Doc Holliday
En-Route
Short answer, yes and yes.
Why wasn’t an electronic copy good enough?
- Thread starter Vance Breese
- Start date
Short answer, yes and yes.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Yes to checking, generally no to difference in process.
Military, diplomatic and a few other categories are not treated the same.
Tim
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
In what way is the process different? When I discussed it with a few Canadian's who have been ramp checked by the FAA, the process was the same.
Tim
Vance Breese
Cleared for Takeoff
I don't think so because the FAA representative didn't keep a hard copy of my operating limitations or my friends once he printed them out.
That depends on a which mussels the FAA was stretching, eh?
Pronounced "gooey-duck," by the way (for those who don't know).
Mistake Not...
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,251
- Display Name
Display name:
Mistake Not...
I passively aggressively comply with this by keeping a canvas bag full of all the crap legally required to be on board.... in the very back. No way to reach it from the pilot's seat. But very easy to reach if ramp checked. In fact, I'd probably have to move the tiedown ropes, chocks, oil, rags and random other crap to get to them.
Owned the plane for 4 years. Never once looked at any of it.
Owned the plane for 4 years. Never once looked at any of it.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Total violation of the 4th amendment, and as an adult I don't have a curfew lol
But alas, the unwashed masses are always down to trade "a little" essential liberty for the illusion of "safety"
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Are you doing something to try to change the law? As I posted above, the SCOTUS ruled in 1990 that DUI checkpoints are a valid method. I am one of the unwashed masses who isn't doing anything to change the situation. Unless you are one of the people who are making the effort, I would say... pot... kettle.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Well then you may want to review 91.203 regarding display of certificate.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Here's a little hint for you: Before talking about the law and constitutional rights, get a clue about what you are actually talking about.
Your quote above is absolute ignorance, at best.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Doing something to change it, as much as I can, yes.
"Ignorance", that's cute, actually isn't it more ignorant to go along with the BS where a federal judge rules that the federal government should have more power?
Sorry, but putting up road blocks and stopping people who have given you zero suspicion of committing a crime, that's a violation of your 4th amendment rights all day long and twice on Sunday.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So I'd imagine since some unamerican tyrant said civil asset forfeiture is "legal" you're OK with that too?
"Ignorance", that's cute, actually isn't it more ignorant to go along with the BS where a federal judge rules that the federal government should have more power?
Sorry, but putting up road blocks and stopping people who have given you zero suspicion of committing a crime, that's a violation of your 4th amendment rights all day long and twice on Sunday.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So I'd imagine since some unamerican tyrant said civil asset forfeiture is "legal" you're OK with that too?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Just admit when it comes to law, you're shooting from the hip and making a total fool of yourself in the process.
Your drivers license is issued by the state, not federally. And getting your drivers license is a privilege, not a constitutional protected right. And the people that issue that drivers license do so under administrative law. So yes, if the state decides they need to do random stops for safety and it's written into their regulations, then so be it.
Same with the FAA and 44709. 44709 is a federal law, passed by congress. The FAA developed regulations to comply with the law. And this all took place back decades ago. So crying the FAA has no right to examine an airman or aircraft "at anytime" is foolish.
Someone once said "When others think you are a fool, don't open your mouth and remove all doubts".
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
First of all I'm not talking about anything FAA related, and second just because you are onboard with unconstitutional "laws" and are well versed in them doesn't make me a fool, or prevent you from actually being the fool who fell for someone's sales pitch.
Stoping people who do not appear to be committing a crime, without a warrant, it's wrong regardless of how many law makers you pay off, or what un-American federal judge you get to says it's cool, the 4th amendment is written quite clearly and in simple terms, so simple even a "fool" like me can understand them, and those road blocks are unconstitutional, period.
Stoping people who do not appear to be committing a crime, without a warrant, it's wrong regardless of how many law makers you pay off, or what un-American federal judge you get to says it's cool, the 4th amendment is written quite clearly and in simple terms, so simple even a "fool" like me can understand them, and those road blocks are unconstitutional, period.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
So since you feel a law passed by the legislature is "wrong" and even if that law is codefied, you think you can make some inane argument using the 4th amendment of the US constitution (which clearly does not apply in this) that something is illegal when it's not?
Please cite case law that "clearly"makes those roadblocks unconstitutional".
He is doing something to change it: he's posting about it on the Internet!
Notice that it only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It goes on to specify the conditions for issuing a warrant, but no where does it specifically say that a warrant is required. And those, my friend, are the big loopholes through which many Mack Truck sized exceptions have been driven.
Mistake Not...
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,251
- Display Name
Display name:
Mistake Not...
Well, I don't think that applies. I'm talking about the stack of manuals required to be on board (the garmin stuff, the paper POH, etc.) The registration and airworthiness are in the holder that apparently is factory... in the back on the rear bulkhead, below the hat rack.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Ok. I guess I misunderstood what you wrote which I quote below and have marked the relevant part.
As the thread was about the operating limitations which is part of a Special Airworthiness Certificate and most of the conversation revolved around these items and you wrote that you keep all of the legally required crap in the back in the canvas bag, I assumed that you were including the AW cert in your comment. Afterall, it is one of the legally required items.
I must ask another question if you will indulge me. Is the W&B one of the items that you have not once looked at in 4 years of ownership?
Mistake Not...
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,251
- Display Name
Display name:
Mistake Not...
