Does anyone have firsthand experience with increased ramp check
frequency?



-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 8, Issue 3 January 20, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------

ARE RAMP CHECKS RAMPING UP?
There has been an increasing number of calls lately to the AOPA Pilot
Information Center from members who have been "ramp checked." So
should you be concerned? "Nobody likes being ramp checked, but the
regulations do allow FAA inspectors to do it at their discretion,"
said Woody Cahall, AOPA vice president of aviation services. "But a
ramp check doesn't have to be particularly painful if you understand
the rules and exercise some common sense." An FAA inspector may decide
to check you and your aircraft because he's observed something unsafe,
or it may simply be a random check. You can expect that an inspector
will show you his identification and ask to see your pilot and medical
certificates. "Think about how you would react to a police officer and
a traffic stop," said Cahall. "When he says, 'license and
registration, please,'" you know that a polite response and a
cooperative attitude goes a long way toward minimizing any hassles."
The regulations require that your pilot and medical certificates be
readily available and you should be willing to show them. The
inspector can examine your certificates, but he can't keep them. If
he asks you to "surrender" your certificates, politely decline and
contact an aviation attorney (
http://www.aopa.org/info/certified/lsp.html ).
For more information, see AOPA Online's subject report "Ramp Checks"
( http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/rmpcheck.html ). Pilots
should also consider AOPA's Legal Services Plan should they need an
attorney to represent them against an FAA enforcement action.

I've been advised by an attorney who specializes in aviation matters
that if you are requested to present your certificates and medical,
that you carefully specify you are NOT SURRENDERING your certificates
but presenting them for purusal.
This came about many years ago when I was making a lot of flights into
Mexico for corporate ops and frequently was asked to present my
credentials. To avoid any problems, I made copies that I presented
rather than my originals that I kept in my pocket.
Alchemy Video Productions of New Orleans did a couple of presentations
for ramp checks and other FAA "visits" that are nice to know. Not sure
if they are in current production after Katrina and its devastation.

On 24 Jan 2006 08:32:14 -0800, "
> wrote in
. com>::

>I made copies that I presented rather than my originals

Given the overreaching attitude of the FSDO inspectors involved in the
Hoover Emergency Revocation, that sounds like a prudent response.
However, I would expect there to be some formal sort of document of
surrender necessary for you to sign in that event.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:11:02 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
>Does anyone have firsthand experience with increased ramp check
>frequency?
>
>

I've been flying for over 40 years, and in all that time I've met at
least 40 Feds. To a one, they know, right off the bat, whether or not
you're legal to fly.

I'm going to post another story about a flight I had to take with them
(one). He asked to land the airplane after a check ride and he did
but...

Mike Weller

PS. there are four that were remarkable.

The only way that you can officially surrender your pilot certificate is in
response to a letter from the FAA in which you certify that you understand
that you are surrendering it and the consequences thereof. Handing your
certificate to an FAA representative can in no way be interpreted as
surrender.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've been advised by an attorney who specializes in aviation matters
> that if you are requested to present your certificates and medical,
> that you carefully specify you are NOT SURRENDERING your certificates
> but presenting them for purusal.
> This came about many years ago when I was making a lot of flights into
> Mexico for corporate ops and frequently was asked to present my
> credentials. To avoid any problems, I made copies that I presented
> rather than my originals that I kept in my pocket.
> Alchemy Video Productions of New Orleans did a couple of presentations
> for ramp checks and other FAA "visits" that are nice to know. Not sure
> if they are in current production after Katrina and its devastation.
>

> Handing your
> certificate to an FAA representative can in no way be interpreted as
> surrender.

.... but if the FAA representative decides to "hold on to it for a while
while we investigate..." and you are supposed to fly home now, before
the weather closes in, you are effectively grounded.

What recourse?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by Jose > Jan 24, 2006 at 05:57 PM


.... but if the FAA representative decides to "hold on to it for a while
while we investigate..." and you are supposed to fly home now, before
the weather closes in, you are effectively grounded.

What recourse?<<

Several, but here is another heavily subsidized alternative:

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/HomePage

Jose wrote:
>> Handing your certificate to an FAA representative can in no way be
>> interpreted as surrender.
>
>
> ... but if the FAA representative decides to "hold on to it for a while
> while we investigate..." and you are supposed to fly home now, before
> the weather closes in, you are effectively grounded.

