Ramp Checks - Do they legally exist in Part 91 Flying?

[jnmeade]

Through all the smoke and heat of this discussion I think I'm gaining a better appreciation for how significantly a part 91 ramp check differs from a part 135, 137 or 121 check. As a 91 pilot I'm not so concerned now.
It seems the FAA is interested in compliance. A visual walk-around looking for the same things we probably checked on pre-flight.
I don't have any problem with showing the required documents. I'm not going to let anyone in my airplane but apparently the FAA boys are not going to insist.
I was at a FAA safety presentation the other day and the FAA presenter was a stand-in. (I bet he doesn't volunteer for the next one.)
A couple of questions came up:
1. He demonstrated doing a walk around (he said he was an A&P) and in the process moved the rudder of the Piper Cherokee back and forth. One of the pilot attendees challenged him and said that specific action was contraindicated in the airiplane POH - why was the inspector doing something that the POH said not to do?
2. Another pilot asked the inspector if he had the right to even touch a part 91 airplane - it was private property
3. His answer to whether he could "ground" an airplane was murky. He said several times, no, he couldn't ground an airplane, but then he said he could hang a tag on it that said the aircraft (and here I'm confused by what he said so maybe someone can say what he should have said) would be illegal to operate in this condition. How is that not grounding? Lots of head shaking so I'm not the only one confused but we didn't stay on the subject and resolve it
4. He mentioned several times stop drilled cracks, implying they were not a repair and needed to be addressed by next annual. Anyone comment on that?
5. He said they wanted to see original signatures on all required documents. (I assume you had to have the piece of paper - a scanned copy in your cell phone doesn't cut it, for example for the OL on an Experimental.)
6. He said the could not ramp check an ultralight part 103 (which is a "vehicle" unless it showed evidence that it was "bigger" than an 103, for example a larger gas tank, two seats, etc, and thus became an airplane.
7. He said most ramp checks came as a result of people calling in and reporting a violation. He said they were mandated to do some inspection then. ?????
8. In spite of repeated questioning, he said he had no knowledge of anyone in the local FSDO doing ramp checks in conjunction with law enforcement. Audience disbelief.
9. He admitted that his annual program called for a certain number of ramp checks but denied he had a quote. Audience disbelief.
10. He said he did not do ramp checks on private property. Did do some on grass strips but not often (see phone call complaints above). Didn't admit that he would do them close to the FSDO rather than at the ends of the state. I got the feeling that doing the call-ins might have taken care of his annual program "quota".
11. He claimed the ramp inspector had some leeway in how far to pursue compliance actions. General audience disbelief with mutterings that when it got over his head the higher-ups dictated that and there was little leeway on the inspectors part.

Don't blame me for any of this, I'm passing on what I (perhaps incorrectly) observed. When I left I had more questions about ramp checks than when I started. I did get the feeling that part 91 ramp checks by the FAA were not nearly so scary as part 135.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You're making a serious mistake - trying to combat feeling and belief with information. It rarely works.

Yea I know. People would rather believe a myth rather than the truth.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Don't blame me for any of this, I'm passing on what I (perhaps incorrectly) observed. When I left I had more questions about ramp checks than when I started. I did get the feeling that part 91 ramp checks by the FAA were not nearly so scary as part 135.

Keep in mind that being an FAA airworthiness inspector does not give someone any special powers of knowledge or understanding. They make the same mistakes of interpretation as anyone else.

There's the story of the Oakland FSDO representative who, at a seminar for CFIs insisted a CFI and his or her rated student could not both log PIC time.

There's the story of the Buffalo FSDO that posted on its website that every leg of s student cross country had to be greater than 50 NM.

No doubt there are FAA inspectors conducting Part 91 ramp inspections who firmly believe that since their instructions say to check for current charts, that the pilot must have them.

No doubt there are FAA inspectors conducting Part 91 ramp inspections who firmly believe that since their instructions say "Determine if an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) is installed. Check the expiration date of the battery" they have an absolute right to force you to let them check those things if they are not visible from outside the aircraft.

Exceeding authority and misunderstanding of the rules its their job to enforce is a fact of life. It's far more universal than the FAA. That shouldn't really surprise anyone over the age of 6.

 

[wabower]

This thread got me thinking about all the things I'm even a teeny-teeny-tiny bit worried about insofar as any aviation-related worries are concerned.

