"We're with the FAA"

[Chad]

I've read lots of stories about it and if finally happened to me, I had
my first ramp check. I flew into South Haven, MI (LWA) today to get
fuel, it's self serve, and as I was fueling two men wearing ID's around
their necks and holding clipboards approached my plane. I couldn't
read what their ID's said, but I thought to myself they may be FAA
guys. They both stood by the pump and didn't interupt me while I was
fueling. As soon as I finished pumping they introduced themselves and
said "we're with the FAA, from the Grand Rapids FSDO". The first thing
they asked is if I was Part 91 and where I flew in from and where I was
going next and why I flew into South Haven. I said to get fuel. Next
they wanted to see my license, medical, registration, and airworthyness
certificate. I gave them all the documents. They asked when the last
annual on the plane was and where it was done, I told them and they
wrote that information down. They asked if I had a GPS and if it was
IFR or VFR, I said VFR and they didn't ask any further questions about
that. They also looked at the dataplate on the plane. They asked how
many hours I had and then just some small talk for about 10 mins. They
asked at least two or three times about where I was flying to next. I
think they were mainly checking to see if I was flying Part 135 or
doing an illegal charter. The weather was 5 miles vis. and clear, but
very hazy. They did ask if I knew if the weather was going to get any
better. I suppose they were checking to see if I had checked the
weather. They were both very nice and the whole thing was pretty
painless.

[Michelle P]

Chad wrote:
> I've read lots of stories about it and if finally happened to me, I had
> my first ramp check. I flew into South Haven, MI (LWA) today to get
> fuel, it's self serve, and as I was fueling two men wearing ID's around
> their necks and holding clipboards approached my plane. I couldn't
> read what their ID's said, but I thought to myself they may be FAA
> guys. They both stood by the pump and didn't interupt me while I was
> fueling. As soon as I finished pumping they introduced themselves and
> said "we're with the FAA, from the Grand Rapids FSDO". The first thing
> they asked is if I was Part 91 and where I flew in from and where I was
> going next and why I flew into South Haven. I said to get fuel. Next
> they wanted to see my license, medical, registration, and airworthyness
> certificate. I gave them all the documents. They asked when the last
> annual on the plane was and where it was done, I told them and they
> wrote that information down. They asked if I had a GPS and if it was
> IFR or VFR, I said VFR and they didn't ask any further questions about
> that. They also looked at the dataplate on the plane. They asked how
> many hours I had and then just some small talk for about 10 mins. They
> asked at least two or three times about where I was flying to next. I
> think they were mainly checking to see if I was flying Part 135 or
> doing an illegal charter. The weather was 5 miles vis. and clear, but
> very hazy. They did ask if I knew if the weather was going to get any
> better. I suppose they were checking to see if I had checked the
> weather. They were both very nice and the whole thing was pretty
> painless.
>
If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
135 and 121 cannot.
Michelle P

[Chad]

Michelle P wrote:
> Chad wrote:
> > I've read lots of stories about it and if finally happened to me, I had
> > my first ramp check. I flew into South Haven, MI (LWA) today to get
> > fuel, it's self serve, and as I was fueling two men wearing ID's around
> > their necks and holding clipboards approached my plane. I couldn't
> > read what their ID's said, but I thought to myself they may be FAA
> > guys. They both stood by the pump and didn't interupt me while I was
> > fueling. As soon as I finished pumping they introduced themselves and
> > said "we're with the FAA, from the Grand Rapids FSDO". The first thing
> > they asked is if I was Part 91 and where I flew in from and where I was
> > going next and why I flew into South Haven. I said to get fuel. Next
> > they wanted to see my license, medical, registration, and airworthyness
> > certificate. I gave them all the documents. They asked when the last
> > annual on the plane was and where it was done, I told them and they
> > wrote that information down. They asked if I had a GPS and if it was
> > IFR or VFR, I said VFR and they didn't ask any further questions about
> > that. They also looked at the dataplate on the plane. They asked how
> > many hours I had and then just some small talk for about 10 mins. They
> > asked at least two or three times about where I was flying to next. I
> > think they were mainly checking to see if I was flying Part 135 or
> > doing an illegal charter. The weather was 5 miles vis. and clear, but
> > very hazy. They did ask if I knew if the weather was going to get any
> > better. I suppose they were checking to see if I had checked the
> > weather. They were both very nice and the whole thing was pretty
> > painless.
> >
> If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
> 135 and 121 cannot.
> Michelle P

This document gives instruction to inspectors for conducting a Part 91
ramp check.
So your saying if an FAA inspector wants to see my license or medical I
can refuse?

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/volume2/media/2_056_00.pdf#search=%22part%2091%20ramp%20check%22

[Newps]

Michelle P wrote:

>>
> If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....


Let me know when you do that, I'd like to sit on the ramp and watch.

