sectional chart required?

[mikecanfly]

Now I know that it is common sense to have a VFR sectional chart in the airplane at all times when flying VFR...

BUT, is there an FAR that specifically requires carrying the chart on board? To the point, if I am ramp-checked in a 172 at my home base to/from a local airport within 5-10nm, can the Inspector ask to see my VFR chart and is it required to be on-board?

I teach my all my students to ALWAYS have one aboard, but I'm curious as to whether or not it is an FAR... I can't seem to find any specific rule, but others are telling me otherwise...

Thanks

 

[Mogus]

It's not required, but, like you said, it's very wise. Only rule pertaining to sectionals is you can't have an out-of-date one on board, which I'm sure you're aware of.

 

[FSB99]

i know there's some far gurus on here who can quote you the specific verse and chapter; but, i just remember something in the regs about having all available information to safely conduct the flight.. that was always taught to me, i taught to my students, and was always understood by me as including proper charts. but, as far as specific wording saying you need to carry a vfr chart, i don't think that's in there.

 

[sky37d]

I remember reading something, can't remember where, but if you are cleared for a visual approach, you need to have a current VFR chart for the area, since you are then, technically, flyin VFR.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There's no specific FAR that requires other than a basic Part 91 flight to carry current charts (There is a Part 91 FAR that requires Large and Turbine Powered Multiengine Airplanes to carry them (see 91.503).

But, if there is any kind of problem involving an airspace violation or information that appears on a chart, you can bet that the FAA will claim a violation of 91.103 or 91.13 (reckless operation).

For example, there is an NTSB case from 1993 in which a VFR pilot took off from Norwood MA without VFR charts and busted the Boston Class B airspace. The pilot tried to argue that he knew he was near the Class B and repeatedly tried to contact ATC, so the FAA should go easy on him. No dice. From the NTSB opinion upholding a 90-day suspension:

quote:
-------------------
We agree with the law judge that this was egregious conduct for any pilot. Taking off without necessary familiarization and without proper charts into an obviously congested airspace such as the Boston area, and continuing the flight after failing to obtain a clearance obviously justified a finding of carelessness, at a minimum. Even an assumption that further FAA tapes would show that respondent made multiple attempts to reach ATC would not lessen the seriousness of his actions.
-------------------

I can't find it, but I recall another one where a pilot flew in an area with outdated charts. Unluckily for him, the Class C on his chart had recently changed into Class B.

So the "real" rule is simple: no FAR requires you to have current charts on board, unless you have a problem. If you do, it better not be because of something that is shown on the chart.

A side issue. The GA Inspector manual that FAA inspectors use for ramp checks tells the inspector to check for current charts. I'd bet that some inspectors =think= it's a violation if you don't have them.

 

[Checks]

I remember reading something, can't remember where, but if you are cleared for a visual approach, you need to have a current VFR chart for the area, since you are then, technically, flyin VFR.


You are still on an IFR flight plan. You are not flying VFR

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

I remember reading something, can't remember where, but if you are cleared for a visual approach, you need to have a current VFR chart for the area, since you are then, technically, flyin VFR

If this were true then every Part 121 flight that accepts a visual approach clearance (the great majority) would be in violation since no airline carries VFR charts.

 

[LimoDriver]

"I remember reading something, can't remember where, but if you are cleared for a visual approach, you need to have a current VFR chart for the area, since you are then, technically, flyin VFR"

That statement is misleading. If you are IFR and cleared for a visual approach, you are still IFR! Don't confuse a visual approach with VFR. They are two different things.

Now, if you cancel IFR to land VFR at an uncontrolled field, that is is another story.

 

[sky37d]

That's it. If you are cleared for a visual, you are still IFR, however, if you cancel IFR for an approach then you are VFR, and are supposed to have the current sectional onboard. Of course, all of this is important ONLY if there is someone from the FAA that want's to talk to you when you land.

However, how do you know that there isn't someone on the ground that is checking?? You don't.

 

[A1FlyBoy]

All other types of flying excluded... if you are VFR and don't have a current VFR chart in your possession.. you have not/are not prepared for the flight or able to use all of your resources...

MidLifer.. thanks for showing us what light gun signals look like from the tower!

 

[dogman]

That's it. If you are cleared for a visual, you are still IFR, however, if you cancel IFR for an approach then you are VFR, and are supposed to have the current sectional onboard. Of course, all of this is important ONLY if there is someone from the FAA that want's to talk to you when you land.

If this statement was true, why have the last two airlines I've worked for allowed you to cancel IFR. It was under only specific conditions, but it was allowed per the op specs of the flight operation manuals. We never carry VFR charts.