First off he can't do that. It has, however, happened. The manager of
that FSDO personally returned the certificate to the pilot with the
apologies of the agency. That pilot flew home without the certificate
when the event happened. I wouldn't hesitate to do the same.

Well of course they KNOW right off whether you are legal to fly or
not...
Given that the FAA writes the rules, interprets the rules they write,
and appeals to themselves if some lame brained ALJ should be so witless
as to disagree with them on mere facts; you are legal to fly if the
inspector wants you to be, and you are not legal to fly if the
inspector wants you to be not...

I have been approached at times over the years by persons masquerading
as a government official, demanding that I hand my documents over to
him... I flatly refuse.. Each time I tell the person that if he has
official business with me he must send a letter of request... Once I
have the letter my attorney will advise me what to do... And I turn my
back and resume I was doing before he accosted me...

I will point out that I still have my certificate, medical, etc., and I
am still waiting for the letter...

denny

Interesting, Denny. Have these jokers ever shown their FAA ID's?

On 24 Jan 2006 11:19:52 -0800, "Denny" > wrote:

>Well of course they KNOW right off whether you are legal to fly or
>not...
>Given that the FAA writes the rules, interprets the rules they write,
>and appeals to themselves if some lame brained ALJ should be so witless
>as to disagree with them on mere facts; you are legal to fly if the
>inspector wants you to be, and you are not legal to fly if the
>inspector wants you to be not...

I've just never had that sort of confrontational experience.

And I will say that the rules are simple, to me.

Mike Weller

>
> I have been approached at times over the years by persons masquerading
>as a government official, demanding that I hand my documents over to
>him... I flatly refuse.. Each time I tell the person that if he has
>official business with me he must send a letter of request... Once I
>have the letter my attorney will advise me what to do... And I turn my
>back and resume I was doing before he accosted me...
>
>I will point out that I still have my certificate, medical, etc., and I
>am still waiting for the letter...
>
>denny

Again, to me, I've never had a problem with the FAA.

Mike Weller

Any pimple faced 14 year old with a color printer can make documents
that look even better than the FAA's...

And, my post came across as more confrontational than I am... I am not
confrontational, but I do not jump on command from someone, simply
because he feeds from the public trough... I have been in business all
my adult life... I have contracts, licenses, permits, etc., up to the
bungies... I deal with all levels of government on a daily basis... I
deal with insurance companies, I deal with manufacturers, I deal with
employers, I deal with employee unions, I deal with the courts, I deal
with police departments, I deal with lawyers, and on, and on... No
where in my entire life have I dealt with any level of government,
federal, state, county, or township, nor any other contracted party,
corporation, or NGO, where they claim to have the right to walk up and
accost me, unannounced, and demand that I drop what I am doing, and let
them inspect my licenses, documents, permits, <or other records in my
possession> in the middle of a public place...
Even OSHA sends a letter proposing a date and time for inspection of
the premises for safety hazards and asks for a response... Even when
the courts need a document in my possession, or my testimony, they send
a subpoena for that document or opinion stating a time and place
<negotiable>; they do not walk up to me, wave their wallet in my face,
and demand that I place documents in their hand, 'now'...
That the FAA has chosen to put itself above the normal conduct of
government is of no import to me... If the FAA has a need to inspect my
documents, they will have to send a letter proposing a time and place
and specifying what documents they need and for what reason, like any
other bureau of the executive branch of the government...

Now, I expect someone here will start babbling about police - that is a
totally different subject... The FAA is not a police department... The
FAA has no police powers... FAA inspectors are not peace officers
authorized with weapons, manacles, and arrest powers... The only action
the FAA can take is to send you a registered letter announcing
emergency revocation of your certificates...

In fact it is an extremely limited number of individuals in this
country that have police powers, i.e., who can accost you in public,
hold you against your will <up to and including deadly force>, and make
demands upon you without prior notice... The founding fathers in their
wisdom designed our government that way and for good reasons... Even
George Washington, who would have been crowned king had he agreed,
understood that the power of government has to be limited and
controlled lest it become a ravening beast - and he would be outraged
at the so called Patriot Act... Simply look at the HSA and their
demands for more and more TFR's, look at the wire taps without a judges
order, look at the secret searches of your home, look at U.S. citizens
detained without any constitutional rights being respected... (not
talking about aliens, whom I agree have no rights) and then try to tell
me that FAA inspector is your friend - man, that must have been one
hard fall from the turnip truck...

cheers ... denny

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Any pimple faced 14 year old with a color printer can make documents
> that look even better than the FAA's...