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Michelle P wrote:
>
>>>
>> If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
>
>
> Let me know when you do that, I'd like to sit on the ramp and watch.

They cannot delay a departure.

[Chad]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> >
> > Michelle P wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
> >
> >
> > Let me know when you do that, I'd like to sit on the ramp and watch.
>
> They cannot delay a departure.

Maybe not, but you can be sure you'd get a letter in the mail and the
FAA would get their ramp inspection.

[TxSrv]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> They cannot delay a departure.
>

If a recreational flight, how do (and why would) we argue with
FAA that they're more than nominally delaying the flight?
Without sounding like a disingenuous jerk.

Fred F.

[Rotor&Wings]

Chad wrote:[color=blue][i]

If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
135 and 121 cannot.
Michelle P

not quite. you are required under part 91 to show certificates if asked by any FAA official. the FAA can look at your aircraft, however they cannot enter it without your permission.

for part 135 and 121, the FAA cannot interfer with a scheduled operation, i.e. than cannot delay your departure time for a ramp check.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
"Chad" > wrote:
> > If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
> > 135 and 121 cannot.
> > Michelle P
>
> This document gives instruction to inspectors for conducting a Part 91
> ramp check.
> So your saying if an FAA inspector wants to see my license or medical I
> can refuse?


You can always refuse. The consequences of refusal, however, may not be
in your best interest.


JKG

[Jake Brodsky]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Michelle P wrote:
>
>>>
>> If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
>
>
> Let me know when you do that, I'd like to sit on the ramp and watch.

If I were flying VFR to burn holes in the sky on a pretty day, I doubt
this sort of thing would work in my favor.

However, if I had filed an IFR flight plan, and I knew that weather
conditions were deteriorating, I'd ask them to keep things short and
sweet. There is no sense in getting rude here unless they develop a
'tude.

I think my example above is a good reason to "fly away" as Michelle
says. I'm sure it's precisely the sort of situation that the writers of
these regulations had in mind.

Jake Brodsky

[houstondan]

ok, all that said, given the great caption this thread has; who has
had a ramp check and what was it like????????????


dan



Rotor&amp wrote:
> Michelle P Wrote:
> > Chad wrote:[color=blue][i]
> >
> > If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
> > 135 and 121 cannot.
> > Michelle P
>
> not quite. you are required under part 91 to show certificates if
> asked by any FAA official. the FAA can look at your aircraft, however
> they cannot enter it without your permission.
>
> for part 135 and 121, the FAA cannot interfer with a scheduled
> operation, i.e. than cannot delay your departure time for a ramp check.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rotor&Wings

[NW_Pilot]

I have had 1 ramp check I was on a ferry permit (airplane was out of annual)
I was asked for the usual docks + copies of logbook entries and checked to
make sure I filed a flight plan in compliance with the ferry permit. How the
inspector knew I was on a ferry permit and leaving that day I have no Idea!
Yea, he was from the same fsdo that issued the permit and flooding was
threatening some airports in the area and he was proubally looking for ????.

I had the aircraft log books so I showed the A&P's endorsement and had my
flight plan form printed and said I filed with 1800wxbrief for a 10:00am
departure the inspector said have a nice day handed me back my paperwork, we
went and had a cup of coffee or two in the local fbo and had a friendly
conversation about flying etc. He wished me luck and a safe flight I was on
my way.

If you have nothing to hide & aircraft is in good condition then you should
not worry about the ramp checks!



"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ok, all that said, given the great caption this thread has; who has
> had a ramp check and what was it like????????????
>
>
> dan
>
>
>
> Rotor&amp wrote:
>> Michelle P Wrote:
>> > Chad wrote:[color=blue][i]
>> >
>> > If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
>> > 135 and 121 cannot.
>> > Michelle P
>>
>> not quite. you are required under part 91 to show certificates if
>> asked by any FAA official. the FAA can look at your aircraft, however
>> they cannot enter it without your permission.
>>
>> for part 135 and 121, the FAA cannot interfer with a scheduled
>> operation, i.e. than cannot delay your departure time for a ramp check.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rotor&Wings
>

[Jay Honeck]

> If you have nothing to hide & aircraft is in good condition then you should
> not worry about the ramp checks!

That really says it all. It's a complete non-event, taking less than 2
minutes -- IF you've actually got your ducks in a row. (Well, this is
a data-point of ONE ramp check in 12 years of flying. YMMV.)

If not, your plane becomes a giant paper-weight, until you produce the
required documents. When we were checked, the Illinois pilot in the
Grumman Tiger ahead of us found that out the hard way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:42:25 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote:

- snip-
>If you have nothing to hide & aircraft is in good condition then you should
>not worry about the ramp checks!
>

I'm from UK and had a ramp check in Maui. I'd been for a flight with
an instructor/tour guide when a pleasant lady introduced herself as
FAA. She asked for my medical and pilot certificate (I have an FAA
certificate + UK) and if the aircraft was ok. I said I was a very new
pilot but apart from being scruffy I thought it was safe. We had a
pleasant conversation and I said I'd had turbulence and cross winds
but not both together for a landing. She said Maui is always like that
and you could tell with your eyes closed. No problem with a ramp
check.

