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

[denverpilot]

Forwarded to me by a non-social network non-forum aviation buddy. Figured it would spark some interesting discussion amongst the amateur lawyers here on PoA.

Do Part 91 pilots have to submit to a "Ramp Check" beyond showing Pilot Certificate, Medical, and Photp ID?

This guy says not.

Airworthiness Certificate? No I do not consent to searching my private property (the aircraft)...

W&B? In the locked airplane. I'm late for lunch. Etc.

Not my words. Just giving the executive summary...

Legal Beagles, besides poking the Tiger square in the eye, is he right??

-----

Seen at: http://azpilots.org/
Part 91 ramp check? Just say "No." - (I did.)
Mike Palmer, ATP/x-CFII

The August 2013 issue of the APA's Newsletter offered some advice about how pilots should deal with ramp checks. (See the Executive Director's Report, pages 3 and 4.)

Unfortunately, the Executive Director did not make any distinction in the article between Part 135 operators ("Commercial" pilots), Part 121 operators ("Airline" pilots) or the general catch-all, Part 91 operators ("Private" pilots). But these are important distinctions because, per the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, there is no such thing as a "ramp check" for Private pilots!

See, according to the Constitution, which calls itself the "Supreme Law of the
Land" (supreme over the FAA and Homeland Security), you have a right to be free from warrantless searches. As it pertains to Private pilots and so-called "ramp checks," the Fourth Amendment means that an FAA Inspector does not have the right to board or enter your private property (your aircraft) unless he has a search warrant. Even the chief legal counsel of the AOPA sees this. (See the last paragraph of the January 2011 article Ramp check by John Yodice.) As such, a lot of what you've been told about ramp checks (even by the AOPA in a later article and on its website) is wrong.

Since you'll probably have to educate the authorities about this (as I once had to), let's start by discussing where the concept of a "ramp check" came from in the first place. It's quite logical when you know the facts. Unfortunately the logic has become fuzzy over time.

So first, so that you know the facts, you need to know that we pilots are bound by law to obey the FAR's only. That is, we are NOT bound to obey the FAA's internal rules for its employees, known as FAA Order 8900.1, as some would have you believe.

Unfortunately, that title, "Order," for the FAA's Handbook is an intimidating misnomer. It has even confused at least one federal judge who improperly dismissed an aviation matter because the judge took the title too literally. But the FAA's internal regulations are not "orders" that apply to YOU. They only apply to FAA workers.

Nevertheless, the belief that the FAA's Handbook is controlling law for pilots is fairly entrenched within the FAA. See, for example, this article on ramp checks, written by a FAASTeam Program Manager. Notice that he says HE is required to obey the Handbook. Again, that does not mean YOU are. (Kudos to him for getting some things right, as we'll see below. But he gets some things wrong too.)

Now that we know we are only bound by the FAR's, let's examine them. It might surprise you to know that there IS such a thing in the FAR's as a "ramp check!" (Although it's not called that by name.) But ramp checks are only for FAR Part 135 Commercial operators and FAR Part 121 Air Carriers. See FAR 135.73 and FAR 119.59 respectively. There is a logical basis for this.

See, these operators fly the public around for hire. And the FAA's mandate is to protect the public. Therefore, Congress gave the FAA the right to board these aircraft for inspection whenever it wants. In essence, these operators waived their Fourth Amendment right to warrant-less searches when they signed up to carry passengers for hire. But if you're a Part 91 Private pilot, none of the FAR's about impromptu invasive inspections (i.e., ramp checks) apply to you.

Unfortunately, fuzzy logic has crept in over time. While it's the FAR's that give inspectors the legal authority to inspect commercial operators, when it comes to inspecting private operators, Inspectors cite their internal Handbook for authority instead. But, as we've said, the Handbook is not controlling law for pilots.

Kudos to the FAAST guy (above) for acknowledging that, per the FAR's, private pilots don't have to provide access to their aircraft. Too bad he contradicts himself later when he says you may have to remove your Airworthiness Certificate so he can inspect it. (He cites FAR 91.203 for authority but FAR 91.203 does not say that.)

Even if the FAA's internal rules did apply to you, that doesn't automatically make them lawful orders. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that, the Constitution notwithstanding, an internal FAA order said an FAA Inspector could board your Part 91 private plane during a ramp check. That would be like the IRS writing an internal rule in its Special Agent's Handbook saying an agent could kick down your door anytime he wanted. That is unconstitutional and therefore, not lawful. You do not have to comply.

Next problem: The FAA confuses the differences in the FAR's between commercial and private pilots, telling us you have to produce the same papers that a commercial operator would. But you don't.

For example, commercial operators have to calculate and record a Weight & Balance manifest before every flight for hire. But as a Part 91 operator, there is no such requirement for you. You only need know that you are within your W&B for safe flight. Kudos to the FAAST guy again for acknowledging that Part 91'ers don't have to show a W&B calculation.

Similarly, as a Part 91'er, you do not have to show aeronautical charts either. Again, that's a Part 135 regulation. (Specifically it's FAR 135.83.) See how this goes?

Now, as with a cop, an FAA inspector can ask you anything he wants. (The FAAST guy says he'll ask when you last had a BFR.) But as with a cop, you do not have to answer or consent to a search. And, as with a cop, anything you say can be used against you.

