FAA doing ramp checks at SnF

[DavidWhite]

That's not the result of a "ramp check" (technically, a "Part 91 Ramp Inspection", discussed above). Those are Aircraft Condition Notices that result from an FAA Inspector seeing something about the airplane which appears to be unairworthy/compromise safety. And since "safety" is the middle name of the people doing that, no, they don't have anything better to do with their time than try to keep things safe. The notice merely says they saw something that looked unsafe or illegal, that the issue should be checked and (if necessary) corrected before further flight, and to close the loop, that the FSDO be notified of the resolution.

Common sense = safety.

The FAAs job is to impart unnecessary government bureaucracy on the people who fly airplanes. The only directly safety related arm the FAA has is ATC. Ramp-checking 80 year old guys with no medical and grounding them is not in the interest of safety. 12" N numbers are no safer than 3" N numbers. It just makes it easier to get busted.

 

[DavidWhite]

S/he doesn't, and s/he doesn't have to. All the Inspector need do before hanging an ACN is suspect that the aircraft is either unsafe or illegal as is, and if an Ops Inspector, consult with an Airworthiness Inspector for advice on those points. Then it's on the pilot to either determine that the aircraft is in fact not deficient, or if it is, correct the deficiency before further flight (with the assistance of a licensed mechanic, if appropriate). Either way, upon doing so, the pilot so advises the FSDO of the resolution by filling out appropriately and returning the detachable copy of the ACN to the FSDO. Only if the pilot fails to do that will the Inspector proceed with further action starting with an investigation to determine that there is in fact a violation before doing anything else. See the form below for details.

Unsafe/=illegal.

 

[DavidWhite]

I never ***** when they don't do their job. Carnage is OK by me, even the tiny percentage that could be thwarted by the FAA doing their job.

Yup. I would prefer they sat on their asses, smoked pot, and ate ho-hos all day. Maybe then you wouldn't be able to crack a walnut in most inspectors ass cheeks.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Common sense = safety.

The FAAs job is to impart unnecessary government bureaucracy on the people who fly airplanes. The only directly safety related arm the FAA has is ATC. Ramp-checking 80 year old guys with no medical and grounding them is not in the interest of safety. 12" N numbers are no safer than 3" N numbers. It just makes it easier to get busted.

I'll disagree with you David. Most regulations are written in blood. Trying to promote aviation safety is an uphill battle and often countered by "The FAA is just harassing people for no reason".

Pilots cry when they are ramp checked and claim "ramp checks are a waste of time!"

However ramp checks do turn up problems. While most of the pilots are conscientious and try to do everything right, you will always have those who feel the rules don't apply to them.

I have ramped pilots who didn't have a medical, flying IFR without being current, leaving a rotor engaged on a helicopter with the engine running and leaving the aircraft, giving rides without proper ratings, etc, etc.

We can argue the 3" versus 12" registration rule, but the point is this: It's a regulation, simple comply and there is no issue. Trying to "creatively circumvent" the regulation only leads to problems.

Honestly the US aviation system is one of the best in the world and the FAA is one of the easiest aviation agencies to deal with on a daily basis. Look at it this way, in your personal experience what problems have you had with the FAA?

It's easy to get worked up over these internet "stories" of FAA abuse, but in reality there is more to the story.

 

[poadeleted20]

Unsafe/=illegal.

If you read that form carefully, you'll see that it does not suggest otherwise. It allows the inspector to note whether the irregularity is unsafe or illegal or both. Further, you'll see that it even tells the pilot how to contact the Inspector involved to obtain a Special Flight ("ferry") permit if such would be necessary to fly the plane home.

 

[DavidWhite]

I'll disagree with you David. Most regulations are written in blood. Trying to promote aviation safety is an uphill battle and often countered by "The FAA is just harassing people for no reason".

Pilots cry when they are ramp checked and claim "ramp checks are a waste of time!"

However ramp checks do turn up problems. While most of the pilots are conscientious and try to do everything right, you will always have those who feel the rules don't apply to them.

I have ramped pilots who didn't have a medical, flying IFR without being current, leaving a rotor engaged on a helicopter with the engine running and leaving the aircraft, giving rides without proper ratings, etc, etc.

We can argue the 3" versus 12" registration rule, but the point is this: It's a regulation, simple comply and there is no issue. Trying to "creatively circumvent" the regulation only leads to problems.