I discovered the FAA had made a safety presentation, at the airfield,
the night before. That was really disappointing as the FBO never
mentioned it and I'd like to have attended.

[Michelle P]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Michelle P wrote:
>
>>>
>> If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
>
>
>
> Let me know when you do that, I'd like to sit on the ramp and watch.
I have and I will again. You will have to catch up with me though. I
have been through about a dozen states in the last six months.

Michelle P

[Denny]

As a matter of principle I will not be ramp checked...

denny

[Vaughn Simon]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> As a matter of principle I will not be ramp checked...

Will you show your required licenses and certificates as per 61.3 (L)?
Under that regulation even a local police officer has the authority to "ramp
check" you, at least to the extent of checking your license/medical certificate.
The officer may also require you to submit to a drug or alcohol test (91.17 (c)
and 61.16).

Vaughn

[Newps]

Denny wrote:

> As a matter of principle I will not be ramp checked...



You are required to show license and medical to any authority, not just
the FAA.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Denny wrote:
>
>> As a matter of principle I will not be ramp checked...
>
> You are required to show license and medical to any authority, not just
> the FAA.

I'm a bit hung over; what authority outside the FAA might that be? (Yes,
Customs is one).

[John Godwin]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

> I'm a bit hung over; what authority outside the FAA might that be?
> (Yes, Customs is one).
>
Police, Sheriff, etc.

--

[NW_Pilot]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> If you have nothing to hide & aircraft is in good condition then you
>> should
>> not worry about the ramp checks!
>
> That really says it all. It's a complete non-event, taking less than 2
> minutes -- IF you've actually got your ducks in a row. (Well, this is
> a data-point of ONE ramp check in 12 years of flying. YMMV.)
>
> If not, your plane becomes a giant paper-weight, until you produce the
> required documents. When we were checked, the Illinois pilot in the
> Grumman Tiger ahead of us found that out the hard way.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Jay, 100% correct it is a non event and did you get the message that I
posted a link on my links page to www.AlexisParkInn.com check it out @
http://www.aircraftdelivery.net/links if you have a small banner fell free
to e-mail it to me and I will place it on the site for ya!

[Newps]

Anybody with a gun, for starters.




Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>Denny wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As a matter of principle I will not be ramp checked...
>>
>>You are required to show license and medical to any authority, not just
>>the FAA.
>
>
> I'm a bit hung over; what authority outside the FAA might that be? (Yes,
> Customs is one).
>
>
>

[Dale]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:


>
> I'm a bit hung over; what authority outside the FAA might that be? (Yes,
> Customs is one).

Law enforcement officers. In fact some states have local laws requiring
a pilot to show his certificate to LE officers.

[Dale]

In article . com>,
"houstondan" > wrote:

> ok, all that said, given the great caption this thread has; who has
> had a ramp check and what was it like????????????
>

I was ramped at Columbia, SC (Ownes field?) while flying the B-24. The
inspector thought she had caught me doing a no-no re: hauling passengers
in an experimental a/c outside our letter authorizing us to operate,
however I had made a stop to pickup pax at a point we were authorized
from...yeah I know, confused me also. <G> It was a short conversation
and of no consequence, even when I found that some paperwork was out of
date. (another crew person had swapped an out of date WB for the current
one...embarrasing but I was able to fix the problem on the spot so no
foul)

Although I kind of felt like I was being hunted (the inpectors were
waiting for us to arrive..it was about 1730 on a Friday evening...we
were the last aircraft to arrive) it wasn't a big deal overall.

[Stan Prevost]

What is the principle?


"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> As a matter of principle I will not be ramp checked...
>
> denny
>

[Newps]

Dale wrote:

> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm a bit hung over; what authority outside the FAA might that be? (Yes,
>>Customs is one).
>
>
> Law enforcement officers. In fact some states have local laws requiring
> a pilot to show his certificate to LE officers.

Which is redundant and unecessary.

[TxSrv]

Newps wrote:
> In fact some states have local laws
>> requiring a pilot to show his certificate to LE officers.
>
> Which is redundant and unnecessary.

Why? Do you mean they don't need a state law stating they can
require showing the certificate? Can they do anything they want,
law on the books or not?

Fred F.

[Newps]

TxSrv wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>> In fact some states have local laws
>>
>>> requiring a pilot to show his certificate to LE officers.
>>
>>
>> Which is redundant and unnecessary.
>
>
> Why? Do you mean they don't need a state law stating they can require
> showing the certificate?


It's already a federal law, no state law necessary.