Fact is, by law, there's very little you have to do. The FAR's only say that you have to show (not give or surrender) your pilot's license and medical (and now photo ID) to an FAA inspector or law enforcement officer upon request.

I actually went through this once and survived. Years ago my airplane partner and I had flown in for an air fair in New Mexico to talk up General Aviation. I was immediately suspicious when some guy in a white shirt was kinda waiting for us as we taxied in. (Not a line man.) After saying "Nice airplane" (it's a Glasair and was a novelty at the time) he asked, "Where's your Airworthiness Certificate?"

I knew the only guy in the world who would ask about an Airworthiness Certificate would be an FAA guy. I didn't have to show it to him (especially since he hadn't identified himself), but I humored him. I knew it had to be legible to the passengers or crew and it was. Pointing through the canopy, I said, "It's there." Then I locked up the plane saying, "We're late for pancakes."

I thought that was the end of it, but he returned a few hours later, pulled out his wallet and flashed something at me that said "FAA" in big red letters. (Although I don't know what real FAA identification looks like. Especially nowadays, when anyone can print a fake ID on their computer. And this was a Saturday. Was he really on duty?) He said, "May I have the pleasure of giving you a ramp check?"

I said, "No." I told him, "There is no such thing as a ramp check for Part 91 operators. That's only for Part 135 and Part 121 operators." That stunned him. Then he asked to see my pilot license, which I acknowledged I had to show him. (Although, technically, I hadn't flown in, so wasn't acting as PIC. But I wanted to spare my airplane partner from my actions.)

Now, maybe flashing an ATP license helped, but that pretty much ended it. I did make the mistake of handing him my license. (Lesson from Bob Hoover. Don't do that. As with your driver license, the law only requires you show it. I now carry copies of my pilot and driver license to give to authorities when required.) Thankfully he didn't keep my license but merely wrote down my certificate number in a little notebook of his. I never heard more about it.

Look, our counterparts on the oceans have lost this battle. Pilots of boats let the Coast Guard board their private vessels all the time under the guise of "safety." (Even though the CG is really looking for drugs.) Like the FAA, the Coast Guard can legally board commercial ships without a warrant. But not private ships.

Nevertheless, boat pilots have abrogated their rights. Now so-called Homeland Security is trying to do the same to us. Don't let them. You have a Constitutional right "to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" no matter what some Agency writes in their little Handbook.

Exercise your Fourth Amendment right. "Use it or lose it," as the truism goes. When it comes to a Part 91 ramp check, just say "No."

P.S. If you don't have a cell phone or tablet that records audio, I suggest carrying a digital audio recorder with you at all times. It will record all day on a charge. They cost only $50 but will be invaluable if ever you have to fight for your rights.
More links:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/January/1/Pilot-Counsel.aspx
http://discountaircraftbroker.com/faa-ramp-checks/
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...BD3F956782901B178625694A006E92F3?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...376C727B4CA77C4386256959004CDFA3?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...A0957E8B4954C82086257775006C4F3C?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...B8999C7C195110558625694A006ECC07?OpenDocument

 

[RotorAndWing]

Forwarded to me by a non-social network non-forum aviation buddy. Figured it would spark some interesting discussion amongst the amateur lawyers here on PoA.

Do Part 91 pilots have to submit to a "Ramp Check" beyond showing Pilot Certificate, Medical, and Photp ID?

This guy says not.

Airworthiness Certificate? No I do not consent to searching my private property (the aircraft)...

W&B? In the locked airplane. I'm late for lunch. Etc.

Not my words. Just giving the executive summary...

Legal Beagles, besides poking the Tiger square in the eye, is he right??

-----

Seen at: http://azpilots.org/
Part 91 ramp check? Just say "No." - (I did.)
Mike Palmer, ATP/x-CFII

The August 2013 issue of the APA's Newsletter offered some advice about how pilots should deal with ramp checks. (See the Executive Director's Report, pages 3 and 4.)

Unfortunately, the Executive Director did not make any distinction in the article between Part 135 operators ("Commercial" pilots), Part 121 operators ("Airline" pilots) or the general catch-all, Part 91 operators ("Private" pilots). But these are important distinctions because, per the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, there is no such thing as a "ramp check" for Private pilots!

See, according to the Constitution, which calls itself the "Supreme Law of the
Land" (supreme over the FAA and Homeland Security), you have a right to be free from warrantless searches. As it pertains to Private pilots and so-called "ramp checks," the Fourth Amendment means that an FAA Inspector does not have the right to board or enter your private property (your aircraft) unless he has a search warrant. Even the chief legal counsel of the AOPA sees this. (See the last paragraph of the January 2011 article Ramp check by John Yodice.) As such, a lot of what you've been told about ramp checks (even by the AOPA in a later article and on its website) is wrong.

Since you'll probably have to educate the authorities about this (as I once had to), let's start by discussing where the concept of a "ramp check" came from in the first place. It's quite logical when you know the facts. Unfortunately the logic has become fuzzy over time.

So first, so that you know the facts, you need to know that we pilots are bound by law to obey the FAR's only. That is, we are NOT bound to obey the FAA's internal rules for its employees, known as FAA Order 8900.1, as some would have you believe.

Unfortunately, that title, "Order," for the FAA's Handbook is an intimidating misnomer. It has even confused at least one federal judge who improperly dismissed an aviation matter because the judge took the title too literally. But the FAA's internal regulations are not "orders" that apply to YOU. They only apply to FAA workers.