Ramp checks of any kind aren't on the list. Having been ramped in the past, it was one of the all-time non-events. If that changes there's not a damn thing I can do about it anyway.

 

[jnmeade]

Question on Experimental Operating Limitations:
I have Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 is complete. Must I still carry the Phase 1 letter or is the Phase 2 letter sufficient?

 

[Tom-D]

It has been my humble experience to see the FAA pull a full airworthiness and compliance inspection, was prior to the FAA examiner doing a 709 ride in a Cessna 210.

The owner had a week prior pranged his AB/EXP, and was required to do the "RIDE", I had completed an annual the week prior on the 210 and was really was sweating the FAA inspection.

They found two things they wanted fixed. the AWC was deteriorated and they sent one up after the inspection.

and they thought 1 tire was a bit worn. we changed it out and all was good.

 

[bbchien]

That shouldn't really surprise anyone over the age of 6.

Nor should pilots who won't spend a dime to improve their understanding of weather.

At the FAA it's the same thing. The learning is available if they just expend the energy.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's called courtesy. Believe it or not most Inspectors do try to be courteous while performing their job.

The inspector who did my one and only ramp chack was courteous.

 

[Palmpilot]

What is wrong with showing you medical, your AWC, your BFR, your annual signoff, being courteous and being on your way? Are you afraid the Inspector saw you cut the guy off in the pattern?

Amen to being courteous, but I would not be able to show my BFR, because I don't carry my logbook with me anymore, and I wouldn't be able to show the annual signoff, because none of the operators I have rented from keep that in the aircraft.

 

[Palmpilot]

You're making a serious mistake - trying to combat feeling and belief with information. It rarely works.

People who aren't involved in the argument learn from it, however.

 

[ateamer]

There is no right against warrantless searches. The Fourth protects against unreasonable searches and states that probable cause is required to issue a warrant. What is reasonable and unreasonable has been debated and interpreted by the courts for 200+ years and is still subject to further discussion.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was making a completely different point regarding the FAA's alleged right to re-examine airmen (not their papers) and owner's aircraft at any time for any or no reason.

It's not a "right," it's authority granted the FAA by Congress and of which you were informed before you applied for an Airman Certificate. Further, this has been upheld by the Judicial branch of the Federal government as constitutional. Unless you reject the Supreme Court's position as the final arbiter of the US Constitution (which, per Marbury v Madison, would be rejecting the Constitution itself), you have already implicitly accepted this as legal fact by your obtaining and exercising the privileges of your Airman Certificate.

 

[poadeleted20]

An idea: Only those who have been trained in understanding the laws should be bound by those laws. Seems unfair to jail people for violating arcane laws that are incomprehensible to them - they know not what actions are allowed, nor were they involved in the laws enactment - and seems imminently fair to me that those who have the clearest understanding of those same laws should be held to greatest account. Added benefit is that the pompous are removed from civil society.

This is sarcasm, right? Or do you really believe that ignorance of the law should be a legal excuse for its violation?

 

[poadeleted20]

Amen to being courteous, but I would not be able to show my BFR, because I don't carry my logbook with me anymore, and I wouldn't be able to show the annual signoff, because none of the operators I have rented from keep that in the aircraft.

And unless they had additional reason to press the issues, they would not ask further once you explained that. Of course, if they can see something that makes them believe the last annual was either much more than an year ago or was not properly done (say, something they can see which tells them an AD was not complied with), then they are probably going to require you to produce the logs within a reasonable time at a reasonable location (say, next week at your home airport -- yes, they do travel for things like that). Ditto regarding your pilot logbook if your entry to the pattern, approach, and landing looked a bit shaky. But most of the time, it doesn't go beyond checking the three pilot documents (pilot and medical certs and photo ID), two aircraft documents (airworthiness and registration certificates), and a quick exterior look at the airplane. If you're polite and cooperative, you have all the paperwork, and your airplane doesn't look like an accident waiting for a place to happen (or just did happen), it might take less then three minutes.

 

[Palmpilot]

My only complaint about my ramp chack is that it was at Lancaster, California, where the wind is ALWAYS howling. Fortunately, the only piece of paper that got blown away was a proof of automobile insurance, which is easily replaceble via my own printer.