[TxSrv]

B A R R Y wrote:
>> Do you mean they don't need a state law stating they can
>> require showing the certificate?
>
> The FAR's already state we need to show our certificates to law
> enforcement. That's state law, local ordinance, or not.

An FAR is just an administrative regulation of the fed gov't.
Doesn't give state LEO's any police powers.

Fred F.

[TxSrv]

Newps wrote:
>
>> Why? Do you mean they don't need a state law stating they can require
>> showing the certificate?
>
> It's already a federal law, no state law necessary.
>
It's only an administrative regulation -- stating "upon request,"
implying the request has to be lawful under state law. Tell the
cop, "I don't have one to show you." Absent state law (all have
such a law), then the cop can't do anything to prevent you from
operating an aircraft.

Fred F.

[Vaughn Simon]

"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>> Why? Do you mean they don't need a state law stating they can require
>>> showing the certificate?
>>
>> It's already a federal law, no state law necessary.
>>
> It's only an administrative regulation -- stating "upon request," implying the
> request has to be lawful under state law. Tell the cop, "I don't have one to
> show you." Absent state law (all have such a law), then the cop can't do
> anything to prevent you from operating an aircraft.

Perhaps true (I doubt it), but that action would still put you in direct
violation of 61.3 (I) and could cost you your license if the Feds got wind of
it.

Vaughn

[RNR]

On 26 Aug 2006 11:19:28 -0700, "Chad" > wrote:

>I've read lots of stories about it and if finally happened to me, I had
>my first ramp check. I flew into South Haven, MI (LWA) today to get
>fuel, it's self serve, and as I was fueling two men wearing ID's around
>their necks and holding clipboards approached my plane. I couldn't
>read what their ID's said, but I thought to myself they may be FAA
>guys. They both stood by the pump and didn't interupt me while I was
>fueling. As soon as I finished pumping they introduced themselves and
>said "we're with the FAA, from the Grand Rapids FSDO". The first thing
>they asked is if I was Part 91 and where I flew in from and where I was
>going next and why I flew into South Haven. I said to get fuel. Next
>they wanted to see my license, medical, registration, and airworthyness
>certificate. I gave them all the documents. They asked when the last
>annual on the plane was and where it was done, I told them and they
>wrote that information down. They asked if I had a GPS and if it was
>IFR or VFR, I said VFR and they didn't ask any further questions about
>that. They also looked at the dataplate on the plane. They asked how
>many hours I had and then just some small talk for about 10 mins. They
>asked at least two or three times about where I was flying to next. I
>think they were mainly checking to see if I was flying Part 135 or
>doing an illegal charter. The weather was 5 miles vis. and clear, but
>very hazy. They did ask if I knew if the weather was going to get any
>better. I suppose they were checking to see if I had checked the
>weather. They were both very nice and the whole thing was pretty
>painless.


I realize that this is the "owning" newsgroup, but I read it anyway.
The whole ramp check thing sounds fairly benign until they get to
specifics about the inspections on the plane. That's a tough one for
renters. You can say what you want about what a renter should review
prior to flying the plane, but in the real world reviewing the logs
and documenting details related to annuals and other inspections is
not typically easy or even feasible. I wonder what they do if I told
them that I had no idea when the plane was annualled. I rent from the
same place (usually) and I know that they adhere to the ispection
requiremnets but I do not know the details. Would they or could they
ground me?
RNR

[john smith]

> > It's only an administrative regulation -- stating "upon request," implying
> > the request has to be lawful under state law.
> > Tell the cop, "I don't have one to show you." Absent state law
> > (all have such a law),then the cop can't do anything to prevent
> > you from operating an aircraft.

> Perhaps true (I doubt it), but that action would still put you in direct
> violation of 61.3 (I) and could cost you your license if the Feds got wind of
> it.

So if I ask them to produce the applicable regs to show me what they are
and aren't allowed to do, and they don't produce them, is it a valid
ramp check?

[Denny]

Constitutional... And a lifetime of dealing with governmental
bureaucrats...

A LEO cannot pull you over and demand your license and registration
just because he needs a few more entries in his shift log (not to say
it is not done on a pretext)...
A bureaucrat who does not have LEO authority does not have greater
authority than that... If he wants to inspect my certificates he can
send a business letter and my attorney will negotiate a time and place,
what will be examined, etc...

In 50+ years of active flying I have been accosted on a ramp three
times by people claiming to have power over me... I have refused to
submit... Those of you who have had warm and fuzzy encounters, good
for you... Just be glad you were not treated like Bob Hoover... Had Bob
had legal counsel present he would not have surrendered his
certificates to the inspectors and that would have been the end of it..
Yes, 90% of FAA inspectors are decent folks... God help you if the
ramp inspector is one of the 10% ...