Nevertheless, the belief that the FAA's Handbook is controlling law for pilots is fairly entrenched within the FAA. See, for example, this article on ramp checks, written by a FAASTeam Program Manager. Notice that he says HE is required to obey the Handbook. Again, that does not mean YOU are. (Kudos to him for getting some things right, as we'll see below. But he gets some things wrong too.)

Now that we know we are only bound by the FAR's, let's examine them. It might surprise you to know that there IS such a thing in the FAR's as a "ramp check!" (Although it's not called that by name.) But ramp checks are only for FAR Part 135 Commercial operators and FAR Part 121 Air Carriers. See FAR 135.73 and FAR 119.59 respectively. There is a logical basis for this.

See, these operators fly the public around for hire. And the FAA's mandate is to protect the public. Therefore, Congress gave the FAA the right to board these aircraft for inspection whenever it wants. In essence, these operators waived their Fourth Amendment right to warrant-less searches when they signed up to carry passengers for hire. But if you're a Part 91 Private pilot, none of the FAR's about impromptu invasive inspections (i.e., ramp checks) apply to you.

Unfortunately, fuzzy logic has crept in over time. While it's the FAR's that give inspectors the legal authority to inspect commercial operators, when it comes to inspecting private operators, Inspectors cite their internal Handbook for authority instead. But, as we've said, the Handbook is not controlling law for pilots.

Kudos to the FAAST guy (above) for acknowledging that, per the FAR's, private pilots don't have to provide access to their aircraft. Too bad he contradicts himself later when he says you may have to remove your Airworthiness Certificate so he can inspect it. (He cites FAR 91.203 for authority but FAR 91.203 does not say that.)

Even if the FAA's internal rules did apply to you, that doesn't automatically make them lawful orders. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that, the Constitution notwithstanding, an internal FAA order said an FAA Inspector could board your Part 91 private plane during a ramp check. That would be like the IRS writing an internal rule in its Special Agent's Handbook saying an agent could kick down your door anytime he wanted. That is unconstitutional and therefore, not lawful. You do not have to comply.

Next problem: The FAA confuses the differences in the FAR's between commercial and private pilots, telling us you have to produce the same papers that a commercial operator would. But you don't.

For example, commercial operators have to calculate and record a Weight & Balance manifest before every flight for hire. But as a Part 91 operator, there is no such requirement for you. You only need know that you are within your W&B for safe flight. Kudos to the FAAST guy again for acknowledging that Part 91'ers don't have to show a W&B calculation.

Similarly, as a Part 91'er, you do not have to show aeronautical charts either. Again, that's a Part 135 regulation. (Specifically it's FAR 135.83.) See how this goes?

Now, as with a cop, an FAA inspector can ask you anything he wants. (The FAAST guy says he'll ask when you last had a BFR.) But as with a cop, you do not have to answer or consent to a search. And, as with a cop, anything you say can be used against you.

Fact is, by law, there's very little you have to do. The FAR's only say that you have to show (not give or surrender) your pilot's license and medical (and now photo ID) to an FAA inspector or law enforcement officer upon request.

I actually went through this once and survived. Years ago my airplane partner and I had flown in for an air fair in New Mexico to talk up General Aviation. I was immediately suspicious when some guy in a white shirt was kinda waiting for us as we taxied in. (Not a line man.) After saying "Nice airplane" (it's a Glasair and was a novelty at the time) he asked, "Where's your Airworthiness Certificate?"

I knew the only guy in the world who would ask about an Airworthiness Certificate would be an FAA guy. I didn't have to show it to him (especially since he hadn't identified himself), but I humored him. I knew it had to be legible to the passengers or crew and it was. Pointing through the canopy, I said, "It's there." Then I locked up the plane saying, "We're late for pancakes."

I thought that was the end of it, but he returned a few hours later, pulled out his wallet and flashed something at me that said "FAA" in big red letters. (Although I don't know what real FAA identification looks like. Especially nowadays, when anyone can print a fake ID on their computer. And this was a Saturday. Was he really on duty?) He said, "May I have the pleasure of giving you a ramp check?"

I said, "No." I told him, "There is no such thing as a ramp check for Part 91 operators. That's only for Part 135 and Part 121 operators." That stunned him. Then he asked to see my pilot license, which I acknowledged I had to show him. (Although, technically, I hadn't flown in, so wasn't acting as PIC. But I wanted to spare my airplane partner from my actions.)

Now, maybe flashing an ATP license helped, but that pretty much ended it. I did make the mistake of handing him my license. (Lesson from Bob Hoover. Don't do that. As with your driver license, the law only requires you show it. I now carry copies of my pilot and driver license to give to authorities when required.) Thankfully he didn't keep my license but merely wrote down my certificate number in a little notebook of his. I never heard more about it.

Look, our counterparts on the oceans have lost this battle. Pilots of boats let the Coast Guard board their private vessels all the time under the guise of "safety." (Even though the CG is really looking for drugs.) Like the FAA, the Coast Guard can legally board commercial ships without a warrant. But not private ships.

Nevertheless, boat pilots have abrogated their rights. Now so-called Homeland Security is trying to do the same to us. Don't let them. You have a Constitutional right "to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" no matter what some Agency writes in their little Handbook.