Well, for my original PPL, he would have to have an old poor quality dot
matrix printer to make a good fake... If it looked too good, it would
obviously be a fake... I'm glad that we finally have plastic PPLs since they
should survive the washer a bit better than the paper ones did...

On 25 Jan 2006 05:17:19 -0800, "Denny" > wrote in
om>::

>No where in my entire life have I dealt with any level of government,
>federal, state, county, or township, nor any other contracted party,
>corporation, or NGO, where they claim to have the right to walk up and
>accost me, unannounced, and demand that I drop what I am doing, and let
>them inspect my licenses, documents, permits, <or other records in my
>possession> in the middle of a public place...

Customs?

On 25 Jan 2006 05:17:19 -0800, "Denny" > wrote:

>Any pimple faced 14 year old with a color printer can make documents
>that look even better than the FAA's...
>
>And, my post came across as more confrontational than I am...

And so did I...

Here is what a pimple faced pilot gets...

http://welleraviation.com/newpage1.htm

Customs are sworn officers with guns, batons, manacles, and
attitudes...


denny

>>>Here is what a pimple faced pilot gets... <<<

<ancient student pilot license>

Damn Mike... 5' 11" and 150lb? How did you keep from blowing away? <G>


Wooly

("Mike Weller" wrote)
[From and earlier post]
> I'm going to post another story about a flight I had to take with them
> (one). He asked to land the airplane after a check ride and he did but...
>
> Mike Weller
>
> PS. there are four that were remarkable.


Ready for the stories when you are. :-)


Montblack

On 25 Jan 2006 12:29:12 -0800, "
> wrote:

>>>>Here is what a pimple faced pilot gets... <<<
>
><ancient student pilot license>
>
>Damn Mike... 5' 11" and 150lb? How did you keep from blowing away? <G>
>
>
>Wooly

I'm 6'2" now, and with the weight I carry, the Hindenburg would blush.

Mike Weller

>>>>Here is what a pimple faced pilot gets... <<<
>
> <ancient student pilot license>
>
> Damn Mike... 5' 11" and 150lb? How did you keep from blowing away? <G>

I graduated HS at 6' and 145. Long time since I saw either of those. <g>

As far as the wind goes, turn sideways. No belly sticking out makes you
like a very thin percent airfoil! :-)
--
Jim in NC

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:18:06 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Mike Weller" wrote)
>[From and earlier post]
>> I'm going to post another story about a flight I had to take with them
>> (one). He asked to land the airplane after a check ride and he did but...
>>
>> Mike Weller
>>
>> PS. there are four that were remarkable.
>
>
>Ready for the stories when you are. :-)
>
>
>Montblack

Ok,

Number One, out of more than four. The statutes of limitation have
passed.

The FSDO at Birmingham had a rule that the airport had to be at better
than "twice minimums" for us to take the check ride. I'm not sure why,
but Birmingham has always been a "funny" place to fly into. I knew at
the time that it was a training spot for new air traffic controllers
and that didn't bother them or me.

Well, the weather was sort of "really funny" that day. They cleared
me for a visual, and I thought that I had the airport in sight. After
all, I was going there to take a check ride, and I was praying that
the weather would be OK.

About that time the controller came back and said to me, "Hey look out
there!" A DC-8 busted through the clouds right ahead of me.

And I really didn't know what to do except to report that the airport
was in sight. It didn't seem to be the time to tell them that a
shopping center's access road wasn't really the airport.

You don't just show up at the FSDO with an appointment to see an
Inspector do you?

I'll continue this later, but the phone just rang.

Mike Weller

Denny wrote:
> Customs are sworn officers with guns, batons, manacles, and
> attitudes...

They carry bigger attitudes than anybody else with a badge that I have
ever encountered.


Jack

"Denny" > wrote:
> The only action
> the FAA can take is to send you a registered letter announcing
> emergency revocation of your certificates...