Honestly the US aviation system is one of the best in the world and the FAA is one of the easiest aviation agencies to deal with on a daily basis. Look at it this way, in your personal experience what problems have you had with the FAA?

It's easy to get worked up over these internet "stories" of FAA abuse, but in reality there is more to the story.

I'm suprised that the person in your story was not turned in by another pilot. We tend to self-regulate very well, and while I do not care for some FAA practices I would not hesitate to make a phone call to the local FSDO and report that guy. I'm currently going through ground school for a 135 operator in the state of Alaska. There are plenty of stories of FAA inspectors whipping out scales and weighing the pax/bags getting into the planes and then busting people for it. The airplane can't tell a 5% difference in gross weight, provided it is properly loaded (not too fore or aft)

 

[RotorAndWing]

I'm suprised that the person in your story was not turned in by another pilot. We tend to self-regulate very well, and while I do not care for some FAA practices I would not hesitate to make a phone call to the local FSDO and report that guy. I'm currently going through ground school for a 135 operator in the state of Alaska. There are plenty of stories of FAA inspectors whipping out scales and weighing the pax/bags getting into the planes and then busting people for it. The airplane can't tell a 5% difference in gross weight, provided it is properly loaded (not too fore or aft)

Just remember, those are "stories" which usually for the most part don't resemble the actual event that took place. People love a good "story" over the bland and boring truth.

 

[Luvrv8]

We have a FAA guy around KCMA and Santa Monica who loves to catch the wrong size N number. He has had many pilots change them. I am starting to wonder if the FAA wants field inspectors to look for this. Again this is just my thought.

 

[RotorAndWing]

We have a FAA guy around KCMA and Santa Monica who loves to catch the wrong size N number. He has had many pilots change them. I am starting to wonder if the FAA wants field inspectors to look for this. Again this is just my thought.

The biggest problem I encountered involving registration numbers was the "creative" paint jobs and fonts that some were trying to use. The regulations are actually fairly clear on this, but as always you'll have a few that will try to get around it.

 

[DaleB]

While I'm not a fan of nit-picking, if I had obviously non-compliant numbers on my plane (way too small, obscured, etc) I would not be surprised to find an FAA "fix-it" tag on my plane... and if I showed up at SnF I'd expect an FAA guy to see it.

 

[warthog1984]

I'll disagree with you David. Most regulations are written in blood. Trying to promote aviation safety is an uphill battle and often countered by "The FAA is just harassing people for no reason".


Honestly the US aviation system is one of the best in the world and the FAA is one of the easiest aviation agencies to deal with on a daily basis. Look at it this way, in your personal experience what problems have you had with the FAA?

Speaking as someone who does inspections and writes rules for the Gov, I can't agree with this assessment of the FAA.

I've interacted with some who were very conscientious, supportive, and helpful- they wouldn't let you get away with any shenanigans, but they weren't looking to screw over people either. I've also interacted with some who were lying jerks playing tin god. Guess which ones made themselves most "felt" and got rewarded?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Speaking as someone who does inspections and writes rules for the Gov, I can't agree with this assessment of the FAA.

I've interacted with some who were very conscientious, supportive, and helpful- they wouldn't let you get away with any shenanigans, but they weren't looking to screw over people either. I've also interacted with some who were lying jerks playing tin god. Guess which ones made themselves most "felt" and got rewarded?

Every government agency has this problem, the FAA is not unique. As with any bureaucracy you will always have this element. On the internet it's always the few that get talked about and rarely the many that try to do a good job.

 

[N801BH]

The biggest problem I encountered involving registration numbers was the "creative" paint jobs and fonts that some were trying to use. The regulations are actually fairly clear on this, but as always you'll have a few that will try to get around it.

I "suggested" it might involve a paint job that hides the N numbers.. Post #20 on the Vans site seems to spell that out....

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=111541&page=2

R&W pretty much explained that the presentation of N numbers is clear and detailed in the FAA regs.... IMHO

 

[mikea]

Easy. The Feds got an anonymous phone tip from an expert pilot, paratrooper, airline pilot/executive, everything from Florida.

 

[Dav8or]

I'm suprised that the person in your story was not turned in by another pilot. We tend to self-regulate very well, and while I do not care for some FAA practices I would not hesitate to make a phone call to the local FSDO and report that guy.