Exercise your Fourth Amendment right. "Use it or lose it," as the truism goes. When it comes to a Part 91 ramp check, just say "No."

P.S. If you don't have a cell phone or tablet that records audio, I suggest carrying a digital audio recorder with you at all times. It will record all day on a charge. They cost only $50 but will be invaluable if ever you have to fight for your rights.
More links:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/January/1/Pilot-Counsel.aspx
http://discountaircraftbroker.com/faa-ramp-checks/
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...BD3F956782901B178625694A006E92F3?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...376C727B4CA77C4386256959004CDFA3?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...A0957E8B4954C82086257775006C4F3C?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...B8999C7C195110558625694A006ECC07?OpenDocument

Yes, anyone can be subject to a ramp inspection.

From 8900.1 "Conduct a Part 91 Ramp Inspection"

Some of what is written in your article is very suspect such as the part about "I did make the mistake of handing him my license. (Lesson from Bob Hoover. Don't do that" which is a myth. An Inspector cannot keep your license and in fact there is a long process (5-318) to which one surrenders a certificate.

The writer also ignores this very important fact:

44709. Amendments, modifications, suspensions, and revocations of certificates

(a) Reinspection and Reexamination.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.


A typical ramp inspection is a license check and maybe a couple of questions. It is correct that the Inspector may not enter the aircraft and you certainly don't have to show him anything.

However,
44103. Registration of aircraft

(d) Certificates Available for Inspection.—An operator of an aircraft shall make available for inspection a certificate of registration for the aircraft when requested by a United States Government, State, or local law enforcement officer.Last time I checked an FAA Inspector was an agent for the United States Government.


So, if the pilot refuses to show him anything he can initiate a LOI (Letter of Investigation) and send to the pilot requesting a time and date to inspect whatever he deems necessary. This is covered under 44709.


If the pilot blows him off and refuses to comply then the Inspector through an EIR (Enforcement Investigation Report) can move to suspend the airman's certificate or suspend the AW certificate to the airplane.


Honestly ramp inspections are not that big of a deal and on a scale are a very small part of the work program.

I honestly don't understand why all the ****ing and moaning that goes on about ramp checks.

 

[denverpilot]

I had a feeling you'd weigh in. Cool.

Personally, they don't bother me at all. These pseudo-military anti-drug silliness things do from a purely ideological standpoint, but digging out the Airworthiness Certificate never seemed like a big deal to me.

I just found the article "interesting". At least he put his name on it. So many whiners do it anonymously.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I honestly don't understand why all the ****ing and moaning that goes on about ramp checks.

Same reason people would complain if the local DMV retained equivalent rights to inspect their cars at any time and retest a driver at any time. If complaints about that sort of thing happening also baffle you then I'm afraid I know of no way to convey the origin of the ****ing and moaning.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I had a feeling you'd weigh in. Cool.

Personally, they don't bother me at all. These pseudo-military anti-drug silliness things do from a purely ideological standpoint, but digging out the Airworthiness Certificate never seemed like a big deal to me.

I just found the article "interesting". At least he put his name on it. So many whiners do it anonymously.

Funny thing is the people that weigh in the most have never experienced a ramp inspection and they are going on OWT's and internet myths.

I have found pilots without certificates during ramps. Hey, it happens. I just got their information and latter verified it in the database and politely reminded them to please carry it on them when operating. If the airplane looked decent I usually just asked if the registration and AW certificate was onboard.

The ones that get attention are the obvious, something that doesn't look airworthy.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Same reason people would complain if the local DMV retained equivalent rights to inspect their cars at any time and retest a driver at any time. If complaints about that sort of thing happening also baffle you then I'm afraid I know of no way to convey the origin of the ****ing and moaning.

sigh........

These rules have been in place for what? 50+ years? Are you saying these people got certificated and bought airplanes totally unaware that they can have a ramp inspection?

Really?

And the DMV (or local LEO) can't set up a road block and ask to see your license? Really?

Or during that road block if they see a safety concern with the vehicle they can't say or do anything about it?

Really????

 

[Jim Logajan]

sigh........

These rules have been in place for what? 50+ years? Are you saying these people got certificated and bought airplanes totally unaware that they can have a ramp inspection?

I wasn't aware that the ****ing and moaning is a recent thing. Lots of regs have been ****ed about since at least 1926.

And the DMV (or local LEO) can't set up a road block and ask to see your license? Really?

You yourself highlighted "may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft." That's asking to inspect the aircraft (car), not the pilot's certificate (driver license.) So your rhetorical question isn't addressing one of the differences.

For example, what is the DMV or LEO equivalent to a LOI or an EIR? In what states can I lose my license through a similar sequence if I "blow off" some cop attempting to inspect my car even if there is nothing visibly wrong with it from an external view?

Or during that road block if they see a safety concern with the vehicle they can't say or do anything about it?

Really????

If there is a qualifier to paragraph 44709(a) that says that such reinspections must have probable cause or something like that then your rhetorical question makes a valid point. However this is another case where you are selecting an analogous auto law when you fully well know I mean the ****ing and moaning is about non-analogous regulations and legal presumptions.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I wasn't aware that the ****ing and moaning is a recent thing. Lots of regs have been ****ed about since at least 1926.

Fact is the regs have been there and in place. The pilot made a conscience decision to participate and also agree to operate under the regulations.

