Visit from an FAA "Geographic Inspector"

RotorAndWing said:
A 15 year old article.......:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

That's the most troubling thing you can find in that article? Im also a member of various other organizations in addition to AOPA and none of them have legal services as a "benefit". My lone experience with a FSDO put me squarely in the middle of the tin foil hat crowd.
 
RotorAndWing said:
A 15 year old article.......:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Ironically Bart's article is about the same FSDO I had an issue with a few years back... yeah it's so much better 15 years later. :rofl:

The only thing I can add to the excellent bullet points at the end of the article is make friends with your local congressman/their staffers and don't be afraid to complain about errant federal agencies.
 
bartmc said:
That's the most troubling thing you can find in that article? Im also a member of various other organizations in addition to AOPA and none of them have legal services as a "benefit". My lone experience with a FSDO put me squarely in the middle of the tin foil hat crowd.
Click to expand...

Other than it being poorly written and a slanted agenda? :rolleyes2:

Your tin hat needs enlarging. :rofl:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Other than it being poorly written and a slanted agenda? :rolleyes2:

Your tin hat needs enlarging. :rofl:
Click to expand...

One would be wise to approach this situation cautiously. Probably no need to be overly alarmed but don't naively throw your rights away because you think the the FAA guy is bringing you cotton candy and a pet unicorn.
 
bartmc said:
One would be wise to approach this situation cautiously. Probably no need to be overly alarmed but don't naively throw your rights away because you think the the FAA guy is bringing you cotton candy and a pet unicorn.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to sit back now and watch this thread spin out of control. :lol:

Soon we will hear how the "evil" Inspector will show up wearing a side arm and if you don't comply he'll send a US Marshall out to take away your license.......:yikes:


:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
RotorAndWing said:
I'm just going to sit back now and watch this thread spin out of control. :lol:

Soon we will hear how the "evil" Inspector will show up wearing a side arm and if you don't comply he'll send a US Marshall out to take away your license.......:yikes:


:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

100830kings3.jpg
 
Henning said:
Since the plane just came out of it's 24 month check, and I'm assuming since he is a Pt91 pilot he's not doing this himself, they may be looking at whomever is doing his maintenance. Then again, they may be looking to see if he is really Pt91 or Pt 134.5
Click to expand...

If true, there may be an investigation into the shop that did the annual. Bunch of us at the airport ran into this many years ago - turns out the A&P/IA had some questionable issues and about 7 of us worried that the annuals were not legit, and hence the airplanes not airworthy.
 
It's amazing how much misinformation and foolishness has been tossed around here -- like the idea that the FAA needs a judicial order to examine your airplane (they already have that authority from Congress and it's not a criminal matter so the Fourth Amendment isn't an issue if they choose to initiate the Section 44709 reexamination process). Yes, if you want to start a legal war with the FAA, go right ahead and stonewall them, but that seems an expensive and counterproductive idea to me unless you know you have something to hide.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's amazing how much misinformation and foolishness has been tossed around here -- like the idea that the FAA needs a judicial order to examine your airplane
Click to expand...



http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/January/1/Pilot-Counsel.aspx

AOPA's General Counsel, John S. Yodice

The aircraft. The inspector may inspect the exterior of the aircraft. The inspector may also ask to board the aircraft. Here is where I have been unable to find any useful law or precedents (other than at border crossings, not relevant here) except the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution that generally protects us and our property from warrantless searches. It would be very unusual for an inspector to show up with a warrant in the typical ramp inspection. If you refuse access to the aircraft, the inspector must first consult FAA legal counsel before proceeding with the inspection. An inspector does not have the authority, without your consent or a warrant, to enter your hangar or other private property.
Click to expand...
 