A representative of the FAA may not have police power, but he or she may
have the phone number for the local police or FBI on speed dial.... :-(

Here's one article on this subject with the good and bad pointed out,
titled "Hi, I'm from the FAA, Can We Talk?":

http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueD99J00/legal.html

Morgans wrote:

> I graduated HS at 6' and 145. Long time since I saw either of those. <g>

Long time since I saw any of the three <GGG>

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:57:53 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>"Denny" > wrote:
>> The only action
>> the FAA can take is to send you a registered letter announcing
>> emergency revocation of your certificates...
>
>A representative of the FAA may not have police power, but he or she may
>have the phone number for the local police or FBI on speed dial.... :-(
>
>Here's one article on this subject with the good and bad pointed out,
>titled "Hi, I'm from the FAA, Can We Talk?":
>
>http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueD99J00/legal.html

Boy, I've wished that I had their problems...

"The pilot had asked the FBO's line crew to top off the tip tanks.
While this was going on, the inspectors asked to see the load
manifest—the weight and balance determination—for the aircraft. They
found some errors. Specifically, the weight for the crew was too light
by about 220 pounds"

Mike Weller

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:57:53 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

In all fairness, I'll post a follow up...

I had a "friend and we're from the FAA and we would like to help you!"

His name was Bill Whitmore.

Let me put this in context first.

Bob Hoover had given a demo flight a few weeks before in an Aero
Commander Shrike where he shut down both engines and did some really
cool stuff before he rolled to a stop in front of the crowd at the
Smyrna Tennessee airport.

Very shortly after that (a few days), a couple of flight instructors
landed at Murfreesboro and shut off the engine on the runway and had
enough speed (energy) to coast to a stop at the fuel pump.

Mr. Whitmore had driven down from Nashville, and was just chatting
with us and talking flying. It's important to know that Bill Whitmore
was "THE FAA". He was a wonderful man who had our respect.

The next thing was a learning experience for me and the rest of us.

He took them in for a "talk" in a back room at the airport shack.

We were standing outside, and sort of wondering what he was going to
do to them. We were as quiet as we could be, and sort of laughing,
but you could hear a muffled voice booming out every few minutes.

You can't believe how those two guys looked when they came out of
there.

That, to me, was the epitome of how the a senior FAA man should handle
things.

Mike Weller

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:57:53 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>
> In all fairness, I'll post a follow up...
>
> I had a "friend and we're from the FAA and we would like to help you!"
>
> His name was Bill Whitmore.
>
> Let me put this in context first.
>
> Bob Hoover had given a demo flight a few weeks before in an Aero
> Commander Shrike where he shut down both engines and did some really
> cool stuff before he rolled to a stop in front of the crowd at the
> Smyrna Tennessee airport.
>
> Very shortly after that (a few days), a couple of flight instructors
> landed at Murfreesboro and shut off the engine on the runway and had
> enough speed (energy) to coast to a stop at the fuel pump.
>
> Mr. Whitmore had driven down from Nashville, and was just chatting
> with us and talking flying. It's important to know that Bill Whitmore
> was "THE FAA". He was a wonderful man who had our respect.
>
> The next thing was a learning experience for me and the rest of us.
>
> He took them in for a "talk" in a back room at the airport shack.
>
> We were standing outside, and sort of wondering what he was going to
> do to them. We were as quiet as we could be, and sort of laughing,
> but you could hear a muffled voice booming out every few minutes.
>
> You can't believe how those two guys looked when they came out of
> there.
>
> That, to me, was the epitome of how the a senior FAA man should handle
> things.
>
> Mike Weller


Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the FAA if
I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember doing
just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up with
the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense. I'd
say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the FAA if
>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember doing
>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up with
>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense. I'd
>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>

Put it into the context of when and where it happened.

They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.

Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".

Mike Weller

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
>>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the FAA
>>if
>>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember doing
>>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up
>>with
>>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense. I'd
>>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>
>
> Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>
> They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
> they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
> degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
> another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>
> Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>
> Mike Weller


Inquiring minds want to know why?

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Mike Weller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the FAA
>>>if
>>>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember doing
>>>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up
>>>with
>>>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense. I'd
>>>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>>
>>
>>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>
>>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>
>>Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>>
>>Mike Weller
>
>
>
> Inquiring minds want to know why?

What did they do wrong? What actual reg did they break? Was there some
kind of safety violation?

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:48:51 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the FAA
>>>if
>>>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember doing
>>>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up
>>>with
>>>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense. I'd
>>>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>>
>>
>> Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>
>> They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>> they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>> degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>> another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>
>> Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>>
>> Mike Weller
>
>
>Inquiring minds want to know why?
>

Why? Because it's there.