Now, having said that let me make one caveat... You cannot refuse the
orders of a LEO - well you can but there is a price... He may be
totally wrong, but established case law gives him the power to force
you to submit... You get to sue him later if he is wrong...
And having been a police surgeon in my wasted youth I understand the
street bull... He is the top dog in the pack... Refusal to obey is a
direct challenge to his authority, his masculinity, his standing in the
streets, and his self esteem... He will likely bludgeon you into
hamburger... And unless there is someone holding a video camera on him,
he will get away with it...

OTOH, some guy who works for a governmental agency, is just that - some
guy...

denny

[Matt Barrow]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
. 3.50...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
>> I'm a bit hung over; what authority outside the FAA might that be?
>> (Yes, Customs is one).
>>
> Police, Sheriff, etc.

Anyone else outside LE?

[Matt Barrow]

"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> An FAR is just an administrative regulation of the fed gov't. Doesn't give
> state LEO's any police powers.
>
Hmmm...a LEO without police powers?

[TxSrv]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "TxSrv" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> An FAR is just an administrative regulation of the fed gov't. Doesn't give
>> state LEO's any police powers.
>>
> Hmmm...a LEO without police powers?
>

Mere Federal Regulations are not what grant local LEOs police
powers. State law and its constitution, as interpreted by the
courts, do that. The mere words in an FAR "upon request" [of a
local LEO] doesn't grant any authority to make the request. A
state law has to do that, as the case in virtually all states.

Fred F.

[[email protected]]

NW_Pilot > wrote:

> Jay, 100% correct it is a non event and did you get the message that I
> posted a link on my links page to www.AlexisParkInn.com check it out @
> http://www.aircraftdelivery.net/links if you have a small banner fell free
> to e-mail it to me and I will place it on the site for ya!

I was unable to get to http://www.aircraftdelivery.net/links
it reports:



Problem Report


There was a communication problem.

Message ID


TCP_ERROR

Problem Description


The system was unable to communicate with the server.

Possible Problem Cause


* The Web server may be down.
* The Web server may be too busy.
* The Web server may be experiencing other problems, preventing it from responding to clients.
* The communication path may be experiencing problems.


Is anyone else able to get through?

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 240 Young Eagles!

[Montblack[_1_]]

("john smith" wrote)
> So if I ask them to produce the applicable regs to show me what they are
> and aren't allowed to do, and they don't produce them, is it a valid ramp
> check?


Yes. They're not like 'speed limit' signs. Regs are invisible, but they
still apply.

However, if the inspectors don't have, on their persons, two forms of proper
ID...

Driver's license, Passport photo, Birth certificate <g>

"I've been doing this for 25 years, and we do not need two forms of ID for a
ramp check."

"Unfortunately, yes you do. It's in the Patriot Act. Sorry"

"Oh."

"You are a Patriot ...aren't you?"

[Starting to sweat] "Yes. Yes. Of course we are.

"Good."


Montblack

[Vaughn Simon]

"RNR" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Aug 2006 11:19:28 -0700, "Chad" > wrote:
> I rent from the
> same place (usually) and I know that they adhere to the ispection
> requiremnets but I do not know the details. Would they or could they
> ground me?

At a certain amount of risk of bing wrong because I don't have the time to
look up the applicable FAR, the short answer is "NO". The operator of the plane
is responsible for that stuff. I have no idea of the annual date or even the
100-hour status of the planes I fly. I trust the operator to do a professional
job on that stuff, and the operator is not about to leave the plane's logs out
where they can be misplaced.

Now if the inspector finds something that makes the plane obviously
airworthy that the pilot could/should have caught on a preflight...

Vaughn


> RNR

[John Godwin]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:44f2fc15$0$10309
:

> Anyone else outside LE?

FAR 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
l) Inspection of certificate. Each person who holds an airman
certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license required
by this part must present it and their photo identification as
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for inspection upon a
request from:

(1) The Administrator;

(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation
Safety Board;

(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or

(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security
Administration.

--

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
> If you are part 91 you can politely refuse. Fly away.....
> 135 and 121 cannot.
> Michelle P

LOL! That's funny. Yeah, right. You can always drive away from the police
flagging you down as well at random checkpoint. <chuckle>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>>
>> Denny wrote:
>>
>>> As a matter of principle I will not be ramp checked...
>>
>> You are required to show license and medical to any authority, not just
>> the FAA.
>
> I'm a bit hung over; what authority outside the FAA might that be? (Yes,
> Customs is one).

And law enforcement.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

That too! :)

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Anybody with a gun, for starters.
>
>
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>
>>>Denny wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As a matter of principle I will not be ramp checked...
>>>
>>>You are required to show license and medical to any authority, not just
>>>the FAA.
>>
>>
>> I'm a bit hung over; what authority outside the FAA might that be? (Yes,
>> Customs is one).
>>
>>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Constitutional... And a lifetime of dealing with governmental
> bureaucrats...
>
> A LEO cannot pull you over and demand your license and registration
> just because he needs a few more entries in his shift log (not to say
> it is not done on a pretext)...