You yourself highlighted "may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft." That's asking to inspect the aircraft (car), not the pilot's certificate (driver license.) So your rhetorical question isn't addressing one of the differences.

So now you are trying to say the Inspector may not ask to see the license or medical certificate? Really?

61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(a) Pilot certificate. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person—
(1) Has a pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used; and
(2) Has a photo identification that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization. The photo identification must be a:
(i) Driver's license issued by a State, the District of Columbia, or territory or possession of the United States;
(ii) Government identification card issued by the Federal government, a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States;
(iii) U.S. Armed Forces' identification card;
(iv) Official passport;
(v) Credential that authorizes unescorted access to a security identification display area at an airport regulated under 49 CFR part 1542; or
(vi) Other form of identification that the Administrator finds acceptable.

So you tell the nice Inspector to go away and not bother you. He says fine and goes back to his office and types up a LOI and sends to you stating you have 10 days to provide the information requested. You being the legal expert you think you are then blows that off. Now all the Inspector needs to do is start an enforcement to suspend your license.

Honestly, what is the problem with showing the Inspector your certificate?

For example, what is the DMV or LEO equivalent to a LOI or an EIR? In what states can I lose my license through a similar sequence if I "blow off" some cop attempting to inspect my car even if there is nothing visibly wrong with it from an external view?

I'm not nor ever have been in law enforcement. You need to ask one of those guys what's entailed.

If there is a qualifier to paragraph 44709(a) that says that such reinspections must have probable cause or something like that then your rhetorical question makes a valid point. However this is another case where you are selecting an analogous auto law when you fully well know I mean the ****ing and moaning is about non-analogous regulations and legal presumptions.

Tell you what, the next time you are approached on a ramp by a guy with a FAA 110A and he introduces himself as an Inspector and ask for your certificates start to try to impress him with all of your (supposed) legal knowledge and then promptly refuse.

Get back to us and tell us how well that worked out.

 

[1600vw]

If they are doing these ramp checks to find pilots without certificates then all these ramp checks should be taking place in Alaska, for the FAA even admitted that over half the people flying in Alaska has no certificate.
How can the FAA go after anyone for not having a certificate when they let anyone fly in Alaska. If its good enough for them it should be good enough for us, or vise-versa.

 

[Dr. O]

What I do - ymmv.

I have been ramped by an inspector three times (attempted).
I have refused three times.

One of the times I was ramped right in front of the FSDO building.
I informed him that I was at the airport on business and that he was interfering - and I turned my back and went on about my business.

Now, someone mentioned LEO.
A whole different kettle of worms. (take this advice from an old police surgeon)
If he has a badge and a gun, you are going to be inspected or you are going to the jail (or maybe hospital)
Be civil (you don't have to lick his boots) and follow orders.
It's just that simple.
If you feel abused you have a remedy - call a lawyer, later - for now you WILL be inspected.
The judge will decide if the officer was right or wrong.
(probably pointless for you to protest to the judge, but hey, whatever floats your boat)

 

[midlifeflyer]

I've read the article. It's full of the same things the author complains about. Some accurate information combined with nonsense. The don't hand your certificate to the inspector myth is just one of those.

He is indeed correct that the "handbook" applies to the conduct of the inspector, not the pilot. By the same token, the fact that the handbook instructs the inspector to ask for something does not mean the pilot is required to have it or, if he does, to turn it over.

A big example (this is from my own post in another forum that raised the question):

One thing the article complains about is a lack of differentiation between Part 91 and Parts 135/121 ramp checks. In truth, the "handbook" (FAA Order 8900.1, available to all at http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents) separates them. And for Part 91 ramp checks, the handbook clearly tells Inspectors

==============================
An inspector must not open or board any aircraft without the knowledge and consent of the crew or owner/operator. Some operators may prefer to have a company representative present to answer questions.
==============================

If you have the time and interest in the FAA's instructions to its inspectors on Part 91 ramp inspections, it's Chapter 1, Section 4 of the handbook.

So the IRS "kick down the door" analogy is just a ploy to get you riled up - just slash an burn American politics as usual; we should all be used to it and be disregarding it by now. The FAA does not have an "internal rule" that an inspector may board your aircraft without your consent. To the contrary, it has a publicly available "internal rule" that an inspector may not do so. That an individual Inspector might insist contrary to the rules that apply to him is not, IMO, an indictment of the system but of the individual inspector.

That's not to say that the "ramp check" has not been used as a pretext for other types of law enforcement investigations, such as the recent Border Patrol incidents AOPA is trying to fight or as a pretext for a state or DEA drug search of an aircraft.

 

[bbchien]

I suppose the are the same folks who say you don't have to pay taxes.....(!)

 

[JoseCuervo]

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?

 

[bnt83]

Ramp checks is about the only way the FAA can be visible...

I can drive down the street on game day and see 5 cops in 10 blocks, but funny, I've never been ramped at the KLNK airport which is home to a FSDO.

 

[wabower]

Nothing is so small that some can't make a big deal out of it.

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?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Nothing is so small that some can't make a big deal out of it.

"small" is a matter of perception. Depending on how one feels about these things, one can have different reactions to each of these scenarios:

• An FAA ramp check is conducted by an FAA inspector following the bounds of his authority as outlined in the handbook.
• An FAA ramp check conducted by an FAA inspector who uses his position to exceed the bounds of his authority.
• A non-FAA LEO uses ramp check authority as a pretext for an otherwise improper search and seizure.