Mike Weller

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:42:05 -0600, Cal Vanize
> wrote:

>Dave Stadt wrote:
>> "Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the FAA
>>>>if
>>>>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember doing
>>>>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up
>>>>with
>>>>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense. I'd
>>>>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>>
>>>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>>
>>>Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>>>
>>>Mike Weller
>>
>>
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know why?
>
>What did they do wrong? What actual reg did they break? Was there some
>kind of safety violation?

Now that is good question.

For many reasons pilots, and flight instructors in particular, are
expected to be better than average.

You don't have to break a "reg" to show that maybe, just maybe, that
what you're doing is not the right thing to do.

It's a very fine line sometimes.

My opinion of the incident was that the pilots stepped over the line
and deserved to get being chewed out by Mr. Whitmore.

Mike Weller

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:42:05 -0600, Cal Vanize
> > wrote:
>
>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>> "Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the
>>>>>FAA
>>>>>if
>>>>>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember
>>>>>doing
>>>>>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up
>>>>>with
>>>>>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense.
>>>>>I'd
>>>>>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>>>
>>>>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>>>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>>>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>>>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>>>
>>>>Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>>>>
>>>>Mike Weller
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Inquiring minds want to know why?
>>
>>What did they do wrong? What actual reg did they break? Was there some
>>kind of safety violation?
>
> Now that is good question.
>
> For many reasons pilots, and flight instructors in particular, are
> expected to be better than average.
>
> You don't have to break a "reg" to show that maybe, just maybe, that
> what you're doing is not the right thing to do.
>
> It's a very fine line sometimes.
>
> My opinion of the incident was that the pilots stepped over the line
> and deserved to get being chewed out by Mr. Whitmore.
>
> Mike Weller

On other words you don't have an answer.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 04:40:18 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:42:05 -0600, Cal Vanize
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>>> "Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the
>>>>>>FAA
>>>>>>if
>>>>>>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember
>>>>>>doing
>>>>>>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense.
>>>>>>I'd
>>>>>>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>>>>
>>>>>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>>>>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>>>>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>>>>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>>>>
>>>>>Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike Weller
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Inquiring minds want to know why?
>>>
>>>What did they do wrong? What actual reg did they break? Was there some
>>>kind of safety violation?
>>
>> Now that is good question.
>>
>> For many reasons pilots, and flight instructors in particular, are
>> expected to be better than average.
>>
>> You don't have to break a "reg" to show that maybe, just maybe, that
>> what you're doing is not the right thing to do.
>>
>> It's a very fine line sometimes.
>>
>> My opinion of the incident was that the pilots stepped over the line
>> and deserved to get being chewed out by Mr. Whitmore.
>>
>> Mike Weller
>
>On other words you don't have an answer.
>

No I don't, and that was my point.

There are too many variables that we face while flying to have to have
a "reg" to determine what we do. Obviously some are, but judgment is
just too hard and fast to be written in any form.

Mike Weller

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:09:27 -0600, Mike Weller
> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:42:05 -0600, Cal Vanize
> wrote:
>
>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>> "Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the FAA
>>>>>if
>>>>>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember doing
>>>>>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up
>>>>>with
>>>>>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense. I'd
>>>>>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>>>
>>>>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>>>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>>>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>>>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>>>
>>>>Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>>>
>>> Inquiring minds want to know why?
>>
>>What did they do wrong? What actual reg did they break? Was there some
>>kind of safety violation?
>
>Now that is good question.
>
>For many reasons pilots, and flight instructors in particular, are
>expected to be better than average.
>
>You don't have to break a "reg" to show that maybe, just maybe, that
>what you're doing is not the right thing to do.
>
>It's a very fine line sometimes.
>
>My opinion of the incident was that the pilots stepped over the line
>and deserved to get being chewed out by Mr. Whitmore.

Sounds like they were showing energy conservation and exchange of
kinetic energy for friction, timing things perfectly to barely need
brakes at the fuel station.

Mike Weller wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:42:05 -0600, Cal Vanize
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the FAA
>>>>>if
>>>>>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember doing
>>>>>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up
>>>>>with
>>>>>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense. I'd
>>>>>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>>>
>>>>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>>>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>>>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>>>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>>>
>>>>Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>>>>
>>>>Mike Weller
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Inquiring minds want to know why?
>>
>>What did they do wrong? What actual reg did they break? Was there some
>>kind of safety violation?
>
>
> Now that is good question.
>
> For many reasons pilots, and flight instructors in particular, are
> expected to be better than average.
>
> You don't have to break a "reg" to show that maybe, just maybe, that
> what you're doing is not the right thing to do.
>
> It's a very fine line sometimes.
>
> My opinion of the incident was that the pilots stepped over the line
> and deserved to get being chewed out by Mr. Whitmore.
>
> Mike Weller


I'm STILL trying to figure out what "line" was crossed and what the
chewing was all about.