It's called a random checkpoint and yes, he/she most certainly can. You can
choose to think you don't have to stop. Just try.

> A bureaucrat who does not have LEO authority does not have greater
> authority than that... If he wants to inspect my certificates he can
> send a business letter and my attorney will negotiate a time and place,
> what will be examined, etc...

And then they will turn around and throw the book at you, and get away with
it. This is similar to a problem the moron in the oval office seems to
have -- not being able to tell the difference between being steadfast and
being pigheaded.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

I've been ramp checked three times. Twice it was just a pleasant exchange of
information. I was actually happy they showed up at one airport because the
place has a history of meatheads pulling stupid stunts.

The third time the person forgot his ID. No ID, no ramp check.

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ok, all that said, given the great caption this thread has; who has
> had a ramp check and what was it like????????????



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Murdock]

Vaughn,

That's what a commercial pilot thought when he rented a C-152 from an FBO.
Turns out it was out of annual, and the FAA suspended his certificate for 30
days. They said, "The pilot in command is ultimately responsible for
conducting the flight in accordance with applicable regulations, one of
which prohibits the operation of an aircraft that has not received an annual
inspection within the past 12 months. The expectation that the inspection
had been done is not sufficient to relieve [the pilot] of this
responsibility."

If you're an AOPA member, you can read the story at
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2000/pc0009.html

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but since when has that meant anything
to the FAA?

-Mike

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RNR" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 26 Aug 2006 11:19:28 -0700, "Chad" > wrote:
>> I rent from the
>> same place (usually) and I know that they adhere to the ispection
>> requiremnets but I do not know the details. Would they or could they
>> ground me?
>
> At a certain amount of risk of bing wrong because I don't have the
> time to look up the applicable FAR, the short answer is "NO". The
> operator of the plane is responsible for that stuff. I have no idea of
> the annual date or even the 100-hour status of the planes I fly. I trust
> the operator to do a professional job on that stuff, and the operator is
> not about to leave the plane's logs out where they can be misplaced.
>
> Now if the inspector finds something that makes the plane obviously
> airworthy that the pilot could/should have caught on a preflight...
>
> Vaughn

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Vaughn Simon wrote:

> At a certain amount of risk of bing wrong because I don't have the time to
> look up the applicable FAR, the short answer is "NO". The operator of the plane
> is responsible for that stuff. I have no idea of the annual date or even the
> 100-hour status of the planes I fly. I trust the operator to do a professional
> job on that stuff, and the operator is not about to leave the plane's logs out
> where they can be misplaced.

When I used to be an "operator" (I owned a plane leased to a flying club), I
kept an up-to-date signed document in the plane attesting to compliance with the
various airworthiness requirements, showing dates and times of required
inspections and the dates when the next action was required to maintain
airworthiness and fitness for IFR flight. The only exception was the 30-day VOR
check, which was explicitly noted as a pilot responsibility.

AFAIK no inspector would care about such a document, but I think the pilots
appreciated having it.

[Matt Barrow]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> And then they will turn around and throw the book at you, and get away
> with it. This is similar to a problem the moron in the oval office seems
> to have -- not being able to tell the difference between being steadfast
> and being pigheaded.
>

That moron has been kicking the opponents asses for six years.

Do your know the difference between governing by principle and governing by
polls?

ESAD

[Matt Barrow]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> I've been ramp checked three times. Twice it was just a pleasant exchange
> of information. I was actually happy they showed up at one airport because
> the place has a history of meatheads pulling stupid stunts.

So tell us how a ramp check would put a damper on the "meatheads"?

Ah, yes!, the old, "I have nothing to hide, so I'll drop my pants and spread
my cheeks."

Tyrants love your type!

[David Lesher]

"Juan Jimenez" > writes:


>> A LEO cannot pull you over and demand your license and registration
>> just because he needs a few more entries in his shift log (not to say
>> it is not done on a pretext)...

>It's called a random checkpoint and yes, he/she most certainly can. You can
>choose to think you don't have to stop. Just try.

Actually no, the rules are more complex than that.
And the Supremes keep watering them down.

But a checkpoint that looks at everyone is OK. Asking your name
may be legal [Hiibel va Nevada] but they stopped there. Separately,
there are "Terry stops" which have their own limits.

See <http://papersplease.org> for one starting place...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Stan Prevost]

The FAA doesn't define "operator", but if we accept a dictionary definition:
"One who operates a machine or device".

FAR 1:

Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to
use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter)
of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the
right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).
§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
condition.

§ 91.403 General.
(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for
maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance
with part 39 of this chapter. [NOTE that "operator" includes "pilot"]

§ 91.409 Inspections.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has
had-

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has
been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this
chapter; or [blah blah]

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire,
and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that
person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service
the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved
for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has
received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in
accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be
exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the
inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the
inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of
time in service.



