Police Ramp Checks

Rotor&Wing said:
Tom, c'mon now. Your "stories" are getting wilder and wilder.

While it's true an FAA ASI (series 1825) carries a badge ( as part of his 110A) he is not considered an LEO, and he is not allowed to carry a firearm.

Quit while your ahead.
Click to expand...

call him, want me to provide the number? E-mail me from your FAA address.
 
Ron Levy said:
If I were you, R&W, I wouldn't visit Tom's shop solo...you might end up like the revenue man who went up Copperhead Road to check on the Pettimores in Steve Earle's song. Puget Sound is pretty deep in some places...
:rofl:

http://www.steveearle.net/lyrics/ly-coppe.php
Click to expand...
yes Ron, It could end up like the Beaver Creek incident, we do not cotton to anyone entering a private hangar uninvited. He's welcome see what we do at any time he wants to tell us who he really is.

The FAA actually encourages their employees to use E-mail to communicate with any one for business, and the FAA has no official policy on using the internet for any purpose, other than porno, and that's a government thing not just the FAA. So why is this guy hiding? Denny Polard didn't, and he's still posting at the Babes page, and the FAA is good with it.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Tom, c'mon now. Your "stories" are getting wilder and wilder.

While it's true an FAA ASI (series 1825) carries a badge ( as part of his 110A) he is not considered an LEO, and he is not allowed to carry a firearm.

Quit while your ahead.
Click to expand...
Have you considered the possibility that someone from Civil Aviation Security has been assigned the job of watching Tom? IIRC, some of those folks really are Federal LEO's with guns. Maybe that's why there's two of them -- one from Airworthiness, and the other a special agent for protection.
 
Ron Levy said:
Have you considered the possibility that someone from Civil Aviation Security has been assigned the job of watching Tom? IIRC, some of those folks really are Federal LEO's with guns. Maybe that's why there's two of them -- one from Airworthiness, and the other a special agent for protection.
Click to expand...

Is there any regulation saying the Marshals office and the FAA employee can't be the same person? Specially when the ASI has been a security person at a large Airport such as SEA?

When he's in my hangar doing ASI stuff he's not carrying that I know of.
 
Tom-D said:
Is there any regulation saying the Marshals office and the FAA employee can't be the same person?
Click to expand...
Yes -- "double-dipping" is against Federal law. That said, some former LEO's who have threats against their lives from their old LE job can obtain permission to stay armed for self-protection after they leave their LE job.

When he's in my hangar doing ASI stuff he's not carrying that I know of.
Click to expand...
It would violate a bunch of FAA rules for its employees unless he's in that special class mentioned above and has very, very special permission to carry for self-defense on the job. But even in that case, he is no longer an LEO (as you said he was), has only his FAA Inspector's badge (which, I've been told, is primarily for flashing at cops when trying to access accident sites with police lines around them) and retains none of his former LE powers, only those of an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Why do you think that the regulation "drafted" is not within those confines?
Click to expand...

I was responding to an implication in Ron Levy's assertion: that if the NPS can make X a crime, then they can make Y a crime.
With respect to what the NPS has done with regards to the FARs: by way of the congressional authority granted by the FAA, the FARs are already the law of the land. So the NPS's regulation:
"(d) The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations,"
​
seems to manage to be redundant in part and inapplicable in part, since the FARs often make specific reference to the FAA Administrator.

The NPS has adopted a number of other laws for the purpose of enforcement within our jurisdiction, including USCG regulations, and non-conflicting state traffic offenses, and hunting and fishing regulations.
Click to expand...
I'm confused why they would do that since it seems redundant - under what circumstances would FAA or USCG regulations not be applicable to any area the NPS has jurisdiction over? I'm not familiar with USCG regulations, but I don't know of any FAA regulations that say "not applicable in areas covered by the NPS." If such regulatory voids did exist, I could see the value in NPS "adopting" the FAA regulations to cover said voids.

Anyway I mostly mention it as an item of interest. Park rangers or police officers cannot substitute themselves as FAA inspectors even if they can cloak themselves in aviation regulations...they should be contacting pilots to satisfy the particular purpose for which they are empowered, not for purposes for which the FAA exists.
Click to expand...
Which seems to me to mean that, operationally, the FAA regulations aren't really "adopted" by the NPS so much as redundantly noted. Perhaps a case of "if we repeat the same law often enough, it'll get obeyed?"
 