Cal Vanize wrote:

>
>
> Mike Weller wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:42:05 -0600, Cal Vanize
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of
>>>>>> the FAA if
>>>>>> I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can
>>>>>> remember doing
>>>>>> just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than
>>>>>> rolling up with
>>>>>> the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make
>>>>>> sense. I'd
>>>>>> say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>>>> they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>>>> degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>>>> another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike Weller
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Inquiring minds want to know why?
>>>
>>>
>>> What did they do wrong? What actual reg did they break? Was there
>>> some kind of safety violation?
>>
>>
>>
>> Now that is good question.
>>
>> For many reasons pilots, and flight instructors in particular, are
>> expected to be better than average.
>>
>> You don't have to break a "reg" to show that maybe, just maybe, that
>> what you're doing is not the right thing to do.
>>
>> It's a very fine line sometimes.
>>
>> My opinion of the incident was that the pilots stepped over the line
>> and deserved to get being chewed out by Mr. Whitmore.
>>
>> Mike Weller
>
>
>
> I'm STILL trying to figure out what "line" was crossed and what the
> chewing was all about.

The only issue I can see was if they ran out of fuel and that was the
reason for the "shutdown." EVen then, I think it would be hard to bust
them, but a good lecture might be in order in that event.


Matt

I've seen a lot of people asking WHY this was something they'd get in
trouble for, and I think I have an answer. First, from Mike Weller's
post:

>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.

>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.

Take a look at the distance involved. To coast from the runway, around
that corner and all the way to the pump, they spent most of the taxi at
well above brisk walking speeds. Unsafe taxiing speeds can do a lot of
damage and pose a risk to anyone walking around there, especially with
the engine off.

Additionally, if they taxi past a bunch of planes and lose a tire at 40
mph or so, how well do you think they'll be able to avoid smacking into
the parked aircraft?

So, in summary: They were taxiing way too fast.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I've seen a lot of people asking WHY this was something they'd get in
> trouble for, and I think I have an answer. First, from Mike Weller's
> post:
>
>>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>
>>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>
> Take a look at the distance involved. To coast from the runway, around
> that corner and all the way to the pump, they spent most of the taxi at
> well above brisk walking speeds. Unsafe taxiing speeds can do a lot of
> damage and pose a risk to anyone walking around there, especially with
> the engine off.
>
> Additionally, if they taxi past a bunch of planes and lose a tire at 40
> mph or so, how well do you think they'll be able to avoid smacking into
> the parked aircraft?
>
> So, in summary: They were taxiing way too fast.
>
> Ben Hallert
> PP-ASEL

You were there?

On 24 Jan 2006 08:32:14 -0800, "
wrote in
. com::

I made copies that I presented rather than my originals

.

Copies are not acceptable. If the inspector wants to see your certificate, then he wants to see the certificate, not a copy of the certificate. The certificate is not yours, you are in possesion, but it actually belongs to the US government. In other words, if you don't let him examine the original certificate, then you are in violation. The regs don't mention that a copy is acceptable. Same thing goes for the airworthiness certicficate or registration certificate in the aircraft.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:07:35 -0600, Cal Vanize
> wrote:

>
>
>Mike Weller wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:42:05 -0600, Cal Vanize
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the FAA
>>>>>>if
>>>>>>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember doing
>>>>>>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense. I'd
>>>>>>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>>>>
>>>>>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>>>>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>>>>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>>>>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>>>>
>>>>>Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike Weller
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Inquiring minds want to know why?
>>>
>>>What did they do wrong? What actual reg did they break? Was there some
>>>kind of safety violation?
>>
>>
>> Now that is good question.
>>
>> For many reasons pilots, and flight instructors in particular, are
>> expected to be better than average.
>>
>> You don't have to break a "reg" to show that maybe, just maybe, that
>> what you're doing is not the right thing to do.
>>
>> It's a very fine line sometimes.
>>
>> My opinion of the incident was that the pilots stepped over the line
>> and deserved to get being chewed out by Mr. Whitmore.
>>
>> Mike Weller
>
>
>I'm STILL trying to figure out what "line" was crossed and what the
>chewing was all about.
>
>

And I'm just STILL trying to say that "there is no line".