You're joking, right? It has to be a joke. The GA community is terrible at self regulation and enforcement. It is widely held that if you snitch on a fellow pilot, you are thrown out of the gang. Most upon witnessing an illegal aerobatic maneuver at the airport, most fellow pilots would far rather buy the offending pilot a beer than turn him in to the FSDO. Your statement is pretty funny, but a little late for April fool's.

 

[Dav8or]

While I'm not a fan of nit-picking, if I had obviously non-compliant numbers on my plane (way too small, obscured, etc) I would not be surprised to find an FAA "fix-it" tag on my plane... and if I showed up at SnF I'd expect an FAA guy to see it.

Exactly! I drive a sports car and in the state of California you are required to display license plate on both the front and the rear of the car. My car looks ridiculous with the front plate on, so I have never had it there. I have now gone 9 years without it and I've never been pulled over. However, if they do, I'm not going to go all whiny, complainey about it. I'll take my ticket and take care of it.

I know the rules and very likely the guys that are the subject of this thread probably do too. They got busted. Suck it up.

 

[Dav8or]

I'm confused by the 180kt rule. I have never heard that one before. I don't think I have ever seen a WWII warbird with 12" numbers. Now I know a P-51 Mustang can go faster than 180kts! Do the exhibition experimental planes have different rules, or are these guys just taking their chances too?

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm confused by the 180kt rule. I have never heard that one before. I don't think I have ever seen a WWII warbird with 12" numbers. Now I know a P-51 Mustang can go faster than 180kts! Do the exhibition experimental planes have different rules, or are these guys just taking their chances too?

The regulation involved is 14 CFR 45.29, quoted below in its entirety:

Sec. 45.29

Size of marks.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, each operator of an aircraft shall display marks on the aircraft meeting the size requirements of this section.
(b) Height. Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this part, the nationality and registration marks must be of equal height and on--
(1) Fixed-wing aircraft, must be at least 12 inches high, except that:
(i) An aircraft displaying marks at least 2 inches high before November 1, 1981 and an aircraft manufactured after November 2, 1981, but before January 1, 1983, may display those marks until the aircraft is repainted or the marks are repainted, restored, or changed;
(ii) Marks at least 3 inches high may be displayed on a glider;
(iii) Marks at least 3 inches high may be displayed on an aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate under §21.191 (d), §21.191 (g), or §21.191 (i) of this chapter to operate as an exhibition aircraft, an amateur-built aircraft, or a light-sport aircraft when the maximum cruising speed of the aircraft does not exceed 180 knots CAS; and
(iv) Marks may be displayed on an exhibition, antique, or other aircraft in accordance with Sec. 45.22.
(2) Airships, spherical balloons, nonspherical balloons, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft must be at least 3 inches high; and
(3) Rotorcraft, must be at least 12 inches high, except that rotorcraft displaying before April 18, 1983, marks required by Sec. 45.29(b)(3) in effect on April 17, 1983, and rotorcraft manufactured on or after April 18, 1983, but before December 31, 1983, may display those marks until the
aircraft is repainted or the marks are repainted, restored, or changed.
(c) Width. Characters must be two-thirds as wide as they are high, except the number "1", which must be one-sixth as wide as it is high, and the letters "M" and "W" which may be as wide as they are high.
(d) Thickness. Characters must be formed by solid lines one-sixth as thick as the character is high.
(e) Spacing. The space between each character may not be less than one-fourth of the character width.
(f) If either one of the surfaces authorized for displaying required marks under Sec. 45.25 is large enough for display of marks meeting the size requirements of this section and the other is not, full size marks shall be placed on the larger surface. If neither surface is large enough for full-size marks, marks as large as
practicable shall be displayed on the larger of the two surfaces. If no surface authorized to be marked by Sec. 45.27 is large enough for full-size marks, marks as large as practicable shall be placed on the largest of the authorized surfaces.
However, powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft must display marks at least 3 inches high.
(g) Uniformity. The marks required by this part for fixed-wing aircraft must have the same height, width, thickness, and spacing on both sides of the aircraft.
(h) After March 7, 1988, each operator of an aircraft penetrating an ADIZ or DEWIZ shall display on that aircraft temporary or permanent nationality and registration marks at least 12 inches high.

The sub-180-knot exception to the 12-inch rule which applies to E-AB aircraft like the ones which started this thread is highlighted.