About once a year our FSDO gathers up the CFIs in an area and rails at us
about various topics. Airworthiness is always one of those topics. They
are very emphatic that the CFIs must teach airworthiness compliance to
pilots they work with, and that the PIC is ultimately responsible for
determining the airworthiness of an aircraft before flight. This includes
required inspections and compliance with ADs, inoperative equipment
requirements, and presence of required AFM supplements in the airplane for
STCed equipment. In lieu of requiring the pilot to personally perform AD
searches and peruse the maintenance logs in excrutiating detail, they say
that, as a "safe harbor" good-faith action, the pilot may rely upon an
aircraft status board provided by the FBO or equivalent documentation in an
aircraft check-out notebook. But this documentation must cover required
inspections (annual, 100-hr, pitot/static, etc.) and status of recurring AD
inspections or actions. And they also stress that there is a zero-tolerance
policy for overflying an AD interval (and that the book will be thrown at
you in such an event), which usually means that the 10-hr grace period on a
100-hr inspection does not exist in reality for those aircraft requiring
100-hr inspections.

Airworthiness is not just being in condition for safe flight; it is
primarily paperwork.







"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
>> At a certain amount of risk of bing wrong because I don't have the
>> time to look up the applicable FAR, the short answer is "NO". The
>> operator of the plane is responsible for that stuff. I have no idea of
>> the annual date or even the 100-hour status of the planes I fly. I trust
>> the operator to do a professional job on that stuff, and the operator is
>> not about to leave the plane's logs out where they can be misplaced.
>
> When I used to be an "operator" (I owned a plane leased to a flying club),
> I kept an up-to-date signed document in the plane attesting to compliance
> with the various airworthiness requirements, showing dates and times of
> required inspections and the dates when the next action was required to
> maintain airworthiness and fitness for IFR flight. The only exception was
> the 30-day VOR check, which was explicitly noted as a pilot
> responsibility.
>
> AFAIK no inspector would care about such a document, but I think the
> pilots appreciated having it.

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:41:18 -0500, Stan Prevost wrote:

> The FAA doesn't define "operator", but if we accept a dictionary definition:
> "One who operates a machine or device".

I am certainly not an authority on this. To be sure, I'm simply
parroting. My DE told me, the FAA wants people to believe that operator
somehow translates to pilot; however, he said, the courts have ruled many
times that pilots are pilots and owner/operators are owner/operators. He
then led me through several logic paths in a couple of FARs which fairly
well became nonsense if you take owner/operator to mean pilot. At the
same time, the same FARs made sense when assuming an operator is not a
pilot.

He did not expand on the cases to which he referred. He did say,
according to the courts (obviously not a literial defination here), an
operator is more like an FBO, an air carrier, a flight school. I think we
can all agree on what an owner is.

[snip]

Anyone have any ideas as to the "cases" to which my DE referred?

Greg

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:16:35 -0500, Montblack wrote:
[snip]
>
> However, if the inspectors don't have, on their persons, two forms of proper
> ID...
>
> Driver's license, Passport photo, Birth certificate <g>
>

You happen to have a link handy to the PA which states that?

Greg

[Roy Smith]

Greg Copeland > wrote:
> He did not expand on the cases to which he referred. He did say,
> according to the courts (obviously not a literial defination here),
> an operator is more like an FBO, an air carrier, a flight school. I
> think we can all agree on what an owner is.

Can we?

I'm a member of a club (A not-for-profit incorporated in Connecticut).
The club owns several airplanes. Am I an owner? Am I an operator?
Is the club an operator? Beats me. I figure if I assume the FAA will
take whichever view is most disadvantageous to me at any particular
time, I'll never be disappointed.

I do know that I've got a certified letter on FAA stationary at home
in which the local FSDO politely enlightened me as to exactly which
sins against airworthyness I had committed while acting as PIC in one
of the club aircraft. Was I disgruntled when I got that letter? You
bet. Disgruntled, but not disappointed :-)

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:32:15 +0000, Roy Smith wrote:

> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>> He did not expand on the cases to which he referred. He did say,
>> according to the courts (obviously not a literial defination here),
>> an operator is more like an FBO, an air carrier, a flight school. I
>> think we can all agree on what an owner is.
>
> Can we?

I believe so.

>
> I'm a member of a club (A not-for-profit incorporated in Connecticut).
> The club owns several airplanes. Am I an owner? Am I an operator?

This would be defined by the state's laws, in which the company was
incorporated. My guess is no, you are not an owner. You would be a
member of the club and the club is the owner/operator of your aircraft.
Obviously, I am not an lawyer but chances are, I'm correct; while still
making a number of assumptions. Some people actually incorporate for the
sole purpose of owning an aircraft in order to deflect issues of
liability. Meaning, the company is the owner/operator. I know comparing
some of these details can get muddy from state to state, but for a given
state, I'm sure the answer is clear.