Jim Logajan said:
I was responding to an implication in Ron Levy's assertion: that if the NPS can make X a crime, then they can make Y a crime.
With respect to what the NPS has done with regards to the FARs: by way of the congressional authority granted by the FAA, the FARs are already the law of the land. So the NPS's regulation:
"(d) The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations,"
​
seems to manage to be redundant in part and inapplicable in part, since the FARs often make specific reference to the FAA Administrator.

I'm confused why they would do that since it seems redundant - under what circumstances would FAA or USCG regulations not be applicable to any area the NPS has jurisdiction over? I'm not familiar with USCG regulations, but I don't know of any FAA regulations that say "not applicable in areas covered by the NPS." If such regulatory voids did exist, I could see the value in NPS "adopting" the FAA regulations to cover said voids.

Which seems to me to mean that, operationally, the FAA regulations aren't really "adopted" by the NPS so much as redundantly noted. Perhaps a case of "if we repeat the same law often enough, it'll get obeyed?"
Click to expand...
I think you miss the point of what NPS did. Essentially, it allows NPS to enforce the FAR's in their parks instead of having to go get the FAA to do it for them. As regards my littering analogy, it would be a major pain for them if they had to get a state cop to bust people for littering in violation of state law, so they make it a violation of NPS regulations, too, and they can enforce that themselves. Nothing in law prevents them from doing either. I believe their primary concerns involve operation of aircraft in ways that damage NPS property, disrupt NPS operations, and/or unreasonably disturb other NPS visitors. It just saves them from having to make up their own rules which might conflict with the FAA's.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
I was responding to an implication in Ron Levy's assertion: that if the NPS can make X a crime, then they can make Y a crime.
With respect to what the NPS has done with regards to the FARs: by way of the congressional authority granted by the FAA, the FARs are already the law of the land. So the NPS's regulation:
"(d) The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations,"
​
seems to manage to be redundant in part and inapplicable in part, since the FARs often make specific reference to the FAA Administrator.

I'm confused why they would do that since it seems redundant - under what circumstances would FAA or USCG regulations not be applicable to any area the NPS has jurisdiction over? I'm not familiar with USCG regulations, but I don't know of any FAA regulations that say "not applicable in areas covered by the NPS." If such regulatory voids did exist, I could see the value in NPS "adopting" the FAA regulations to cover said voids.

Which seems to me to mean that, operationally, the FAA regulations aren't really "adopted" by the NPS so much as redundantly noted. Perhaps a case of "if we repeat the same law often enough, it'll get obeyed?"
Click to expand...

It is not what, but who. The NPS has no authority on its own to enforce another agency's regulations even within our jurisdiction, nor state law in most circumstances. By officially adopting various laws and rules through the rulemaking process, those laws or rules are made part of our own regulatory body of rules, and our employees are then authorized to enforce them. As Tim said it is much simpler and makes sense most of the time. But when they are adopted, the NPS determines if they are an offense, and whether it is civil or criminal, and it matters little what the original rule held as a penalty, by the agency or government that "owns" the regulations adopted. If you are presented an enforcement action for violation x by the FAA it is a civil action with possible consequences to your certificate and to your wallet. The same offense x might be a class B misdemeanor if presented by my agency with consequences to your freedom (in the unlikely event that route of action is taken.)

We are not enforcing 14 CFR. We are enforcing 36 CFR and using the language in 14 CFR to do it. Regulations that specifically mention "the administrator" might be held to be outside our ability to adopt. Gray area.

And yes, discretion abused is discretion removed and it is constantly on our minds. All federal regulation is subject to Congressional fiat - look at the "guns in parks" controversy as an example. Or the pending "Pilot's bill of rights" for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I think you miss the point of what NPS did. Essentially, it allows NPS to enforce the FAR's in their parks instead of having to go get the FAA to do it for them. As regards my littering analogy, it would be a major pain for them if they had to get a state cop to bust people for littering in violation of state law, so they make it a violation of NPS regulations, too, and they can enforce that themselves.
Click to expand...

Could you provide a concrete example using the FARs? I ask because the littering analogy seems to have a bunch of non-relevant ambiguities that need resolution. Where the FAA mentions parks or national lands at all, it seems to generally direct readers to the regulations of the appropriate agency.