 

[Palmpilot]

5. He said they wanted to see original signatures on all required documents. (I assume you had to have the piece of paper - a scanned copy in your cell phone doesn't cut it, for example for the OL on an Experimental.)

I wonder what he would say if presented with a California driver's license as the required photo ID? They don't have original signatures on them anymore - only a scanned copy.

 

[Jim Logajan]

It's not a "right," it's authority granted the FAA by Congress and of which you were informed before you applied for an Airman Certificate.

I actually don't recall when or if a copy of 49 USC section 44709 was ever presented on any document that I had to sign. Since I knew about it due to my own readings well before I ever applied for a certificate it probably didn't register since it was knowledge I already had. The FAA could have required I admit that 1 + 1 = 3 before I got a certificate and I might have agreed to that (for large values of 1.) Hard to argue with people who hold all the force, you know?

Further, this has been upheld by the Judicial branch of the Federal government as constitutional.

That comment is about as relevant as pointing out that Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided against Scott by the U.S. Supreme Court. Technically true but doesn't address your view of whether the underlying philosophies and laws in either case are just, moral, or too open to easy abuse.

 

[wabower]

If he's holding your DL in one hand and your boys in the other, do you really want to choose that time to discuss handwriting?

I wonder what he would say if presented with a California driver's license as the required photo ID? They don't have original signatures on them anymore - only a scanned copy.

 

[docmirror]

There are really paranoid people out there that carry photocopies of their licenses and buy $50 voice recorders for the "1-in-a-million" chance they get asked for it on some random day?

We use them to protect ourselves from illegal search and seizures. If you drive/fly around the intl borders of the country, things are a bit different than if you commute in or around St Louis. There are several cases where the citizen has used a recording to prove mistakes on the part of LEOs which leads to a no bill or if during trial a not guilty finding. They cost a few bucks, but for that 1:100 chance that you are stopped on the street, pulled over, caught in a DUI check, border patrol check, speed check, or some other form of pre-crime enforcement where the LEO is fishing, I consider it a good investment.

 

[comanchepilot]

An idea: Only those who have been trained in understanding the laws should be bound by those laws. Seems unfair to jail people for violating arcane laws that are incomprehensible to them - they know not what actions are allowed, nor were they involved in the laws enactment - and seems imminently fair to me that those who have the clearest understanding of those same laws should be held to greatest account. Added benefit is that the pompous are removed from civil society.

you know thats not what I mean - we have specialties for a reason - why not just let the uneducated practice medicine - lets have barbers practice surgery - after all - they did for hundreds of years.

When anyone goes off half-cocked and takes a literalist view of things - thats when you get people making fun of their intellect - and when those persons usually are well meaning conservatives - it makes all conservatives fit the stereotype = ne pas?

 

[comanchepilot]

ok - got ramped today. well, almost ramped. Brackett was having the monthly 'antique airplane display' used to get the tax exemption and we were leaving to go to Santa Monica to meet some friends for breakfast.

It was 0820 and we needed to be there by 845 or so and this guy wanders up as I'm pulling the airplane from the hangar - he displays an FAA Inspector badge and tells me he wants to do a ramp check. I told him that we really needed to meet friends at Santa Monica in less than a half hour and if was gonna be here for a while we could see him on the way back.

He was taken slightly aback but was really nice - he asked me if I had my pilot certificate and medical on my person - and I said it was in the my flight bag. He then asked if I had a current registration document - and I told him I actually just put it in the airplane that morning after renewal.

He said - I can see you need to get going - thank you.

So I 'almost' got ramped. Seemed one of the most decent and reasonable federal employees I have ever met - if he rolled up 10 min earlier I would have had a few moments to display my documents . . . .

 

[RotorAndWing]

ok - got ramped today. well, almost ramped. Brackett was having the monthly 'antique airplane display' used to get the tax exemption and we were leaving to go to Santa Monica to meet some friends for breakfast.

It was 0820 and we needed to be there by 845 or so and this guy wanders up as I'm pulling the airplane from the hangar - he displays an FAA Inspector badge and tells me he wants to do a ramp check. I told him that we really needed to meet friends at Santa Monica in less than a half hour and if was gonna be here for a while we could see him on the way back.

He was taken slightly aback but was really nice - he asked me if I had my pilot certificate and medical on my person - and I said it was in the my flight bag. He then asked if I had a current registration document - and I told him I actually just put it in the airplane that morning after renewal.