All three take place. The key is understanding that they are different, why they are different, and that the differences in what they are may be deserving of different responses.

The error, unintentional or otherwise, is combining them with a broad brush, using examples of improper actions as a reasons to attack proper ones.

 

[kgruber]

I suppose the are the same folks who say you don't have to pay taxes.....(!)

I knew an old retired airline captain who went to his grave without paying taxes. He sat around Kenmore Air Harbor chewing on a cigar and giving medical advice.

His chief mantra was, "Never eat ANY white powder." Which is probably pretty good advice.

I have always felt a little guilty about calling him on the phone when he was on his deathbed. His wife gave him the phone and told me he could hear but not talk. I told him to get the hell out of bed and get down here to KAH, as Bob Munro had a Beaver he needed delivered to Alaska.

Maybe a little crass, but he was a good friend and I miss him and all his advice.

"""December 31, 1989
W.J. ''BILL'' LUND, 74, who made the first commercial flight from the United States to cross the Soviet Union's eastern border, died recently. Lund, a bush pilot who became a flight captain with Alaska Airlines, flew a goodwill mission from Anchorage to Siberia via Tokyo in 1970."""

 

[Clip4]

Is it really a burden to show a FAA inspector your pilot/medical and AROW documents?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is it really a burden to show a FAA inspector your pilot/medical and AROW documents?

I don't think that's anyone's gripe.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

I think the big deal is your rights. If I'm not doing anything that outwardly visible as wrong/dangerous then leave me alone.

 

[Tim]

I can see both sides of this. We are so regulated, ordered, mandated, instructed, we don't even know when we lose somthing that should be a right...........

 

[RotorAndWing]

I think the big deal is your rights. If I'm not doing anything that outwardly visible as wrong/dangerous then leave me alone.

So a guy with no pilot license is giving kids rides at the local airport in his airplane that's not been annualed in the past few years. As far as anyone knows "he's not doing anything that outwardly visible as wrong/dangerous" and he should be left alone?

Are you really OK with that? What is the problem with an Inspector asking to see your license? Believe it or not there are some folks who've been caught on a ramp check that fit the above description.

I've been ramped many times, Part 91, Part 135, Part 141 and Part 121. I've never had an issue with it and have never had a bad experience with it either.

Have you been ramped before?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Ramp checks is about the only way the FAA can be visible...

I can drive down the street on game day and see 5 cops in 10 blocks, but funny, I've never been ramped at the KLNK airport which is home to a FSDO.

Honestly ramp inspections are way at the bottom of an Inspectors work program. On average he may have 3 or 4 assigned for the year.

Typically an Inspector will do a Part 91 ramp inspection in conjunction with a checkride or other job function that has him at the airport or if a complaint gets filed. On the work program side he just needs the basic info to fill out a PTRS and get if closed out.

I would do them if I was doing something else at the airport, but I really just enjoyed talking to the pilots and talking airplanes.

 

[hindsight2020]

I don't have a problem with a simple AROW and medical/license flash. Outside of that compliance, leave me alone. I don't have a problem with that ramp check. The jacked up thing is, I consider FAA Bob my friend, compared to the CBP morons.

What the CBP is doing currently is beyond BS though. They're out of control down here. I will never offer those guys assistance. Bunch of overpaid thugs self-aware of their charter's irrelevancy and futility. I guess I'd be ganging up on the innocent too if I knew my job was bulls--t...

 

[bbchien]

I suppose if you are a scofflaw and fly without the medical, no BFR, no airworthiness, you probably view a ramp check as a rights violation.....I can "get" that......

 

[comanchepilot]

Just another guy who thinks being able to read enables them to practice law . . . .the Consitution says this and its absolute - the problem is the definition of 'reasonable' - and they rarely discuss what reasonable means.

This is the government's paper - and if the government wants to see its paper, show it to them. I'm not seeing the problem with a document check - I wish they would do it more often on the roads and get the idiots without licenses or suspended licenses off the road.

 

[Jim Logajan]

So now you are trying to say the Inspector may not ask to see the license or medical certificate?

No.

You have been arguing with claims I am not making. I see no reason to defend statements you write and then ascribe to me.

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. And that any attempt by those persons to deny the FAA that right can cause an airman or aircraft owner to have the respective certificates revoked, even when there exists no evidence that the airman or aircraft owner is in violation of any other regulation.

Let's try a specific: are you familiar with what happened to John Baker of this board? Was there any evidence specific to him that showed he might be unfit to fly that required he be re-examined?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Just another guy who thinks being able to read enables them to practice law .

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.

 

[kgruber]

The two FAA men who railroaded Bob Hoover should go to jail. How did they get away with that?

 

[airguy]

That's not to say that the "ramp check" has not been used as a pretext for other types of law enforcement investigations, such as the recent Border Patrol incidents AOPA is trying to fight or as a pretext for a state or DEA drug search of an aircraft.