Correct.
No one ever sits in the back seats. (Haven't since I bought it). My luggage load hasn't changed. I looked at once, calculated how fat the person next to me could be with full fuel and haven't thought about it since.
If a scenario comes up that isn't what I've pre calculated, then I'll simply refer to the -scans- of the poh (with the W&B data) and see if it's ok. My point here is that requiring paper copies is stupid. I worry every time I leave the airplane at a strange field someone's going to take 'em just because why not. I wish they were home where they were safe.
Vance Breese
Cleared for Takeoff
I have found a lot of useful information in the POH for some aircraft.
I feel responsible to know what is in the POH when I am pilot in command of that aircraft.
I feel responsible to know what is in the POH when I am pilot in command of that aircraft.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Your approach to the W&B seems to be reasonable enough. Can't say that many of us don't do the same.
Still, I think carrying paper copies in case of an iPad/EFB failure and having them within reach is the prudent thing to do.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Case law? Oh where a federal judge said his federal judge friend said how the fed should have less power? Fox in the hen house eh?
Honestly, in the event of an iPad/EFB failure, what information might you critically need while in-flight? In most smaller, simpler airplanes there aren't many, if any, scenarios that can't be dealt with without needing to reference the POH or W&B.
Paulie
Line Up and Wait
My dad was the principal faa maintenance inspector at a major airline. At a small airport one day out flying with my brother he watched a guy obviously over load a Cherokee and try to get six people in it. My dad asked him if he checked his w&b. The guy told my dad to go f himself. Out came the credentials and all of the sudden the guy was very contrite. All my dad was trying to do was to keep that idiot from killing his pax. He had no intention of violating the jerk but gave him a w&b lecture.
Last edited:
Paulie
Line Up and Wait
How about cops checking boaters? Have a problem with that? Most feds are just trying to make sure you are safe.
Paulie
Line Up and Wait
Cops stop boaters all the time here in Florida. Usually checking for life vests and drunk idiots.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
You're comparing keeping the exact same document on a iPad to someone critically overloading a plane.....
Yes I do,
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Unless that cop sees me doing something unsafe/illegal he has zero business bothering me
Civil forfeiture isn't unconstitutional, per se. The Constitution just requires due process.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Actually it is, it's also considers theft by most anyone who doesn't lick boots.
Or do you actually think the government will regulate it self, like how the police investigate themselves.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
The sad thing is the 1990 SCOTUS decision vis a vis DUI checkpoints was nearly laughable. They basically said it was a violation fo the 4th amendment, but because it provided a social benefit its as OK. I kid you not.
That said, the SCOTUS made it the law of the land and that's what it is. What our contrarian doesn't realize is that our legal system works on precedent. Its precedent that says what the Constitution means, whatever you think it should mean. In my experience the things people say are unconstitutional are just the ones they don't like. Those saying income tax is unconstitutional are particularly funny.
But back to the topic at hand, I can't blame the FAA for checking on airshow performers. Don't want them doing that for attendees, though. I've been flying since 2001 and I've never been ramp checked. I guess I'm as popular with FAA apparatchiks as I am with everyone else.
That said, the SCOTUS made it the law of the land and that's what it is. What our contrarian doesn't realize is that our legal system works on precedent. Its precedent that says what the Constitution means, whatever you think it should mean. In my experience the things people say are unconstitutional are just the ones they don't like. Those saying income tax is unconstitutional are particularly funny.
But back to the topic at hand, I can't blame the FAA for checking on airshow performers. Don't want them doing that for attendees, though. I've been flying since 2001 and I've never been ramp checked. I guess I'm as popular with FAA apparatchiks as I am with everyone else.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Right!
And you wonder why asking about jury nullification will get you out of jury duty with the swiftness lol
There are very, very few for whom that is not the case. When someone talks about a process, their view is typically driven by the result they see from the process. My favorite is the intellectually dishonest "original intent" philosophy.
But that's nothing new. Perhaps I recall it vividly because it happened in a school setting. A small group of women were able to take advantage of the rules and some block voting to move into several positions of power within student government. You should hear the hew and cry from men who insisted it wasn't about women being successful but about how they unfairly used "the process." That was more than 40 years ago.
And the Supreme Court has a very odd idea of what constitutes due process in the case of property forfeiture.
You'd best read the Fifth Amendment.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
paflyer
Final Approach
Don't get me started.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sigh. And then there's the issue of "entrapment" by law enforcement in "sting" operations. They may lie to you with impunity, but if you take the bait, the courts have held that you can be found guilty because taking the bait shows that you were "predisposed" to commit the crime. So LE can lie to you, but if you lie to them it is a crime.
As for the FAA, generally it's held that flying is a privilege and may be regulated differently than rights. Recall that the FAA was created in an era where "the public interest" was held to be more important than individual interests. So the agency was given the ability to create rules and enforce rules through "inspections" and adminstrative process. It's a condition of your license that you will comply. If you don't, you can lose the license, and if you operate without a license you violate Federal law. That can be prosecuted.
There are folks that think this is the right way to run things (see "second amendment debate"), while others think it impinges on freedom. Good luck winning an argument between the two.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Yeah, I know what you mean. Me, I tend to kowtow to the Gods of practicality. In the system we have the FAA can claim to be safeguarding the public good, and for the most part leaves us alone so long as we don't prang anything or anyone. I'm pretty good with that.