He said - I can see you need to get going - thank you.

So I 'almost' got ramped. Seemed one of the most decent and reasonable federal employees I have ever met - if he rolled up 10 min earlier I would have had a few moments to display my documents . . . .

 

[wabower]

My ramp check was equally lengthy and traumatic and also performed by the same kind of "typical FAA guy" who then stayed around to chat while his kid solo'ed his Champ and helped me with some engine linkage stuff for which a second set of eyeballs was necessary.

ok - got ramped today. well, almost ramped. Brackett was having the monthly 'antique airplane display' used to get the tax exemption and we were leaving to go to Santa Monica to meet some friends for breakfast.

It was 0820 and we needed to be there by 845 or so and this guy wanders up as I'm pulling the airplane from the hangar - he displays an FAA Inspector badge and tells me he wants to do a ramp check. I told him that we really needed to meet friends at Santa Monica in less than a half hour and if was gonna be here for a while we could see him on the way back.

He was taken slightly aback but was really nice - he asked me if I had my pilot certificate and medical on my person - and I said it was in the my flight bag. He then asked if I had a current registration document - and I told him I actually just put it in the airplane that morning after renewal.

He said - I can see you need to get going - thank you.

So I 'almost' got ramped. Seemed one of the most decent and reasonable federal employees I have ever met - if he rolled up 10 min earlier I would have had a few moments to display my documents . . . .

 

[comanchepilot]

My ramp check was equally lengthy and traumatic and also performed by the same kind of "typical FAA guy" who then stayed around to chat while his kid solo'ed his Champ and helped me with some engine linkage stuff for which a second set of eyeballs was necessary.

interestingly = my first ramp and it was an aborted one at that. .. there were no airplanes over at the fly-in display yet and I think the inspector was getting bored . . .

 

[wabower]

My guy was P. J. Boatright from Lubbock, saw the sticker and said he needed the count. I told him to knock himself out and drink all the coffee he wanted since i was going to throw it out. He was still active in safety stuff last I heard, made an excellent and humorous presentation at the splash-in at Texoma. Good guy.

interestingly = my first ramp and it was an aborted one at that. .. there were no airplanes over at the fly-in display yet and I think the inspector was getting bored . . .

 

[Palmpilot]

If he's holding your DL in one hand and your boys in the other, do you really want to choose that time to discuss handwriting?

In what way is that decision up to me?

 

[midlifeflyer]

ok - got ramped today. well, almost ramped. Brackett was having the monthly 'antique airplane display' used to get the tax exemption and we were leaving to go to Santa Monica to meet some friends for breakfast.

It was 0820 and we needed to be there by 845 or so and this guy wanders up as I'm pulling the airplane from the hangar - he displays an FAA Inspector badge and tells me he wants to do a ramp check. I told him that we really needed to meet friends at Santa Monica in less than a half hour and if was gonna be here for a while we could see him on the way back.

He was taken slightly aback but was really nice - he asked me if I had my pilot certificate and medical on my person - and I said it was in the my flight bag. He then asked if I had a current registration document - and I told him I actually just put it in the airplane that morning after renewal.

He said - I can see you need to get going - thank you.

So I 'almost' got ramped. Seemed one of the most decent and reasonable federal employees I have ever met - if he rolled up 10 min earlier I would have had a few moments to display my documents . . . .

excellent post about an inspector who followed the guidance the article attacked.

 

[Skylane81E]

ok - got ramped today. well, almost ramped. Brackett was having the monthly 'antique airplane display' used to get the tax exemption and we were leaving to go to Santa Monica to meet some friends for breakfast.

It was 0820 and we needed to be there by 845 or so and this guy wanders up as I'm pulling the airplane from the hangar - he displays an FAA Inspector badge and tells me he wants to do a ramp check. I told him that we really needed to meet friends at Santa Monica in less than a half hour and if was gonna be here for a while we could see him on the way back.

He was taken slightly aback but was really nice - he asked me if I had my pilot certificate and medical on my person - and I said it was in the my flight bag. He then asked if I had a current registration document - and I told him I actually just put it in the airplane that morning after renewal.

He said - I can see you need to get going - thank you.

