14 C.F.R. § 91.5
Pilot in command of aircraft requiring more than one required pilot
No person may operate an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember unless the pilot in command meets the requirements of § 61.58 of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases, 1971–1997 · leading case: Tank v. Peterson, 363 N.W.2d 530 (Neb. 1985).
Tank v. Peterson, 363 N.W.2d 530 (Neb. 1985). “See 14 C.F.R. § 91.5 (1984). Blessing stated that although Peterson was not legally obligated to fly IFR that night, a pilot with Peterson's limited experience and lack of currency should not have taken off from the airport in the first instance.”
Widmyer v. Se. Skyways, Inc., 584 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1978). “See 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.5 , 91.9, 135.93(a), 135.”
Baker v. United States, 417 F. Supp. 471 (W.D. Wash. 1975). “In the context of this case the crew was required, by regulation, to obtain updated weather information prior to departure, 14 C.F.R. 91.5, 121.599(b), to be aware of obstructions, including Mount Rainier, 14 C.”
Muncie Aviation Corp. v. Party Doll Fleet, Inc., 519 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1975). “14 C.F.R. § 91.5 . 5 . C. McCormick, Evidence § 225 at 460 (1954).”
Michael Foss, a Minor v. United States, 623 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1980). “3 ) and he must familiarize himself “with all available information” concerning a flight ( 14 CFR § 91.5 ). 2 It is the F.A.A.’s position that under these regulations the pilot in this case had a duty, “ .”
Steering Comm. v. United States of Am., & Aeromexico, 6 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 1993). “3 ) and he must familiarize himself ‘with all available information’ concerning a flight *578 ( 14 C.F.R. § 91.5 ).” Id. at 106 . The FAA argued that, despite its own negligence, “the pilot is always in a position of ‘final authority’ and has the duty to ‘familiarize himself…”
Edward B. Brooks, Jr., Cross v. United States of Am., Cross-Appellee, 695 F.2d 984 (5th Cir. 1983). “14 C.F.R. § 91.5 . Brooks did none of these things, omitting the customary preflight call which would have produced the NO-TAM and failing to call in flight.”
Dyer v. United States, 551 F. Supp. 1266 (W.D. Mich. 1982). “Even though there was a telephone at the plant so that he could have obtained a pre-flight weather briefing, as 14 CFR § 91.5 and common sense dictate before making a cross country flight, Mr.”
Abdullah v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 337 (D.V.I. 1997). “103 (1996), verify' the aircraft's worthiness, 14 C.F.R. § 91.5 (1996), and ensure that passengers are briefed on the use of their seatbelts, 14 C.”
Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 787 F. Supp. 312 (E.D.N.Y 1992). “14 C.F.R. § 91.5 . Pilots are specifically required to obtain weather reports, weather forecasts, and NOTAMS as a part of their pre-flight duties.”
Reminga v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 445 (W.D. Mich. 1978). “14 C.F.R. 91.5 states that a pilot in command shall, before beginning the flight, familiarize himself with all available information concerning that flight, including available weather reports and forecasts and alternatives in the event the planned flight cannot be completed.”
In Re Aircrash Dis. at Boston, Mass., July 31, 1973, 412 F. Supp. 959 (D. Mass. 1976). “The pertinent regulations are as follows: 14 C.F.R. 91.5, which provides “Each pilot in command shall before beginning a flight, familiarize himself with all available information concerning that flight.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.