FAA doing ramp checks at SnF

Ok, so this raises a question. Let's say my plane qualifies for 3" numbers and I faithfully paint them in contrasting color in block print as req. then, I decide to start painting large numbers and letters on the plane with the exception of the specific "N12345" format. Legal? Of course there are other registration codes like "GB" for England I think, but is there anything to stop an owner from painting random numbers across the plane so long as they aren't registration numbers? Hmmmmmm
 
docmirror said:
Ok, so this raises a question. Let's say my plane qualifies for 3" numbers and I faithfully paint them in contrasting color in block print as req. then, I decide to start painting large numbers and letters on the plane with the exception of the specific "N12345" format. Legal? Of course there are other registration codes like "GB" for England I think, but is there anything to stop an owner from painting random numbers across the plane so long as they aren't registration numbers? Hmmmmmm
Click to expand...

Nope. Paint away!
 
docmirror said:
Ok, so this raises a question. Let's say my plane qualifies for 3" numbers and I faithfully paint them in contrasting color in block print as req. then, I decide to start painting large numbers and letters on the plane with the exception of the specific "N12345" format. Legal? Of course there are other registration codes like "GB" for England I think, but is there anything to stop an owner from painting random numbers across the plane so long as they aren't registration numbers? Hmmmmmm
Click to expand...
It's routinely done with warbirds and warbird-like paint jobs.
 
N801BH said:
Thank god I have 12" numbers on my death trap...:yes:...;)..
Click to expand...

Same here. Nice big, legible, contrasting black letters/numbers per FAR. Nothing to hide and not worried about winnig awards.
 
Seems like it would be a lot easier to just paint the freaking numbers and be done with it. Is it THAT big of a deal?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
Warbirds like the P-51 can have small numbers because they are antiques. Most warbirds operate in the Limited or Experimental categories. The later model foreign aircraft like the L-39 are experimental exhibition. The EAB Super Cub I built legally has 2" numbers as it is done as a military L-21 replica. I also don't need to display the 3" experimental placard as I have a NX prefix on the N number. In all I find the FAA is pretty tolerant of non standard fonts. It is when they start blending in to the paint job with little or no contrast that they get upset and rightly so. And just like almost any of the rules it is up to the interpretation of the FAA inspector. Don
 
RotorAndWing said:
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).
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I do know of two cases in the last year (one in Oklahoma and one in Tennessee) in which a pilot was arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed for flying without a license, although only after multiple actions by the FAA failed to deter further violations of the law. My point was merely that DavidWhite's suggestion to keep your plane on private property is not a guarantee of avoiding the consequences of gross violations of the FAR's.
 
Dav8or said:
Nice thing about the 12" numbers is you can leave the country if you want to.
Click to expand...
If you have 3-inch numbers and want to visit the Bahamas, you can always tape on 12-inch numbers with blue painter's tape or the like in less than five minutes. As long as they match the small painted numbers, nobody's going to get excited.
 
Ron Levy said:
I didn't say that, so please don't suggest I did.
Click to expand...

You did not say that. However, there seemed to be an implication of some causal link between the amount of regulation and the accident rates, else why mention the two together at all?

As far as I can tell, all forms of transportation have seen a decline in fatal accident rates over the time periods measured in the reports and research papers I've browsed (typically covering the last 50 years). It seems unlikely for example, that increased regulation or policing was the cause for the large decline in pleasure boating accident rates over the period shown in the graph. (Graph below is from http://cgmarinesafety.blogspot.com/2011/06/recreational-boating-accident.html)

Better technology, ergonomics, and application of social psychology to encourage safer operation all seem to me to be likelier causes of such a decline than greater maritime regulation or policing.

The FAA might see better results by employing its finite resources on loosening up its regulatory grip that generates cynicism that slows application of psychological efforts and also inhibits more prompt deployment of better technology and ergonomics.
6.1%2B_Tomcz%2BFig%2B1_1960-2010%2BFATALITY%2BRATE%2B.tif
 
Jim Logajan said:
You did not say that.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
However, there seemed to be an implication of some causal link between the amount of regulation and the accident rates,
Click to expand...
I intended no such implication, and I don't think my words actually implied that, either, since the FAA does far more than make regulations.
...else why mention the two together at all?
Click to expand...
I didn't do that, either. I merely pointed out the complete inaccuracy of DavidWhite's statement "People flew just fine before the FAA", which is belied by the dramatic decline in accidents since the FAA was established in 1958. There are many factors involved in that decline, and since regulation is not the only thing the FAA has done, I would not consider saying that it (or any other single FAA activity) is the reason for the decline. In fact, I suspect that there are synergies between all the things the FAA does which produce a greater improvement in safety than the sum of the increments achievable by any single activity. While technology and other factors beyond the scope of the FAA's operations are certainly contributing factors to that improvement in safety (although the FAA pioneered many of those technologies), I think it is disingenuous to say, as DavidWhite did, that if the FAA disappeared, we would not see that accident rate jump dramatically and quickly.
 
Last edited:
I think we can all agree that numerous factors, regulations among them, have improved aviation safety over the last several decades. More training is never a bad thing whether or not its mandatory. Weather forecasting has made tremendous leaps in accuracy, as has weather depiction in the cockpit. Navigation has also become straightforward, and with GPS technology in everything down to the leastest cell phone it takes a special kind of stupid to get lost.

It is a crowning irony that as its demise approaches general aviation has entered a truly golden age.
 
Neither one would have passed my inspection.
 
Yeah, pretty blatant. If I were an FAA guy it would be very hard to pass up either one of those without saying something. I mean, come on... this is like lighting up your tires in the donut shop parking lot. You know you're going to get ticketed.
 
RV10flyer said:
See on on pg 4, post 38.
Click to expand...
Those may be 12 inches tall, but they sure aren't in a color that contrasts with the background.
(b) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may place on any aircraft a design, mark, or symbol that modifies or confuses the nationality and registration marks.
(c) Aircraft nationality and registration marks must--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, be painted on the aircraft or affixed by any other means insuring a similar degree of permanence;
(2) Have no ornamentation;
(3) Contrast in color with the background; and
(4) Be legible.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Those may be 12 inches tall, but they sure aren't in a color that contrasts with the background.
Click to expand...

Geez.... I hate agreeing with Ron.... But.. he is right.. And, The other plane had bogus fonts for the letters. IMHO...
 
RV10flyer said:
See on on pg 4, post 38.
Click to expand...

Funny thing about this plane... If only he had done his N number like he did his race number, he'd be just fine now.:rolleyes: At least it's a reasonably easy fix. He just has to color inside the lines with the orange trim color.

N42SX.jpg
 
It's obviously an "eye of the beholder" thing but I'm trying to think of why he thought the way the numbers are currently painted was esthetically pleasing. :confused:
 
If that were viewed from much further away it would be invisible. Compare the race number to the n number in this smaller view (simulating distance). uploadfromtaptalk1396973089707.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top