So I 'almost' got ramped. Seemed one of the most decent and reasonable federal employees I have ever met - if he rolled up 10 min earlier I would have had a few moments to display my documents . . . .

Sounds similar to mine,

Coworker and I were working on a transient who's alternator has failed out on the ramp when two FAA ops types walked up. They identified themselves and asked if we had our A&Ps handy. I told them we were actually working under the authority of the CRS but if they wanted to see our certificates they were welcome to inspect them. Got an "Um, ok.... Um, have a nice day!" Before wandering over to a pilot preflighting. His "ordeal" lasted longer than ours did, a whole two or three minutes.

 

[JeffDG]

What I love about that initial post was the supposition that because the phrase "ramp check" does not appear in Part 91 that they are illegal.

True, the inspector could walk up to you and say "I am exercising the authority granted to the FAA under 77709 and 14 CFR Part 91 blah blah blah to inspect your documentation" spending about a minute rattling off his legal authority, or just shorter "Sir, I'd like to conduct a ramp check." which as a phrase conveys the entire message necessary.

It's like people who bristle at the concept of a BFR...yes, there's no phrase in the regs of a biennial flight review, however it's much shorter than saying "a flight review conducted within the previous 24 calendar months" and conveys the same information.

 

[rbridges]

interestingly = my first ramp and it was an aborted one at that. .. there were no airplanes over at the fly-in display yet and I think the inspector was getting bored . . .

I bought my plane a few years ago and it was sitting on the ramp in front of the fbo. some guy in a suit walks by and starts talking to me and asking about the plane. He looked in the cockpit through the windows, and I pointed out some of the mods the previous owner had done. I just thought it was some guy who liked planes. It turned out to be an faa inspector. Never bothered to flash his ID, and I only knew b/c I asked if he had a plane out here. Really nice guy, and the experience was very uneventful. I still don't know if he was ramp checking me or just killing time.

 

[Skylane81E]

I bought my plane a few years ago and it was sitting on the ramp in front of the fbo. some guy in a suit walks by and starts talking to me and asking about the plane. He looked in the cockpit through the windows, and I pointed out some of the mods the previous owner had done. I just thought it was some guy who liked planes. It turned out to be an faa inspector. Never bothered to flash his ID, and I only knew b/c I asked if he had a plane out here. Really nice guy, and the experience was very uneventful. I still don't know if he was ramp checking me or just killing time.

My guys come see me sometimes to kill time, but will check something off their work list while here most times. Usually no big deal, just something like "is this an annual your doing? Can I see the checklist you are using?"

 

[Skylane81E]

My guys come see me sometimes to kill time, but will check something off their work list while here most times. Usually no big deal, just something like "is this an annual your doing? Can I see the checklist you are using?"

"Speak of the devil and he shall appear"

 

[airguy]

I bought my plane a few years ago and it was sitting on the ramp in front of the fbo. some guy in a suit walks by and starts talking to me and asking about the plane. He looked in the cockpit through the windows, and I pointed out some of the mods the previous owner had done. I just thought it was some guy who liked planes. It turned out to be an faa inspector. Never bothered to flash his ID, and I only knew b/c I asked if he had a plane out here. Really nice guy, and the experience was very uneventful. I still don't know if he was ramp checking me or just killing time.

A few years ago I was ground-crew for a hot air balloon event at the Alpine, TX airport, we had a waiver since we were staging and launching on the grounds of the airport. FAA guy in attendance got bored after the balloons launched and recovered, starting looking at planes on the flight line. Tracked me down and gave me a laundry list of things he "noticed" on my 172. The highest offense he found was 1 missing and 1 frayed static wick - there were still 6 good ones on the airplane. I shoved a cold beer in his hand and he shut up, life was better then.

Later that same day there were a couple families with kids looking at the balloon baskets and airplanes on the line, and I invited one of the families to get a close look at my plane, sat the kids in the seat, took the requisite pictures, the whole bit. The airport manager saw it going on and came running out to us yelling, asking us what we thought we were doing in somebodies airplane, did that belong to us? I said politely that yes, in fact it did belong to me, but thanks very much for keeping a close eye on it. I appreciated his attentiveness.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What I love about that initial post was the supposition that because the phrase "ramp check" does not appear in Part 91 that they are illegal.