My point is just that flying is a FUZZY thing.

Mike Weller

They would both make interesting intersection's names,

"STILL" and "FUZZY"

> You were there?

I wasn't there, but I took the thirty seconds to actually read the
post. Consider how far they taxied from the runway, including the
cornering. Unless the airplane was equipped with unobtainium
frictionless wheel bearings and some sort of magical shield that gets
rid of all drag, they'd have to be coasting along far faster than is
considered a safe taxi speed for much of their taxi. Read the post
again if you have a chance and try to replicate the distance (with
corners) in your own plane and let me know how well it went.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:57:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I've seen a lot of people asking WHY this was something they'd get in
>> trouble for, and I think I have an answer. First, from Mike Weller's
>> post:
>>
>>>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>
>>>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>
>> Take a look at the distance involved. To coast from the runway, around
>> that corner and all the way to the pump, they spent most of the taxi at
>> well above brisk walking speeds. Unsafe taxiing speeds can do a lot of
>> damage and pose a risk to anyone walking around there, especially with
>> the engine off.
>>
>> Additionally, if they taxi past a bunch of planes and lose a tire at 40
>> mph or so, how well do you think they'll be able to avoid smacking into
>> the parked aircraft?
>>
>> So, in summary: They were taxiing way too fast.
>>
>> Ben Hallert
>> PP-ASEL
>
>You were there?
>

I was!

Mike Weller

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> You were there?
>
> I wasn't there, but I took the thirty seconds to actually read the
> post. Consider how far they taxied from the runway, including the
> cornering. Unless the airplane was equipped with unobtainium
> frictionless wheel bearings and some sort of magical shield that gets
> rid of all drag, they'd have to be coasting along far faster than is
> considered a safe taxi speed for much of their taxi. Read the post
> again if you have a chance and try to replicate the distance (with
> corners) in your own plane and let me know how well it went.
>
> Ben Hallert

I gotta go along with Mike and Ben. Even if Mike exagerrated by doubling the
real distances, the PIC deserved to get his knuckles rapped for going to
fast on the yellow line. If you are having trouble visualizing the distance,
try remembering the typical running track around a school football field --
that's a quarter-mile. Admittedly, I wasn't there either but it dang sure
sounds like a Darwin Award stunt.

Casey Wilson

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:07:35 -0600, Cal Vanize
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Mike Weller wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:42:05 -0600, Cal Vanize
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the
>>>>>>>FAA
>>>>>>>if
>>>>>>>I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember
>>>>>>>doing
>>>>>>>just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling
>>>>>>>up
>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense.
>>>>>>>I'd
>>>>>>>say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
>>>>>>they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
>>>>>>degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
>>>>>>another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike Weller
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Inquiring minds want to know why?
>>>>
>>>>What did they do wrong? What actual reg did they break? Was there some
>>>>kind of safety violation?
>>>
>>>
>>> Now that is good question.
>>>
>>> For many reasons pilots, and flight instructors in particular, are
>>> expected to be better than average.
>>>
>>> You don't have to break a "reg" to show that maybe, just maybe, that
>>> what you're doing is not the right thing to do.
>>>
>>> It's a very fine line sometimes.
>>>
>>> My opinion of the incident was that the pilots stepped over the line
>>> and deserved to get being chewed out by Mr. Whitmore.
>>>
>>> Mike Weller
>>
>>
>>I'm STILL trying to figure out what "line" was crossed and what the
>>chewing was all about.
>>
>>
>
> And I'm just STILL trying to say that "there is no line".
>
> My point is just that flying is a FUZZY thing.
>
> Mike Weller
>
> They would both make interesting intersection's names,
>
> "STILL" and "FUZZY"


First you said they crossed some "line" and now you say there is no "line."
If they crossed a "line" what is the "line?" Of on the other hand there is
no "line," as you now say, what did they do wrong. What exactly is "fuzzy"
about flying. I fly quite a bit and haven't noticed the "fuzzy" part.

I have never had any problems during any of the times I have been ramp
checked.
If you have your photo identification, medical, pilot license and the
aircraft is in order, you should have no problems. (If you have your
log books with you, keep it out of sight.) You do not need to show
them your log book or aircraft logs. Student pilots must have their
log book with them.
Turn the inspection into a learning situation. Most inspectors will be
happy to explain what they are looking for during the inspection.