It just saves them from having to make up their own rules which might conflict with the FAA's.
Click to expand...
Except that adopting the FAA rules doesn't per-se resolve conflicts or contradictions; it merely brings them together. And where they do not conflict, then due to the Fifth Amendment the NPS would end up either pre-empting any action the FAA could take for a violation, or its own adoption of FAA rules would be found to be unconstitutional:

"Through the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Constitution forbids the imposition of multiple punishment for one offense. The government may not twice impose a sanction for a single crime (e.g., cocaine trafficking) by describing and punishing it under separate and redundant headings (e.g., conspiracy to sell drugs and operating a continuing criminal enterprise to sell drugs). This problem - the redundant charge that unfairly punishes one offense as though it were two - has been at the heart of Double Jeopardy jurisprudence."
https://litigation-essentials.lexis....+L.+245&key=cd85bf5f9f6e34a98154fe9ceee8a924

Example: suppose the NPS succeeding in fining a pilot for doing aerobatics under 1500 feet AGL over a national park. As I understand the applicable case law, this would preempt any certificate action the FAA could take for the same offense.
 
alaskaflyer said:
The same offense x might be a class B misdemeanor if presented by my agency with consequences to your freedom (in the unlikely event that route of action is taken.)
Click to expand...

Per my response (post 129) to Ron, any action - no matter how small - your agency takes for a violation prohibits the FAA from taking any action for that same violation due to the prohibition of double jeopardy by the Fifth Amendment.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes -- "double-dipping" is against Federal law. That said, some former LEO's who have threats against their lives from their old LE job can obtain permission to stay armed for self-protection after they leave their LE job.

It would violate a bunch of FAA rules for its employees unless he's in that special class mentioned above and has very, very special permission to carry for self-defense on the job. But even in that case, he is no longer an LEO (as you said he was), has only his FAA Inspector's badge (which, I've been told, is primarily for flashing at cops when trying to access accident sites with police lines around them) and retains none of his former LE powers, only those of an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector.
Click to expand...

I do not know what twist of fate/law he's in, but I have seen him armed and acting as a ASI, on the airport.

But not in a long time. Not since the incident with the twin Bonanza that the owner was blatant with his disrespect of the law.

I've never had reason or the curiosity to question him on the subject.

During the PA-18-180 crash at OKH all I ever saw the FAA safety team show was their ID badges. never LEO Shields, In fact that's all I ever see the FAA personal show for ID.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Per my response (post 129) to Ron, any action - no matter how small - your agency takes for a violation prohibits the FAA from taking any action for that same violation due to the prohibition of double jeopardy by the Fifth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily so, under US v Halper the FAA would be permitted to pursue a certificate action or other remedial consequence, though not a concurrent fine.

That said, it would be important to coordinate with another agency in our imaginary scenario.

If forced to choose under a Halper case, I would like to think it would come down to (let's tie this back to the OP shall we?) which agency has the most compelling interest at stake and who is best positioned to correct the pilot's behavior? The FAA is charged with regulation of the national airspace system, not the protection of public lands (for one example) or national security (as another) or law and order in a municipality or state (as yet another.) The flip side is, a county sheriff's officer is not charged with ensuring that a pilot is utilizing the NAS properly or safely, even though federal regulation and perhaps state law gives him certain powers to investigate a pilot's activity. His inquiry should remain within the bounds of his responsibility to maintain law and order. Same with the NPS...no matter what is in the "rule book" as a tool, any inquiry outside of the agency's responsibility will be examined closely. In our case it will be the first argument to untangle because it ties into jurisdiction.

If a pilot does something boneheaded it should not be automatically assumed that the FAA will or should have a first crack at him. But under Halper, no matter what else happens (let's use a state conviction of flying while intoxicated as an example) the FAA will most certainly be permitted by a court to take remedial action against the pilot including removing his legal ability to pilot an airplane.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
Per my response (post 129) to Ron, any action - no matter how small - your agency takes for a violation prohibits the FAA from taking any action for that same violation due to the prohibition of double jeopardy by the Fifth Amendment.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Just ask the cops in the Rodney King case.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Not necessarily so, under US v Halper the FAA would be permitted to pursue a certificate action or other remedial consequence, though not a concurrent fine.
Click to expand...

I'm just a layman, but Halper was one of the cases I scanned prior to my earlier posts. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point or you read a different summary, in this link it says the SCOTUS held that after having been convicted on a federal criminal statute, the attempt to convict Halper again under a severe civil penalty amounted to double jeopardy. So the Feds lost.

In the case where the FAA and the NPS are using identical language, then as they both represent the Federal government, then they would presumably both have to proceed with criminal prosecution or both have to proceed with civil prosecution. In the criminal case double jeapordy allows only one to proceed. In the civil case it appears a concept known as res judicata also allows only one to proceed. In the unlikely case that one can bring a civil case and the other a criminal case (using identical regulatory language!) the civil penalty could not be too onerous, lest it fail as the Halper case did.