It's even better when he counterpoints that by saying that there =is= a legal ramp check for Part 121 and Par 135 even though the phrase isn't used there either.

It's like people who bristle at the concept of a BFR..

...or those who say there's nos such thing as the FAR, it's 14 C.F.R.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's like people who bristle at the concept of a BFR...yes, there's no phrase in the regs of a biennial flight review, however it's much shorter than saying "a flight review conducted within the previous 24 calendar months" and conveys the same information.

FWIW, the term "biennial flight review" was the one used in the original regulation on the subject, and thus "BFR" was an appropriate abbreviation. The FAA later dropped the "biennial" from the defining reg and reduced it to merely "flight review."

I equate "BFR" versus "FR" to "written" versus "knowledge" test. It's been 16 years since "written" was replaced by "knowledge," but the use of the term "written" persists. And even though it's been decades since the law was revised so that section 44609 because 44709, there are still some old fogeys who call it a "609 ride".

OTOH, to my knowledge, "ramp check" has always been the unofficial term for what the FAA has always officially called a "ramp inspection".

 

[poadeleted20]

I bought my plane a few years ago and it was sitting on the ramp in front of the fbo. some guy in a suit walks by and starts talking to me and asking about the plane. He looked in the cockpit through the windows, and I pointed out some of the mods the previous owner had done. I just thought it was some guy who liked planes. It turned out to be an faa inspector. Never bothered to flash his ID, and I only knew b/c I asked if he had a plane out here. Really nice guy, and the experience was very uneventful. I still don't know if he was ramp checking me or just killing time.

FAA Inspectors are required by FAA Order 8900.1 to identify themselves both verbally and with credentials when doing a Part 91 Ramp Inspection, aka "ramp check." However, they are not required to do so when looking into something they think is fishy until they reach the point where identification is necessary, e.g., when they are going to require you to do something, like show your pilot and aircraft documents. Scott Hamilton tells a story in his book "Practical Aviation Law" of a something like this involving an FAA Inspector in overalls driving a nondescript pickup truck out to fish a parachutist out of a pond. He got the jumper's story (in which he admitted willfully and knowingly violating a waiver for the jump), and only then identified himself as an FAA Inspector.

 

[poadeleted20]

...or those who say there's nos such thing as the FAR, it's 14 C.F.R.

If you dig into the various governmental publications, the term "FAR" is used for the Federal Acquisition Regulations. But inside the FAA and the aviation community, it is used to mean Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In any event, with regard to all these terms, I think we all know what they mean even if they have been a bit vernacularized in general usage.

Where that vernacularization can result in confusion is when terms are used indiscriminately where they really don't mean what the other term means. One example is IFR, IMC, and actual instrument conditions -- each of which has a very specific and discrete meaning. The mashing of those terms into each other's place does cause confusion in trying to explain what pilots can and can't do regarding how they fly and how they log.

 

[Tom-D]

OTOH, to my knowledge, "ramp check" has always been the unofficial term for what the FAA has always officially called a "ramp inspection".

The FAA can do that inspection almost anywhere they are required to do so.

 

[SCCutler]

As my LEO friends say, "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."

Which is to say, you can preserve your rights and draw a target on yourself. Never been "ramped" myself, but trust those I know who have been and say that their interactions with the FAA were cordial and fair. Seems to me that, if I did a hair-split and threw down on 'em, it might suggest I'd be a ripe target for more attention.

Now, none of this has a diddle's worth to do with DHS or law enforcement trying to bootstrap off of FAA authority to go pawing around your aircraft. Guessing here, I doubt FAA career professionals much care for that practice anyway.

 

[poadeleted20]

This brings to mind something I posted on the Red Board today...

You want the real answer to how to deal with the FAA on a ramp check?

1. Obey the law.
2. Use common sense.
3. Stop immediately.
4. Turn that [stuff] off.
5. Be polite.
6. Shut the [heck] up.
7. Get a white friend.
8. Don't fly with a mad woman.

Courtesy of Chris Rock.

When I was teaching at the U, I showed that video to my incoming freshmen (most of whom were black) every fall. Maybe we need to add it to the Sport/Rec/Pvt syllabus, perhaps with Chuck Yeager presenting? Or maybe Patty Wagstaff, who would have done well to have heeded its advice herself that dark night up at Oshkosh, and thus has a certain "street cred" for giving that advice?