A couple Questions-Ramp Checks and Experimental Operations

I sold my experimental airplane sometime ago but I'm looking at buying
another one at this time. I always flew over cities and used my RV-6
just like I would any other airplane with a normal category
airworthiness certificate. But, I remember reading something here
once about some letter that we need from the Feds in order to fly over
populated areas in EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. What do you folks
know about that requirement?

Also, I really enjoyed the conversation concerning ramp checks on
private aircraft. Just the other day in Sitka Alaska some fed
demanded to ramp check a private airplane operating under part 91.
The owner was scared and confused and allowed the Fed inside of his
airplane. What do you people think of that? I guess the Fed even
told the owner he was going to detain him if he didn't submit to the
ramp check. Interesting eh? Since when was a government puke from
the FAA able to legally hold an airplane back from a flight. Too
much.

How many others of you have had this happen while operating under part
91? Anyone?

Bill

Badwater Bill wrote in message But, I remember reading something here
once about some letter that we need from the Feds in order to fly over
populated areas in EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. What do you folks
know about that requirement?

I don't know much, but the operating limitations can be changed after flight
testing is successfully completed (ie: after the 40 hours is done).

Just the other day in Sitka Alaska some fed
demanded to ramp check a private airplane operating under part 91.
The owner was scared and confused and allowed the Fed inside of his
airplane. What do you people think of that?

I think that the owner was scared and confused.

I guess the Fed even
told the owner he was going to detain him if he didn't submit to the
ramp check. Interesting eh? Since when was a government puke from
the FAA able to legally hold an airplane back from a flight. Too much.
How many others of you have had this happen while operating under part
91? Anyone?

I'm not too smart, but I know enough to become invisible when I see the tie
and pocket protector. I see US Gov't license plates on a car and I'm gone.
Some of my friends have had the courage to stand up to them and deny
everything except a peek at their certificates. This works well most of the
time because most inspectors just want to check off the boxes on a form and
go for beer. However, there are a few rather tenacious inspectors with
little knowledge of NTSB case law who will try to ruin your life even if you
are polite and courteous. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong- they
will still cause you headaches- guilty until proven innocent- isn't that how
executive law works?

Aviation law interests me for a couple of reasons. One reason is for the
protection of my livelyhood. Another is to point out when FAA inspectors are
wrong. For a good board, try this site:
'www.propilot.com' and click on Doc's FAR Forum.

D.

(Badwater Bill) wrote in message . ..
I sold my experimental airplane sometime ago but I'm looking at buying
another one at this time. I always flew over cities and used my RV-6
just like I would any other airplane with a normal category
airworthiness certificate. But, I remember reading something here
once about some letter that we need from the Feds in order to fly over
populated areas in EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. What do you folks
know about that requirement?

Also, I really enjoyed the conversation concerning ramp checks on
private aircraft. Just the other day in Sitka Alaska some fed
demanded to ramp check a private airplane operating under part 91.
The owner was scared and confused and allowed the Fed inside of his
airplane. What do you people think of that? I guess the Fed even
told the owner he was going to detain him if he didn't submit to the
ramp check. Interesting eh? Since when was a government puke from
the FAA able to legally hold an airplane back from a flight. Too
much.

How many others of you have had this happen while operating under part
91? Anyone?

Bill

Bill, it's not a letter. If you have old OLs that restrict flight in
congested airways and over congested areas and prohibit major mods
without an inspection, they need to be updated. You have to send a
letter and form to your FSDO and request the new OLs. It can all be
done by mail without any visits by anyone. I believe the form and a
sample letter are either on the EAA site, FAA site or both. If you do
a major mod now, all you have to do is fly off 5 hours over a
non-congested area I believe, and log everything.

Ken J. - Sandy, egg ho

"Bruce A. Frank" wrote in message ...
I remember (from a couple of years ago) an incident of an attempt to ban
experimentals from L.A. airspace. THe FAA wrote a letter stating that
all aircraft that had flown off the required test period were granted
the same rights and privileges as commercially built aircraft and had
full access to all airspace as allowed by their configuration (such as
being IFR certified before flying above 18,000). THe letter clarified
that homebuilts have complete access to Victor flight ways. Some of my
details may be off a bit, but it amounted to that there were no
restrictions, other than "for hire", on amateur builts.

