Is ATIS legally binding ?

[pistinaround]

Hi I admit to posting this on DG&P Aviation & Questions and there have been a few replies to date but I do not know how to move a threat as this is probably a more appropriate location for it.

Quote from DG&P Aviation & Questions.

Hi,

I was sat at an airport in the cockpit, first things first get the ATIS 800 Mtrs in Haze it tells me. ( Smoke from burn off )
The thing is I am at the far end of a the runway where the GA apron is located and I can see the far end of a 3200 Mtrs runway from where Iam sitting, sure its not real clear but I can just make out the shape of trees at the far end but not much else after it.

So is it legally binding ? I assume it is.

And it looks like the WX will be the same for days as the locals continue to burn off.

Also Iam flying a VH reged aircraft overseas ( Australian reged ) dont know if that changes thing ?


sorry for posting it again as there have been some good replies if I knew how to move it here I would.

Thanks Pistin.

[Al. M]

ATIS

good question, I think it would invalidate your insurance if you had an accident if the ATIS weather said below minimums but I dont think you could sue the ATC for giving out the wrong ATIS. again good question will go through some avitation law books see if its mentioned.

alex

[cleo]

ATIS Report

I don't know how it stands elsewhere but in the UK the ATIS will be broadcasting the latest observation therefore at the subsequent court of inquiry that report is the 'official' reported weather.

Does the country in question allow for differing visibilities in different directions? In the UK if the visibility is significantly different in one particular direction it ought to be reported in METAR. This would usually be the case if smoke was reducing the vis as it would be unusual for it to permeate 360 degrees.

[pottwiddler]

There is a requirement to record it in CAP670 COM01 and in COM03 of the same book, paragraph 6.4.4 states

The Air Traffic Service Provider shall ensure that the accuracy and integrity of the data used in the preparation of the ATIS message is maintained at a level appropriate to the operational requirements (256).

Guidance: It is likely that the interface arrangements between the Air Traffic Service
Provider and the Data Link Communications Service Provider will enable the Air
Traffic Service Provider to obtain evidence of compliance with this requirement for
the Data Link operations.

The ATIS message has to be previewed to ensure its accuracy by the ATCO/A before it is put to air.

So if the ATIS message is wrong then someone is doing their job correctly!

[cleo]

Hmm - not too sure that with a PAMOS / SAMOS that is the case Potty.

If the ATIS is linked to an automated met system then the ATIS updates with any changes - whether the change is input by human observer, eg visibility and cloud, or from the PAMOS eg pressure or temperature changes.

I don't know of any requirement to 'preview' the broadcast but I'm happy to be corrected.

[pottwiddler]

Most of the systems I've worked on that collate the data such as Copperchase, Muir Mattheson, Stonefield and a few others all preview the broadcast before it's put to air.
It's best practise to do this to ensure its accuracy but not a requirement per se.

[cleo]

Sorry for the thread drift here
I agree that best pratice would have the broadcast previewed Potty
but I'd be interested to learn how its done because my experience has been that the ATIS automatically updates without any facility to preview.

It also begs the question of WHO listens to the preview - have a look on the ATSA threads. The ATSA role is fast becoming extinct. Does the ADC ATCO have time to preview the ATIS.

Remember when the met observations were done by a dedicated observer? Where are they now?

Anyone prepared to comment how its done where you are?

[thinkofdolphins]

Our ATIS uses SAMOS which genearally comes out with utter bollocks and we (ATSA) have to correct the ob to correct current wx. I have seen it come up with RA in clear skies and freezing fog in +10c conditions. However when we have staff shortages or night shift break it goes onto full auto and starts to give out it's own version of the wx (again normally wrong) which is why you need someone verifying any form of automated wx systems for the ATIS

[Yippee]

The weather is dynamic all the time.

Bear in mind that the weather you observe changes all the time.

So ATIS is at least not binding the weather any way legally

It is the responsibility of the pilot to ensure the safety of the flight.
Taking into consideration all the data that is available and also looking out.

[slackie]

In NZ, CAA Rule Part 121 states...

121.159 Aerodrome operating minima – IFR flight
(a) A pilot-in-command of an aeroplane must not continue an instrument
approach to an aerodrome past the final approach fix or, if a final approach
fix is not used, the final approach segment of the instrument approach
procedure if, before passing the final approach fix or the final approach
segment, current meteorological information indicates the visibility at the
aerodrome is less than the visibility published in the applicable AIP for the
instrument approach procedure being used.

...there are also corresponding paragraphs in Parts 125 and 135 so that pretty much covers all ATO (IFR). Recently CAA were pursuing pilots where evidence existed that they continued an approach when the ATIS reported vis less than the approach minima. Makes you wonder why though....'cos if you're not visual at approach minima then you hit the loud button and go around??

[zkjaws]

NZ, CAA Rule Part 121

Slackie the important word in your quote is "current".
The current weather is that observed and pased by the observer (ATCO, etc)

An ATIS by the nature of the time delay in preparation is not the current weather and will only get changed when the weather miniumum passes through specified criteria.
Quite often in the Frozen Wastelands of the Land of the Long White Cloud the weather would be well below IFR minimum (heavy fog) and then there would be a rapid improvement through many steps of the specified criteria. It was pointless updating the ATIS as every different criteria was passed, we just waited until the improvement settled and saved about 5 letters in alphabet.

As for hitting the loud button when not visual - in the past aircraft have carried on past desicion altitude thinking they are visual and then lost visual contact hit the loud button and executed a touch and go on the missed approach.

[birrddog]

If the pilot is on the apron, and can see greater than the announced visibility (or different wx for that matter), surely a radio call to the tower (or ground) to get them to concur would be sufficient?

Secondly, in the US, a Pirep is legally required if the weather observed is different from published. (This is for enroute, not sure if "from the apron" qualifies for filing a pirep). This would constitute a valid legal briefing.
a) I wonder then if a pilots own Pirep would qualify as a weather observation for the intents and purpose stated in the original question and
b) if Pireps would/could work this way in other countries.