Nice quote from Yodice in dealing with ramp checks where they have no paper on you. Only thing is the Fourth Amendment isn't applicable if they send you a 709 letter to see your plane -- they do not need a either reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a judicial order for that, and you can bet they'll do that if you refuse to let them see the plane like this inspector seems to want. Yes, you can refuse to allow the 44709 inspection, but then they just decertify your airplane and at that point, you have no viable legal recourse whatsoever (you can certainly sue, but you will certainly lose in court).

Like I said -- you want to play dueling lawyers with the FAA, go right ahead, but in the long run it will cost you far more in dollars and pain than anything an inspector might do on the spot in the sort of visit the OP's FSDO wants to make. Coffee and doughnuts will be way, way cheaper and you'll make a friend instead of an enemy.
 
Ron Levy said:
Nice quote from Yodice in dealing with ramp checks where they have no paper on you. Only thing is the Fourth Amendment isn't applicable if they send you a 709 letter to see your plane
Click to expand...

Follow the thread Ron. They didn't send the OP a 709 letter.... just a cryptic phone call. All I suggested is he just put his airplane in a locked hanger for the initial "coffee and donuts".

Ron Levy said:
Coffee and doughnuts will be way, way cheaper and you'll make a friend instead of an enemy.
Click to expand...

What I want to be is left alone by the government. I don't owe the FAA coffee, donuts or hookers.
 
Jeff K said:
Follow the thread Ron. They didn't send the OP a 709 letter....
Click to expand...
But if he stonewalls them, they will. And then your relationship with them is ruined.

just a cryptic phone call.
Click to expand...
I didn't see "cryptic" -- in fact, the OP didn't even take the call, his wife did, so that's third-hand hearsay.

All I suggested is he just put his airplane in a locked hanger for the initial "coffee and donuts".
Click to expand...
I keep my plane in a locked hangar all the time -- keeps my insurance down.

What I want to be is left alone by the government. I don't owe the FAA coffee, donuts or hookers.
Click to expand...
I know a nice mountaintop out in Montana where I think you'd be happy.
 
Some body needs to back up and get a grip, The FAA has authority to inspect any ones aircraft when they feel it is appropriate.

So far it is just a phone call, The OP should call back when he is back from Vacation or what ever, find out what the inspector wants.

Step one, square one, find out what the inspector wants.

This needs nothing but common courtesy, no donuts / lunch or any thing else.

The last thing you want to do when faced with a lion, is to slap the lion.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Yes, you can refuse to allow the 44709 inspection, but then they just decertify your airplane and at that point, you have no viable legal recourse whatsoever
Click to expand...

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by no viable legal recourse whatsoever - how are paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) of 44709 not viable forms of recourse?:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44709

(you can certainly sue, but you will certainly lose in court).
Click to expand...

I don't understand how it is possible to "certainly lose in court" - doesn't that make the entire judicial system pointless? I thought such a determination depended on the facts of the case.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I don't understand how it is possible to "certainly lose in court" - doesn't that make the entire judicial system pointless? I thought such a determination depended on the facts of the case.
Click to expand...

You are not operating in the civil court system, you are in administrative law where you are guilty until proven innocent.
 
Ron Levy said:
But if he stonewalls them, they will. And then your relationship with them is ruined.
Click to expand...

Why is there an issue with the FAA following the proper process and then the OP complies? A 44709 letter for inspection is issued by the FAA administrator... not some rogue FAA inspector who didn't like the donuts you fed him.

And by "Relationship ruined" what exactly does that mean? That an inspector might seek retribution if a pilot expected said inspector to adhere to the FAA's own written policies? Or that alternately an inspector might look the other way if you puffed up his government worker ego?

Being I'm hearing this from you and the other EX FAA employee here... I'm seriously concerned. -Really- Why should I have to pay tribute to some FAA employee to get them to equally and equitably enforce the law?

Ron Levy said:
I keep my plane in a locked hangar all the time -- keeps my insurance down.
Click to expand...

It also reduces the fishing expeditions from law enforcement and raises the bar for something called probable cause. Just make sure your lease doesn't allow the airport management to let in local law enforcement.