> Is the club an operator? Beats me. I figure if I assume the FAA will
> take whichever view is most disadvantageous to me at any particular
> time, I'll never be disappointed.
>
> I do know that I've got a certified letter on FAA stationary at home
> in which the local FSDO politely enlightened me as to exactly which
> sins against airworthyness I had committed while acting as PIC in one
> of the club aircraft. Was I disgruntled when I got that letter? You
> bet. Disgruntled, but not disappointed :-)

LOL. Nice.

Greg


Greg

[Stan Prevost]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:41:18 -0500, Stan Prevost wrote:
>
> parroting. My DE told me, the FAA wants people to believe that operator
> somehow translates to pilot;

They *defined* it as such in FAR 1, as I quoted in my previous post and
present below. But only if we understand "operator" to be "one who
operates", and a pilot to be one who operates an aircraft by virtue of
piloting that aircraft.


§ 1.1 General definitions.
As used in Subchapters A through K of this chapter, unless the context
requires otherwise:

.......

Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to
use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter)
of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the
right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

........

This is what our FSDO relies upon. Dunno about the FAA in general.

The issue is further confused by an apparent distinction in the FARs between
two undefined terms, "airworthy" and "condition for safe flight".

§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining
whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command
shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or
structural conditions occur.

[Jim Logajan]

Greg Copeland > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:16:35 -0500, Montblack wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> However, if the inspectors don't have, on their persons, two forms of
>> proper ID...
>>
>> Driver's license, Passport photo, Birth certificate <g>
>>
>
> You happen to have a link handy to the PA which states that?

I believe the authoritative source on police IDs is the movie "The Treasure
of the Sierra Madre".

Dobbs: "If you're the police, where are your badges?"
Gold Hat: "Badges!? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I
don't have to show you any stinking badges!!"

So stay alert - that alleged "FAA" inspector just might be after your gold
- or your avionics! ;-)

(Actually some criminals have used bogus police ID to commit crimes. A real
cop should have no objection to providing ID and having it checked.)

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> And then they will turn around and throw the book at you, and get away
>> with it. This is similar to a problem the moron in the oval office seems
>> to have -- not being able to tell the difference between being steadfast
>> and being pigheaded.
>>
>
> That moron has been kicking the opponents asses for six years.

Dude, he can't even get one over on Iran, whose president is playing the
Shrub like a fiddle.

> Do your know the difference between governing by principle and governing
> by polls?

Sure, just haven't seen that since Clinton.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've been ramp checked three times. Twice it was just a pleasant exchange
>> of information. I was actually happy they showed up at one airport
>> because the place has a history of meatheads pulling stupid stunts.
>
> So tell us how a ramp check would put a damper on the "meatheads"?

Because they know the FAA may be around, watching, from seeing the
inspectors making the rounds at the ramp. It's called "deterrence."

> Ah, yes!, the old, "I have nothing to hide, so I'll drop my pants and
> spread my cheeks."
> Tyrants love your type!

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'll give that a 1.2.

Juan



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> And then they will turn around and throw the book at you, and get away
>>> with it. This is similar to a problem the moron in the oval office seems
>>> to have -- not being able to tell the difference between being steadfast
>>> and being pigheaded.
>>>
>>
>> That moron has been kicking the opponents asses for six years.
>
> Dude, he can't even get one over on Iran, whose president is playing the
> Shrub like a fiddle.


By that assessment, the dude in Iran has all those brilliant *******s in
Europe playing Iran's mouth flute.
>
>> Do your know the difference between governing by principle and governing
>> by polls?
>
> Sure, just haven't seen that since Clinton.

And Clinton's method was superior?

(YCTYFOOYMAT)

[Matt Barrow]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I've been ramp checked three times. Twice it was just a pleasant
>>> exchange of information. I was actually happy they showed up at one
>>> airport because the place has a history of meatheads pulling stupid
>>> stunts.
>>
>> So tell us how a ramp check would put a damper on the "meatheads"?
>
> Because they know the FAA may be around, watching, from seeing the
> inspectors making the rounds at the ramp. It's called "deterrence."

Yeah, like roadside sobriety checks have put a damper on drunk driving.
>
>> Ah, yes!, the old, "I have nothing to hide, so I'll drop my pants and
>> spread my cheeks."
>> Tyrants love your type!
>
> On a scale of 1 to 10, I'll give that a 1.2.

"Let me see dur pap'per's"

Your opinion is to stupid to rate. Get a clue.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
>> On a scale of 1 to 10, I'll give that a 1.2.

> Your opinion is to stupid to rate. Get a clue.


If I'm rating your post, I'd give it an "o."


/Montblack/
http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/italics.html