I ran into this once, but they actually didn't even pretend to be ramp-checking. I had been down near the Texas/Mexico border in a 172 at low altitude doing donuts over a family deer-hunting lease looking at vegetation levels and trying to spot animals, and landed in Ozona (small untowered airport) on the way back. About 45 seconds after I shut down a "black helicopter" sat down next to me and two agents jumped out with M16's and a dog. One asked me for ID while the other walked right to the airplane with the dog and did a quick once-around, no attempt to enter the plane, this took about 30 seconds. Seeing his partner walking away from my plane with the dog the first guy said "Sorry sir, wrong radar target, you're free to go" and they both got back in the chopper. No ID offered, no names given, no reason given, no real chance to argue about it. It was over and done before you could figure out what the hell just happened. Their chopper might have been on the ground 3 minutes total - no more than that. Pilot never shut down and never left his seat.

In hindsight I guess it makes sense, but at the time it all happened so fast there was no chance at even making a logical argument - they weren't waiting for permission or explanations, the dog was already sniffing my airplane before I could take my eyes off the M16 slung across the chest of the guy in front of me and reach into my pocket for my ID - which he never actually even looked at, since about that time his partner was on his way back with a negative reaction from the dog.

Sorry - can't say what kind of chopper, I'm not a chopper guy but I do remember there were no identifiable markings on the outside, dark gray paint job all over. I knew the weapons though, I am a gun guy. I remember very specifically seeing the fire selector on the guy talking to me and thinking how much I wanted one of those.

I didn't know they carried dogs in the choppers until then, guess I never really thought about it.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The two FAA men who railroaded Bob Hoover should go to jail. How did they get away with that?

Every agency, organization, boy and girl scout troop, church social group, etc, etc has their bad element, the FAA is not alone in this regard. Yes, the FAA has a few complete idiots walking around in possession of a 110A and yes, I witnessed a few things there that left me shaking my head.

Agreed the two idiots in the Hoover case went overboard. The agency made several sweeping changes after that to try to stop it from happening again. While I attended the Academy it was stressed over and over about remaining within the "scope of our employment". Hence an Inspector cannot just go off on his own and start an enforcement without approval from his or her superiors, and those superiors will more than likely call the Regional Attorney before giving the green light to proceed.

Enforcements are a b!tch to process. If the average person saw the process they would wonder how anything ever gets through the system. While some here on this board carry on about how an Inspector needs to know all of the CC decisions and case law it's simply not the truth because the Inspector can't proceed anyway with the go ahead from higher ups (including the Regional Attorney).

Here's a little tidbit. The FAA Attorneys won't pursue a case if they feel they can't win it or it will be drawn out and convoluted. This is not an absolute but applies 95% of the time. They have a full docket of cases and not enough man power and won't waste their time. Hence why the FAA has SNAAP ( Streamlined No Action and Administrative Action Process) to handle the small cases and not take them to a full enforcement.

 

[Palmpilot]

I ran into this once, but they actually didn't even pretend to be ramp-checking. I had been down near the Texas/Mexico border in a 172 at low altitude doing donuts over a family deer-hunting lease looking at vegetation levels and trying to spot animals, and landed in Ozona (small untowered airport) on the way back. About 45 seconds after I shut down a "black helicopter" sat down next to me and two agents jumped out with M16's and a dog. One asked me for ID while the other walked right to the airplane with the dog and did a quick once-around, no attempt to enter the plane, this took about 30 seconds. Seeing his partner walking away from my plane with the dog the first guy said "Sorry sir, wrong radar target, you're free to go" and they both got back in the chopper. No ID offered, no names given, no reason given, no real chance to argue about it. It was over and done before you could figure out what the hell just happened. Their chopper might have been on the ground 3 minutes total - no more than that. Pilot never shut down and never left his seat.

In hindsight I guess it makes sense, but at the time it all happened so fast there was no chance at even making a logical argument - they weren't waiting for permission or explanations, the dog was already sniffing my airplane before I could take my eyes off the M16 slung across the chest of the guy in front of me and reach into my pocket for my ID - which he never actually even looked at, since about that time his partner was on his way back with a negative reaction from the dog.

Sorry - can't say what kind of chopper, I'm not a chopper guy but I do remember there were no identifiable markings on the outside, dark gray paint job all over. I knew the weapons though, I am a gun guy. I remember very specifically seeing the fire selector on the guy talking to me and thinking how much I wanted one of those.

I didn't know they carried dogs in the choppers until then, guess I never really thought about it.

I was once flying over I-8 in the Southern California desert, and I saw what looked like a large white square package near some trees or bushes along a frontage road. It was maybe three or four feet on a side. I circled to get a better look at it, and I saw a white van pull up. On the next circle, the package was gone, and the van was driving away. I didn't see any black helipcopters, though.

 

[Tom-D]

The AWC is to be displayed in plane sight, If it is, why would the inspector ask to see it ??

It's not considered a search when looking thru the windows.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The AWC is to be displayed in plane sight, If it is, why would the inspector ask to see it ??

What airplane are you referring too? Since it's inside the airplane the Inspector cannot and will not enter the airplane without the owners permission, thus one primary reason the Inspector will ask the owner to retrieve it.

It's not considered a search when looking thru the windows.