That said, it would be important to coordinate with another agency in our imaginary scenario.

If forced to choose under a Halper case, I would like to think it would come down to (let's tie this back to the OP shall we?) which agency has the most compelling interest at stake and who is best positioned to correct the pilot's behavior? The FAA is charged with regulation of the national airspace system, not the protection of public lands (for one example) or national security (as another) or law and order in a municipality or state (as yet another.) The flip side is, a county sheriff's officer is not charged with ensuring that a pilot is utilizing the NAS properly or safely, even though federal regulation and perhaps state law gives him certain powers to investigate a pilot's activity. His inquiry should remain within the bounds of his responsibility to maintain law and order. Same with the NPS...no matter what is in the "rule book" as a tool, any inquiry outside of the agency's responsibility will be examined closely. In our case it will be the first argument to untangle because it ties into jurisdiction.

If a pilot does something boneheaded it should not be automatically assumed that the FAA will or should have a first crack at him. But under Halper, no matter what else happens (let's use a state conviction of flying while intoxicated as an example) the FAA will most certainly be permitted by a court to take remedial action against the pilot including removing his legal ability to pilot an airplane.
Click to expand...

As a layman I do not know what enforcement constraints there are on the law enforcement officers of various government entities. If the intent of the adoption of the FAA regulations by the NPS is to remove such constraints to allow field arrests and investigations that otherwise would not have been allowed to a NPS LEO, rather than as a tool to allow the NPS to prosecute offenders of FAA regulations, then I can perhaps see why the NPS would find it useful to adopt those regs.
 
mikea said:
We just had a guy who works with the FBI guys show the documents that the feds and local police are being handed about checking out planes and pilots during the G8 summit.

Everything they're being told is reasonable, including what valid certs and medicals look like. I forgot that all paper pilot certificates are now invalid.

One thing he said was that you are required to physically hand over your certificate so the cop can copy it, but you say, "I am presenting my certificate but I am not surrendering my certificate." To which I say the cop can say "I never heard such a thing."

I'd keep my smart phone on record.
Click to expand...


Ron Levy said:
Just make sure the party with whom you are speaking agrees to the recording at the beginning of the recording. In many (if not most) states permission from all parties to the discussion is required and it's a criminal offense if you record without it.
Click to expand...

It's a felony in Illinois.
 
Ron Levy said:
No, it doesn't. Just ask the cops in the Rodney King case.
Click to expand...

I did see that while reading up on the subject. As far as I can tell, it was quite the exception - the justices had to invoke the concept of dual sovereignty; tried once under state law, then federal. In the case of two federal agencies trying that ... well, no telling what judges will decide, I guess.
 
Jim Logajan said:
As a layman I do not know what enforcement constraints there are on the law enforcement officers of various government entities. If the intent of the adoption of the FAA regulations by the NPS is to remove such constraints to allow field arrests and investigations that otherwise would not have been allowed to a NPS LEO, rather than as a tool to allow the NPS to prosecute offenders of FAA regulations, then I can perhaps see why the NPS would find it useful to adopt those regs.
Click to expand...

In Alaska and Denali park specially the Park service is the only law enforcement, but outside the park the FAA has the responsibility. and will do accident investigations as in the case where the wolf tracker and his pilot crashed in the park, the FAA did the whole accident investigation.

the park service only helped in supporting that effort. I followed that accident because a close friend owned the 185 prior to the pilot who crashed it.

In other parks, I don't believe the NPS has adopted the FAA rules, they simply allow the FAA to control the airspace.

Denali is a different place.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
I'm just a layman, but Halper was one of the cases I scanned prior to my earlier posts. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point or you read a different summary, in this link it says the SCOTUS held that after having been convicted on a federal criminal statute, the attempt to convict Halper again under a severe civil penalty amounted to double jeopardy. So the Feds lost.

In the case where the FAA and the NPS are using identical language, then as they both represent the Federal government, then they would presumably both have to proceed with criminal prosecution or both have to proceed with civil prosecution. In the criminal case double jeapordy allows only one to proceed. In the civil case it appears a concept known as res judicata also allows only one to proceed. In the unlikely case that one can bring a civil case and the other a criminal case (using identical regulatory language!) the civil penalty could not be too onerous, lest it fail as the Halper case did.
Click to expand...