Ron Levy said:
I know a nice mountaintop out in Montana where I think you'd be happy.
Click to expand...

Nice to dream but I doubt if that would protect me from an ever growing and overreaching government. I've had enough and I will not cooperate with any law enforcement that is on a fishing expedition.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
The last thing you want to do when faced with a lion, is to slap the lion.
Click to expand...

I think the advice is to not mistake it for a kitten because it has pretty lush fur and seems to be purring.
 
Jeff K said:
It also reduces the fishing expeditions from law enforcement and raises the bar for something called probable cause. Just make sure you lease doesn't allow the airport management to let in local law enforcement.
Click to expand...
My rental agreement with the port of Skagit says they will comply with the LEO's with proper court orders.
Also, they do inspect my electrical and compliance with fire codes, they do send a notice when that is going to happen.

Jeff K said:
Nice to dream but I doubt if that would protect me from and ever growing and overreaching government. I've had enough and I will not cooperate with any law enforcement that is on a fishing expedition.
Click to expand...

The name of the place is Haden Lake ID. or Ruby Ridge which ever you wish.
 
Tom-D said:
You are not operating in the civil court system, you are in administrative law where you are guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

That isn't correct because it is incomplete. What is missing is the requirement to present evidence that is either uncontested or stands up to contest that supports the claim of the plaintiff. If the FAA claims your aircraft is unairworthy it must present evidence that it isn't.
 
I'd pay more attention to Jeff King's posts if he'd enroll in some serious spelling lessons.

HR
 
Jim Logajan said:
That isn't correct because it is incomplete. What is missing is the requirement to present evidence that is either uncontested or stands up to contest that supports the claim of the plaintiff. If the FAA claims your aircraft is unairworthy it must present evidence that it isn't.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't be in front of a administrative law judge if the FAA didn't hit you with a non compliance violation.

They will simply de-certify your aircraft by sending you a registered letter stating your airworthiness certificate was vacated.
If you ever want the AWC back you must comply with the FAA requirements, you can't sell the aircraft either because the aircraft file is suspended. and the FAA will not transfer the title.
 
Lawreston said:
I'd pay more attention to Jeff King's posts if he'd enroll in some serious spelling lessons.
Click to expand...

Tough crowd here... I went back three pages and all I found was an incorrect spelling of "rogue" (rouge... but hey maybe I meant a red faced FAA inspector?? ;-)
 
Jeff K said:
Being I'm hearing this from you and the other EX FAA employee here... I'm seriously concerned. -Really- Why should I have to pay tribute to some FAA employee to get them to equally and equitably enforce the law?
Click to expand...

You are not expected to provide any tribute of any kind, the federal employees are well paid. and they do not expect any donuts or coffee. most won't except them do to the implications.
 
Tom-D said:
You are not expected to provide any tribute of any kind, the federal employees are well paid. and they do not expect any donuts or coffee. most won't except them do to the implications.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think so but we had a couple ex-FAA employees stating as such publicly.

Listen, I don't mean to come off as uncooperative here but I really don't think it's too much to expect government to follow it's own rules... including the FAA. They are already slanted so much in favor of the FAA that we really need to draw the line. I also know many good FAA employees but until the OP knows the playing field they really need to play their cards close to the vest. Lawyer up.

BTW, you've got a good lease and apparently a landlord who respects you. Mine is silent on the issue but I may take your language and insert it at the next renewal.
 
Jeff K said:
I wouldn't think so but we had a couple ex-FAA employees stating as such publicly.
Click to expand...


For the record there is only one commenting in this thread. Secondly I was making a point to be courteous and friendly, something that escapes you.

Given what you've written so far in this thread I now understand your embitterment towards the FAA and your incident. One can surmise perhaps you were difficult to deal with during that ordeal.

