an aid in flight planning and help in situational awareness.
Right. If SD is actually a “convenience service” it is because that’s what it is held out to be — not because of anything written in part-NCO.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Please explain this with reference to the actual regulations (part-NCO).
At least you wrote “please”
NCO.GEN 135 a) 10) and also
NCO.GEN 135 d)
and 216/2008
It specifies “current and suitable aeronautical charts”, but there is no specification to what is meant by “current and suitable” other than the general info in the AMC. So it is up to the PIC to determine if whatever charts and info he has, actually are “current and suitable”. IMO SD or EasyVFR are very current and suitable, but none of them have any obligation by the authorities to actually deliver something that is according to some specs, because there are no specs. Therefore they cannot be anything but convenience services. They are no different than a paper notebook and a pencil. They do whatever the programmers have programmed them to do, and it’s the pilot’s responsibility to determine if they do what the pilot wants them to do. You cannot sue SD if you suddenly find out that the app no longer is “current and suitable”. If I remember the disclaimer correct, they are only meant to be an aid in flight planning and help in situational awareness.
Peter wrote:
I think there is a “deeper” thing with VFR and everything to do with VFR: the ICAO compliant PPL training, essentially unchanged since WW1-WW2, teaches you to fly and navigate visually.
The more I think about this, the more sure I am that this is a good thing. Just imagine the price and size and quality and usefulness of an “electronic VFR box” if it were to be certified. It wouldn’t even exist.
Martin wrote:
If an error on their part resulted in some information not being displayed, the app isn’t delivering what it promised
That’s the catch. It doesn’t promise to be anything more than an aid in flight planning and situational awareness. If the pilot assumes it can be used for more than that, that’s his responsibility. According to part NCO, a pilot is free to assume that.
Peter wrote:
I think there is a “deeper” thing with VFR and everything to do with VFR: the ICAO compliant PPL training, essentially unchanged since WW1-WW2, teaches you to fly and navigate visually. That IMHO makes it very very hard to sue a data provider (volunteer or commercial) – unless the error was to do with something that cannot be seen visually e.g. notam, airspace, etc
You can use radio navigation and can fly above clouds (it’s hard to visually navigate using clouds 
). How about flying into a blind canyon based on a faulty data? Hitting a power-line or cable that isn’t in an obstacle database?
LeSving wrote:
This is no convenience service, this is distribution of legal copies of official charts from the AIP.
Of course it can be a convenience service. If someone finds out where exactly what I need is sold, goes there instead of me and brings it right under my nose, isn’t it a convenience? I certainly wouldn’t expect someone to actually get a licence for creation and distribution of copies. Resale should be fine.
LeSving wrote:
Alternatively you could create you own charts, which would be a convenience service.
Not that I wouldn’t call a convenience service.
LeSving wrote:
You are not entitled for compensation if the app provides wrong information
I wouldn’t (universally) bet on that. First of all, you have certain protection as a consumer. If the error originated with their supplier, it’s up to them or their insurance company to recover the cost. If an error on their part resulted in some information not being displayed, the app isn’t delivering what it promised. Of course you can try getting around that with disclaimers making it look like a completely useless tool (something just for fun) but it might not be effective everywhere.