Exactly!
I got ramp checked as a student preparing for a solo flight in the pattern
nearly 2 and half years ago. He was polite, efficient and helpful. He
asked for: Photo ID, License and medical and nothing more. Until I said I
was a student pilot and then it changed to photo ID, medical and logbook
(Just show it to me, don't open it). Then he asked if I was going on a
cross country or local flight. That's when he looked at the back of my
medical and asked if there was an endorsement in my logbook and if I could
show it to him. He even told me to find it and open it to that page only.
The book was never in his hands. He thanked me and ordered me to enjoy my
flight! He did say that if it was a cross country he would've wanted to see
the endorsement for the flight and nothing more. I figure he was just doing
his job, as he was sent over by someone else.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

"Clay" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I have never had any problems during any of the times I have been ramp
> checked.
> If you have your photo identification, medical, pilot license and the
> aircraft is in order, you should have no problems. (If you have your
> log books with you, keep it out of sight.) You do not need to show
> them your log book or aircraft logs. Student pilots must have their
> log book with them.
> Turn the inspection into a learning situation. Most inspectors will be
> happy to explain what they are looking for during the inspection.
>

"Chris Ehlbeck" wrote in message ...
> I figure he was just doing his job, as he was sent over by someone else.

Yeah, they used that excuse at Nuremburg... It didn't fly there either...

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "Chris Ehlbeck" wrote in message
> ...
>> I figure he was just doing his job, as he was sent over by someone else.
>
> Yeah, they used that excuse at Nuremburg... It didn't fly there either...

And Godwin finishes up yet another Usenet thread.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:57:31 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
>> "Chris Ehlbeck" wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I figure he was just doing his job, as he was sent over by someone else.
>>
>> Yeah, they used that excuse at Nuremburg... It didn't fly there either...
>
>And Godwin finishes up yet another Usenet thread.
>

That's exactly what I was thinking.

What's the other route it could have taken? Abortion?

Mike Weller

In article >,
Mike Weller > wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:43:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
> >Handle what things? Guess I am dense but what business is it of the FAA if
> >I want to shut down and coast to the pumps? In fact I can remember doing
> >just that on a couple of occasions. Seems safer to me than rolling up with
> >the meat cleaver spinning. Sorry, but the story doesn't make sense. I'd
> >say Mr. Whitmore stuck his nose where it didn't belong.
> >
>
> Put it into the context of when and where it happened.
>
> They shut off the engine on the runway, the prop stopped, and then
> they rolled at least a another quarter of a mile after making a 45
> degree turn off the runway, rolled down the taxiway, and the made
> another quick turn and stop to get to the gas pumps.
>
> Impressive, but not exactly the thing to do in front of "THE MAN".
>
> Mike Weller


Impressive, maybe dumb, but NOT ILLEGAL!

Can you quote a FAR that makes this any of the FAA's business?

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD

Does that mean the RC (Ramp Checker) can't demand to see when your
last BFR was? If I understand it, that must be entered in log book.


On 29 Jan 2006 23:15:05 -0800, "Clay" >
wrote:

>I have never had any problems during any of the times I have been ramp
>checked.
>If you have your photo identification, medical, pilot license and the
>aircraft is in order, you should have no problems. (If you have your
>log books with you, keep it out of sight.) You do not need to show
>them your log book or aircraft logs. Student pilots must have their
>log book with them.
>Turn the inspection into a learning situation. Most inspectors will be
>happy to explain what they are looking for during the inspection.

"Terry" > wrote in message
...
> Does that mean the RC (Ramp Checker) can't demand to see when your
> last BFR was? If I understand it, that must be entered in log book.

That is correct. You do not need to carry proof of a current BFR. The RC
can request you send proof but it is not required during the ramp check nor
is proof of current annual or any other maintenance requirements.

>
> On 29 Jan 2006 23:15:05 -0800, "Clay" >
> wrote:
>
>>I have never had any problems during any of the times I have been ramp
>>checked.
>>If you have your photo identification, medical, pilot license and the
>>aircraft is in order, you should have no problems. (If you have your
>>log books with you, keep it out of sight.) You do not need to show
>>them your log book or aircraft logs. Student pilots must have their
>>log book with them.
>>Turn the inspection into a learning situation. Most inspectors will be
>>happy to explain what they are looking for during the inspection.