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

 

[Skylane81E]

I ran into this once, but they actually didn't even pretend to be ramp-checking. I had been down near the Texas/Mexico border in a 172 at low altitude doing donuts over a family deer-hunting lease looking at vegetation levels and trying to spot animals, and landed in Ozona (small untowered airport) on the way back. About 45 seconds after I shut down a "black helicopter" sat down next to me and two agents jumped out with M16's and a dog. One asked me for ID while the other walked right to the airplane with the dog and did a quick once-around, no attempt to enter the plane, this took about 30 seconds. Seeing his partner walking away from my plane with the dog the first guy said "Sorry sir, wrong radar target, you're free to go" and they both got back in the chopper. No ID offered, no names given, no reason given, no real chance to argue about it. It was over and done before you could figure out what the hell just happened. Their chopper might have been on the ground 3 minutes total - no more than that. Pilot never shut down and never left his seat.

In hindsight I guess it makes sense, but at the time it all happened so fast there was no chance at even making a logical argument - they weren't waiting for permission or explanations, the dog was already sniffing my airplane before I could take my eyes off the M16 slung across the chest of the guy in front of me and reach into my pocket for my ID - which he never actually even looked at, since about that time his partner was on his way back with a negative reaction from the dog.

Sorry - can't say what kind of chopper, I'm not a chopper guy but I do remember there were no identifiable markings on the outside, dark gray paint job all over. I knew the weapons though, I am a gun guy. I remember very specifically seeing the fire selector on the guy talking to me and thinking how much I wanted one of those.

I didn't know they carried dogs in the choppers until then, guess I never really thought about it.

Don't know Texas law, but if it is one of the states that does not require permission for a K9 search of the exterior of a vehicle that is not a bad way to do it, land, check, move on

 

[Tom-D]

What airplane are you referring too? Since it's inside the airplane the Inspector cannot and will not enter the airplane without the owners permission, thus one primary reason the Inspector will ask the owner to retrieve it.

I take it as you have not read the certificate its self FAA form 8100-2

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

What does courtesy have to do with search rules?

FAR 91.203(b) states "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew."

 

[RotorAndWing]

What does courtesy have to do with search rules?

A part 91 ramp inspection is not a "search", its a surveillance to insure compliance.

A. Definitions.

2) Ramp Inspection. A ramp inspection is defined as surveillance of an airman, operator, air agency, or aircraft

FAR 91.203(b) states "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew."

The door would have to be open. If the owner does not open the door he can also refuse to allow the Inspector to look inside.

B. Inspector Conduct. The inspector must always have their Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) credentials available, since an airman or operator may or may not know an inspector.


1) An inspector must not open or board any aircraft without the knowledge and consent of the crew or owner/operator. Some operators may prefer to have a company representative present to answer questions.

2) If the surveillance will delay a flight, the inspector should use prudent judgment whether or not to continue an inspection that may affect an operator’s busy schedule.

3) The inspector should also bear in mind that he or she may not be able to complete all items on every ramp inspection, but the operator should provide the inspector with enough information that he or she is confident that the aircraft is in compliance with the regulations.

I take it as you have not read the certificate its self FAA form 8100-2

Several hundred or so. I take it you don't understand "cabin or cockpit entrance". Where in the rules does it state it must be displayed as to be seen from outside the aircraft with the doors closed?

 

[bbchien]

SOME of the RANTS here are actually WORSE than on the redboard.

I suppose that gunrack in the back of your pickup means you don't have to stop for the local constabulary because "hell no I'm not gonna stop". There are still guys who rant that they don't have to pay income taxes because it's illegal. Much as I disagree with the current CIC, I think the "birthers" are just nuts. He is in the office. No, not EVERYTHING he has done is therefore illegal.

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?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I ran into this once, but they actually didn't even pretend to be ramp-checking. I had been down near the Texas/Mexico border in a 172 at low altitude doing donuts over a family deer-hunting lease looking at vegetation levels and trying to spot animals, and landed in Ozona (small untowered airport) on the way back. About 45 seconds after I shut down a "black helicopter" sat down next to me and two agents jumped out with M16's and a dog. One asked me for ID while the other walked right to the airplane with the dog and did a quick once-around, no attempt to enter the plane, this took about 30 seconds. Seeing his partner walking away from my plane with the dog the first guy said "Sorry sir, wrong radar target, you're free to go" and they both got back in the chopper. No ID offered, no names given, no reason given, no real chance to argue about it.

...and there rarely is any chance - or reason - to "argue" about it, even with a search.

One thing that gets lost in the discussion on the CPB/LEO part of this subject is that not all warrantless searches are improper or illegal to begin with. So you may not be asked anything.

 

[midlifeflyer]

A part 91 ramp inspection is not a "search", its a surveillance to insure compliance.

A. Definitions.

2) Ramp Inspection. A ramp inspection is defined as surveillance of an airman, operator, air agency, or aircraft






The door would have to be open. If the owner does not open the door he can also refuse to allow the Inspector to look inside.

B. Inspector Conduct. The inspector must always have their Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) credentials available, since an airman or operator may or may not know an inspector.


1) An inspector must not open or board any aircraft without the knowledge and consent of the crew or owner/operator. Some operators may prefer to have a company representative present to answer questions.

2) If the surveillance will delay a flight, the inspector should use prudent judgment whether or not to continue an inspection that may affect an operator’s busy schedule.

3) The inspector should also bear in mind that he or she may not be able to complete all items on every ramp inspection, but the operator should provide the inspector with enough information that he or she is confident that the aircraft is in compliance with the regulations.




Several hundred or so. I take it you don't understand "cabin or cockpit entrance". Where in the rules does it state it must be displayed as to be seen from outside the aircraft with the doors closed?

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