Jeff K said:
Listen, I don't mean to come off as uncooperative here but I really don't think it's too much to expect government to follow it's own rules... including the FAA. They are already slanted so much in favor of the FAA that we really need to draw the line. I also know many good FAA employees but until the OP knows the playing field they really need to play their cards close to the vest. Lawyer up.

.
Click to expand...

Then why is it too much to ask a pilot or aircraft owner to follow the rules in which he or the aircraft are certified under? Why do you feel you should be exempt? :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
Jeff K said:
What I want to be is left alone by the government..
Click to expand...


Do you honestly believe you are exempt from the law? Did you not understand the law and regulations before you accepted your certificate??

From the OP the Inspector wants to do a follow up on an aircraft and introduce himself. From that you have twisted it into "lawyer up". :nonod:
 
Jeff K said:
Why is there an issue with the FAA following the proper process and then the OP complies? A 44709 letter for inspection is issued by the FAA administrator... not some rogue FAA inspector who didn't like the donuts you fed him.

n.
Click to expand...

Please do a little homework before putting out more misinformation.

The 44709 letter is issued by the Inspector requesting the reevaluation. Anytime you read in the regulations "The Administrator" it also refers to his employees such as Inspectors since they represent his (her) interest.

All an Inspector needs to do to request a 44709 is to clear it with his supervisor, not legal, not anyone in DC.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Given what you've written so far in this thread I now understand your embitterment towards the FAA and your incident. One can surmise perhaps you were difficult to deal with during that ordeal.
Click to expand...

You can "surmise" whatever you want... the interview sheet with the FAA actually said I was quite cooperative (in the docket). I already explained my issue with the FAA and it was after they concluded the investigation.
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
Do you honestly believe you are exempt from the law? Did you not understand the law and regulations before you accepted your certificate??
Click to expand...

Not at all and I do understand the law's and regulations under which I accepted my certificate. I'm more concerned with FAA employee who thinks he/she is above the rules and procedures of their own agency.

RotorAndWing said:
From the OP the Inspector wants to do a follow up on an aircraft and introduce himself. From that you have twisted it into "lawyer up". :nonod:
Click to expand...

Followup? Where are you reading that?? You might want to re-read the OP's first post. And you betcha.... my first call would have been to my attorney. Is that not allowed by the FAA?
 
RotorAndWing said:
Please do a little homework before putting out more misinformation.
Click to expand...

I did. The OP should lock the hanger door. Let them issue the 44.709 based on their x-ray vision OR after examining the log. No sooner.

http://www.lopal.com/pdf/Your-Rights-When-the-FAA-Comes-Knocking.pdf

RotorAndWing said:
All an Inspector needs to do to request a 44709 is to clear it with his supervisor, not legal, not anyone in DC.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. However "rogue" means acting on ones own. Context is important, and having to go through a supervisor is a check and balance. With the hanger door locked, a paper trail is then generated and the employee has to justify the request with his supervisor. Not a big obstacle... but at least it's something.
 
Last edited:
Jeff K said:
Not at all and I do understand the law's and regulations under which I accepted my certificate. I'm more concerned with FAA employee who thinks he/she is above the rules and procedures of their own agency.
Click to expand...


What has this Inspector done that is not in the scope of his employment?

What has he done that would establish "he is above the rules and procedures of their own agency"?
 
RotorAndWing said:
What has this Inspector done that is not in the scope of his employment?

What has he done that would establish "he is above the rules and procedures of their own agency"?
Click to expand...

Nothing nor did I say that specific inspector did. But I think it is reasonable to hold them to the standards and procedures of their agency.

Why are you so against the OP getting legal advice before speaking with a representative of the FAA?
 
Last edited:
Jeff K said:
Nothing nor did I say that specific inspector did. But I think it is reasonable to hold them to the standards and procedures of their agency.
Click to expand...

Please tell us those standards and procedures.

Jeff K said:
Why are you so against the OP getting legal advice before speaking with a representative of the FAA?
Click to expand...

Why are you so adamant that he does?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top