The exemption for a P-51 operated as an exhibition aircraft (not at all the same as the E-AB category for planes like those which started this thread) is noted in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) and in appears in full in 14 CFR 45.22. Note the very strict limits appearing in that section on operations of an exhibition aircraft without 45.29-compliant markings:

(a) When display of aircraft nationality and registration marks in accordance with Secs. 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 would be inconsistent with exhibition of that aircraft, a U.S.-registered aircraft may be operated without displaying those marks anywhere on the aircraft if:
(1) It is operated for the purpose of exhibition, including a motion picture or television production, or an airshow;
(2) Except for practice and test fights necessary for exhibition purposes, it is operated only at the location of the exhibition, between the exhibition locations, and between those locations and the base of operations of the aircraft; and
(3) For each flight in the United States:
(i) It is operated with the prior approval of the Flight Standards District Office, in the case of a flight within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for the takeoff airport, or within 4.4 nautical miles of that airport if it is within
Class G airspace; or
(ii) It is operated under a flight plan filed under either Sec. 91.153 or Sec. 91.169 of this chapter describing the marks it displays, in the case of any other flight.

 

[Art VanDelay]

Just one more reason to fly into South Lakeland (X49) and take the shuttle over instead !

 

[DavidWhite]

The regulation involved is 14 CFR 45.29, quoted below in its entirety:
The sub-180-knot exception to the 12-inch rule which applies to E-AB aircraft like the ones which started this thread is highlighted.

The exemption for a P-51 operated as an exhibition aircraft (not at all the same as the E-AB category for planes like those which started this thread) is noted in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) and in appears in full in 14 CFR 45.22. Note the very strict limits appearing in that section on operations of an exhibition aircraft without 45.29-compliant markings:

How many accidents have been directly attributed to small N numbers?

 

[DavidWhite]

If I had a P51, I'd also have a ranch with an airstrip big enough to fly it off of. I could have my own fuel farm and tell the FAA to go pound sand.

 

[poadeleted20]

How many accidents have been directly attributed to small N numbers?

I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't matter. There are many regulations which exist merely for administrative reasons, and the fact that failure to obey them may not have directly contributed to any accidents doesn't change the fact that we are obligated to obey them, and the FAA is obligated to enforce them.

 

[poadeleted20]

If I had a P51, I'd also have a ranch with an airstrip big enough to fly it off of. I could have my own fuel farm and tell the FAA to go pound sand.

...at least until an FAA Inspector accompanied by a couple of US Marshals with badges, guns, handcuffs, and a warrant came to put an end to your flying.

 

[DavidWhite]

...at least until an FAA Inspector accompanied by a couple of US Marshals with badges, guns, handcuffs, and a warrant came to put an end to your flying.

Yeah they'd totally send out the Marshall's to apprehend someone who is flying by himself without a license. Or a medical....or god forbid, without 12" N numbers. Give me a ****ing break.

 

[DavidWhite]

I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't matter. There are many regulations which exist merely for administrative reasons, and the fact that failure to obey them may not have directly contributed to any accidents doesn't change the fact that we are obligated to obey them, and the FAA is obligated to enforce them.

People flew just fine before the FAA, and people will fly equally fine once they are gone. It's a miracle the Wright brothers safely completed their flight without an overbearing government bureaucracy breathing down their neck.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah they'd totally send out the Marshall's to apprehend someone who is flying by himself without a license.

I know of two cases where it happened, and the pilot ended up in jail.

For years.

And Marshall's is a clothing store -- there's only one "L" in US Marshal. You can see for yourself when the day comes that one flashes his/her badge at you.

 

[poadeleted20]

People flew just fine before the FAA, and people will fly equally fine once they are gone.

Since the carnage of wrecked planes and dead people has gone down significantly since 1958, you are denying reality, and that leads me to believe you are only trolling here.

 

[DavidWhite]

I know of two cases where it happened, and the pilot ended up in jail.

For years.

And Marshall's is a clothing store -- there's only one "L" in US Marshal. You can see for yourself when the day comes that one flashes his/her badge at you.

Lol - I hope I never have the misfortune of meeting you in person.

 

[N801BH]

I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't matter. There are many regulations which exist merely for administrative reasons, and the fact that failure to obey them may not have directly contributed to any accidents doesn't change the fact that we are obligated to obey them, and the FAA is obligated to enforce them.

A perfect quote to re-enforce the fact the guvmivt makes assinine rules to justify their existence.......

I am guessing ol Ron works for the guv.........

 

[SCCutler]

Funny...