Bruce, that's what the law became and the DARs/Inspectors stopped
putting those restrictions in the operating limitations. However,
it's not a blanket exemption. If your OLs were written before that
law became effective, you have to get them updated to be in compliance
or else you have to stay away from congested areas and can't do major
mods without notifying your FSDO. In any incident where they may
look at your old OLs, and if you were where you weren't supposed to be
according to the old wording, shame, shame. It's so easy to get one's
OLs updated, that it's really silly not to. All it costs is a stamp.
Those that haven't looked in awhile should read their OLs, and if the
prohibitions are in there, print out the form and boiler-plate letter
and send them in and get updated.

Ken J. - Updated in Sandy Eggo















Badwater Bill wrote:


I sold my experimental airplane sometime ago but I'm looking at buying
another one at this time. I always flew over cities and used my RV-6
just like I would any other airplane with a normal category
airworthiness certificate. But, I remember reading something here
once about some letter that we need from the Feds in order to fly over
populated areas in EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. What do you folks
know about that requirement?

Also, I really enjoyed the conversation concerning ramp checks on
private aircraft. Just the other day in Sitka Alaska some fed
demanded to ramp check a private airplane operating under part 91.
The owner was scared and confused and allowed the Fed inside of his
airplane. What do you people think of that? I guess the Fed even
told the owner he was going to detain him if he didn't submit to the
ramp check. Interesting eh? Since when was a government puke from
the FAA able to legally hold an airplane back from a flight. Too
much.

How many others of you have had this happen while operating under part
91? Anyone?

Bill

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that the letter was not a blanket
regulation covering all homebuilts.

Ken Sandyeggo wrote:

"Bruce A. Frank" wrote in message ...
I remember (from a couple of years ago) an incident of an attempt to ban
experimentals from L.A. airspace. THe FAA wrote a letter stating that
all aircraft that had flown off the required test period were granted
the same rights and privileges as commercially built aircraft and had
full access to all airspace as allowed by their configuration (such as
being IFR certified before flying above 18,000). THe letter clarified
that homebuilts have complete access to Victor flight ways. Some of my
details may be off a bit, but it amounted to that there were no
restrictions, other than "for hire", on amateur builts.

Bruce, that's what the law became and the DARs/Inspectors stopped
putting those restrictions in the operating limitations. However,
it's not a blanket exemption. If your OLs were written before that
law became effective, you have to get them updated to be in compliance
or else you have to stay away from congested areas and can't do major
mods without notifying your FSDO. In any incident where they may
look at your old OLs, and if you were where you weren't supposed to be
according to the old wording, shame, shame. It's so easy to get one's
OLs updated, that it's really silly not to. All it costs is a stamp.
Those that haven't looked in awhile should read their OLs, and if the
prohibitions are in there, print out the form and boiler-plate letter
and send them in and get updated.

Ken J. - Updated in Sandy Eggo


Badwater Bill wrote:


I sold my experimental airplane sometime ago but I'm looking at buying
another one at this time. I always flew over cities and used my RV-6
just like I would any other airplane with a normal category
airworthiness certificate. But, I remember reading something here
once about some letter that we need from the Feds in order to fly over
populated areas in EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. What do you folks
know about that requirement?

Also, I really enjoyed the conversation concerning ramp checks on
private aircraft. Just the other day in Sitka Alaska some fed
demanded to ramp check a private airplane operating under part 91.
The owner was scared and confused and allowed the Fed inside of his
airplane. What do you people think of that? I guess the Fed even
told the owner he was going to detain him if he didn't submit to the
ramp check. Interesting eh? Since when was a government puke from
the FAA able to legally hold an airplane back from a flight. Too
much.

How many others of you have had this happen while operating under part
91? Anyone?