Halper hinges on whether civil actions brought are punitive or merely remedial. Subsequent civil remedies that are less punitive than corrective even in adversarial proceedings survive the double jeopardy analysis. Fine hair to split but the court was willing to split it. A certificate action after a criminal fine is almost the perfect example.

Off the top of my head I can think of no area where the FAA can bring a criminal action anyhow.

My original point was that - in opposition to your presumption above - our regulation takes the exact language from the FAA and elevates the act to a criminal misdemeanor if the US Attorney chooses to support such a filing. That tool is not available to the FAA.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
In Alaska and Denali park specially the Park service is the only law enforcement, but outside the park the FAA has the responsibility. and will do accident investigations as in the case where the wolf tracker and his pilot crashed in the park, the FAA did the whole accident investigation.

the park service only helped in supporting that effort. I followed that accident because a close friend owned the 185 prior to the pilot who crashed it.

In other parks, I don't believe the NPS has adopted the FAA rules, they simply allow the FAA to control the airspace.

Denali is a different place.
Click to expand...

Actually, the same rule exists in parks in all 50 states and even a few territories and possessions ;) We have concurrent responsibility with other federal agencies. What is different in each park is state jurisdiction.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
While that's a cute story, he could have just as easily went back to the office and typed a LOI (Letter of Investigation) and sent to you requesting a date and time to present your certificates. If you still refused, then you probably know the next step. Seems to me you got lucky that day with an Inspector that didn't want to force the issue.

The Inspector was in all rights to ask for your certificates during the flight school inspection or any other inspection that is aviation related.
Click to expand...

For what reason? One does not need to have a pilots license to answer phones and schedule lessons at a flight school. Had a been a CFI? Sure, I would have handed them right over. Mechanic? here ya go!

The man was an A.H. I caught him jumping up and down on the wing of one of our Warriors. I asked him what the heck he was doing, he said he was trying to get the wing to 'oil can'. He ended up denting the wing skin. Then he red tags the plane for having a dent in the wing.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Actually, the same rule exists in parks in all 50 states and even a few territories and possessions ;) We have concurrent responsibility with other federal agencies. What is different in each park is state jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, the NATIONAL park service would cover them all.
 
DeeG said:
For what reason? One does not need to have a pilots license to answer phones and schedule lessons at a flight school. Had a been a CFI? Sure, I would have handed them right over. Mechanic? here ya go!

The man was an A.H. I caught him jumping up and down on the wing of one of our Warriors. I asked him what the heck he was doing, he said he was trying to get the wing to 'oil can'. He ended up denting the wing skin. Then he red tags the plane for having a dent in the wing.
Click to expand...

I'd send his supervisor the repair bill.
 
DeeG said:
For what reason? One does not need to have a pilots license to answer phones and schedule lessons at a flight school. Had a been a CFI? Sure, I would have handed them right over. Mechanic? here ya go!

The man was an A.H. I caught him jumping up and down on the wing of one of our Warriors. I asked him what the heck he was doing, he said he was trying to get the wing to 'oil can'. He ended up denting the wing skin. Then he red tags the plane for having a dent in the wing.
Click to expand...

Sorry, now I'm calling BS on your story.
 
The last FAA Inspector I delt with thought his "badge" was pretty ridiculous and apologized that he had to show me such a ridiculous item as identification.
 
jesse said:
The last FAA Inspector I delt with thought his "badge" was pretty ridiculous and apologized that he had to show me such a ridiculous item as identification.
Click to expand...
Did he show you what is actually written on the "badge"? :devil:
 
mikea said:
One thing he said was that you are required to physically hand over your certificate so the cop can copy it, but you say, "I am presenting my certificate but I am not surrendering my certificate." To which I say the cop can say "I never heard such a thing."

I'd keep my smart phone on record.
Click to expand...
Except in Illinois, the state in which you reside, where it is a FELONY to record a LEO in their duties!:mad2:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ous_illinois_law_that_makes_it_a_felony_.html

This hasn't passed both houses and the governor yet: http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/bill-to-allow-recording-of-police.html
 
gprellwitz said:
Except in Illinois, the state in which you reside, where it is a FELONY to record a LEO in their duties!:mad2:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ous_illinois_law_that_makes_it_a_felony_.html

This hasn't passed both houses and the governor yet: http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/bill-to-allow-recording-of-police.html
Click to expand...

Looks like I was engaging in wishful thinking when I thought they had already reprealed it.

Does anyone know which other states, if any, have laws like that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top