...I met Ron at Gaston's and (as it works out) he's pretty good company. Knows a lot of valuable stuff, generous in sharing it, doesn't blow smoke up your backside.

Different strokes.

 

[acrophile]

And that's a safety issue how??

Because without adequately-visible N-numbers, it's harder to enforce some safety regulations. And with less enforcement, there tends to be less compliance, which compromises safety.

 

[DavidWhite]

Since the carnage of wrecked planes and dead people has gone down significantly since 1958, you are denying reality, and that leads me to believe you are only trolling here.

You need to control your variables, other things (beside the FAA) have changed since then, believe it or not.

 

[N801BH]

Funny...

...I met Ron at Gaston's and (as it works out) he's pretty good company. Knows a lot of valuable stuff, generous in sharing it, doesn't blow smoke up your backside.

Different strokes.

Oh.... Don't get me wrong.... Ron knows his stuff inside and out.... It is probably that living and working inside the "beltway" has skewed his outlook on common sense and reality.....

 

[DavidWhite]

Oh.... Don't get me wrong.... Ron knows his stuff inside and out.... It is probably that living and working inside the "beltway" has skewed his outlook on common sense and reality.....

Precisely....the FAA does done some great things for aviation safety....especially the various seminars they do...has probably saved numerous lives. The FAA though, at it's heart, is not a safety organization. They are a bureaucracy. Pilots will always do dumb stuff to get themselves killed, and sometimes people won't follow the rules. I do everything I can to be as safe and legal of a pilot as I can, but the bureaucracy just ****es me off (like 12" N numbers) there's nothing safety related about that, other than to make it easier to bust people. There are great folks at the FAA, and I've had the pleasure to meet some of them. There are also some real ********s, but they do nothing to cull the herd of ********s. They just don't realize that you can't legislate away stupidity, and that's what causes 95% of crashes.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Since the carnage of wrecked planes and dead people has gone down significantly since 1958, you are denying reality, and that leads me to believe you are only trolling here.

The accident rate has steadily declined because the number of regulations has steadily increased?

Would this also be the case with the steady decline in the accident rate for automobiles?

The cost of electronics has exponentially declined over the same period - yet it seems to be mostly unregulated. Could it be, then, that regulation bends what would otherwise be exponential improvements so they become merely linear ones?

Me, I happen to think it is forum fodder, not proper logic, that tries to ascribe any sort of simple link between government regulation and safety.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Because without adequately-visible N-numbers, it's harder to enforce some safety regulations. And with less enforcement, there tends to be less compliance, which compromises safety.

Ya got trouble folks, right here in River City!
Friends, a small N-number is the devil's playground!

 

[N801BH]

Ya got trouble folks, right here in River City!
Friends, a small N-number is the devil's playground!

Thank god I have 12" numbers on my death trap........

 

[RotorAndWing]

Me, I happen to think it is forum fodder, not proper logic, that tries to ascribe any sort of simple link between government regulation and safety.

Aviation safety has evolved because we have studied accidents, have a better understanding of things such as human factors and aircraft technology has also evolved.

A good amount of the regulations are there because of some event which prompted it or because of safety related issues. Conversely, some regulations are simply there because a bureaucrat sitting in a back office dreamed it up and pushed it up the channels.

According to the Van's site, the SnF "FAA raid" was in response to some painted registration that didn't meet the regulations and stuck out as very noticeable. No groundings, no violations, a non event really.

 

[poadeleted21]

Ya got trouble folks, right here in River City!
Friends, a small N-number is the devil's playground!

 

[RotorAndWing]

If I had a P51, I'd also have a ranch with an airstrip big enough to fly it off of. I could have my own fuel farm and tell the FAA to go pound sand.

...at least until an FAA Inspector accompanied by a couple of US Marshals with badges, guns, handcuffs, and a warrant came to put an end to your flying.

Yeah they'd totally send out the Marshall's to apprehend someone who is flying by himself without a license. Or a medical....or god forbid, without 12" N numbers. Give me a ****ing break.

Reality time.

You can have your own strip, your own fuel farm and your own airplane, licensed or not. You can paint whatever you want on said airplane. You can do whatever you want with this airplane.

If this is your goal, then don't be stupid and fly around where you are noticed, say such as a national fly-in and don't advertise yourself.

As far as the FAA showing up with the USMS? Kinda far fetched unless they have some solid evidence of your activities and you've already been violated or there is an immediate safety concern (life endangerment).