Bill

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|

Thanks Guys. I appreciate your time. I just wanted to see how many
people thought that they had to let the feds into their airplanes and
ramp check them. Most people still do think that. If I'm ever asked
for my documents and I'm operating privately, I'm going to give them
the name of my attorney and tell the to write her. She will then
forward any appropriate documents they require. Should any of them
become so brazen as to actually try to detain me. I will scribe out
some words on a plain sheet of paper and demand that they sign it and
that it says they have the right and the reason to detain me. Of
course they don't. Not unless they see a wing bolt hanging out or
something like that.

All the little government pukes are too chicken**** to actually stop
you if you confront them. I don't care if they do know a bit of NTSB
case law. Yes, Doug, the Exectutive law as you put is is actually
called "Administrative Law" and is mostly bull **** that can be
contested. The problem is, that it takes you time to do it.

A good example of administrative law is a speed limit sign. Under
statute, the County, or City is required to figure out how fast people
should go on a certain stretch of road. It's not in the statutes,
some little pukey government worm who can't get it up, sits at his
desk and decides how fast cars are going to drive down a road. Some
statute somewhere gives his organization that responsibility.
However, the speed limit he sets is "Administrative Law" not
Statutory Law. It still applies until you spend a hundred grand on
lawyer's fees to challenge it, should you not like it.

BWB

Badwater Bill wrote in message A good example of administrative law is a
speed limit sign. However, the speed limit he sets is "Administrative
Law" not
Statutory Law. It still applies until you spend a hundred grand on
lawyer's fees to challenge it, should you not like it.

Yeah, just the other day I got a ticket from a kid who could barely shave. I
went across 3 lanes to get to the exit ramp. He wrote the ticket for failure
to stay between the lines. It's harrassment. I'll win, but it will take up
my time. Then, to make sure it doesn't happen again, I'll slap a civil
servant complaint on him. If he wants my time, he's going to get it.

D.

"Capt. Doug" wrote in message
...

Yeah, just the other day I got a ticket from a kid who could barely shave.
I
went across 3 lanes to get to the exit ramp. He wrote the ticket for
failure
to stay between the lines. It's harrassment. I'll win, but it will take up
my time. Then, to make sure it doesn't happen again, I'll slap a civil
servant complaint on him. If he wants my time, he's going to get it.

Better check real close, Doug. Here in Washington State, it's against the
law (oops - ordinance) to change lanes more than once every 800'. No matter
the reason, if you do so it's a violation. Doesn't matter if the roadway
designers made it impossible to enter from the left and exit to the right.

Good Luck,
Rich S.

In article ,
"Capt. Doug" writes:


Badwater Bill wrote in message A good example of administrative law is a
speed limit sign. However, the speed limit he sets is "Administrative
Law" not
Statutory Law. It still applies until you spend a hundred grand on
lawyer's fees to challenge it, should you not like it.

Yeah, just the other day I got a ticket from a kid who could barely shave. I
went across 3 lanes to get to the exit ramp. He wrote the ticket for failure
to stay between the lines. It's harrassment. I'll win, but it will take up
my time. Then, to make sure it doesn't happen again, I'll slap a civil
servant complaint on him. If he wants my time, he's going to get it.

D.



Good for Him! If you went across three lanes to get to an exit ramp you should
have received a ticket. It is a stupid move that I have seen cause accidents
and at least one death. You should have been in the correct lane well before
the exit or gone on to the next exit.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

RobertR237 wrote in message If you went across three lanes to get to an
exit ramp you should
have received a ticket. It is a stupid move that I have seen cause
accidents
and at least one death. You should have been in the correct lane well
before
the exit or gone on to the next exit.

How quick you are to pass judgement. You weren't even there, were you? Do
you know for a fact that there was any other traffic? Do you know for a fact
that I wasn't in the correct lane well before the exit? Do you know for a
fact how many feet elapsed between each individual lane change? Perhaps you
would do well to take your own advice and cool it off a little before
posting that which you are only guessing at.

D.