Ramp checked, my first time

DaleB

DaleB

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
6,890
Location
Omaha, NE
Display Name
Display name:
DaleB
I'm starting a separate thread for this...

This morning I put an hour on the Hobbs, just flying the pattern. I'll spare the gory details on that. Suffice to say I'm glad I remembered to toss my logbook in the flight bag before I left the house.

So I get back to the ramp for gas, and see a guy coming out toward the plane... sure enough, my first ramp check. He introduces himself. I ask him if you need any kind of license or anything to fly one of these, it took me a couple of tries to figure out all the little dials and stuff. :) He said no, I didn't HAVE to have a license, it would just increase his paperwork load for the day. Anyway, the ramp check was pretty uneventful. He asked if I'd done a W&B before the flight, I said yes, I have a spreadsheet I use (and have checked it against the POH) and with either me or me and my instructor we're well within the envelope. He asked if it was my airplane, I said no, it's a club plane. So how do I know if the inspection is good? Well, all the logs are right here... Oops. Not that I don't want anyone to see the logs, but I do have to get to work eventually. So he looked at the airframe log, did a walk around, said the front tire was unairworthy due to cracks in the tread area. Thanks, have a nice day, I put the plane away and emailed the club maintenance guy. He tells me the tire will be replaced tomorrow. I asked him this:

What I don't know, though, is whether the FSDO guy saying the tire is un-airworthy means that legally the plane can't be flown without a ferry permit or something. In other words... after he told me that, would I have been OK to take off again, had I not been headed for the hangar anyway?

If I'd planned on flying it again, I'd have asked... but it didn't occur to me at the time
 
What about the fact that you just flew the plane, was it unairworthy during that flight?

Did this guy show you ID or give you paperwork to prove he was legit?
 
As a side note... if anyone remembers my earlier thread, the FAA guy examined my logbook endorsements closely, including the ones that were on adhesive stickers covering up the ones the newbie CFI had voided when I switched instructors. There's a handwritten and signed notation why the stickers are there. I thought about explaining that whole thing, but decided to keep my mouth shut unless he asked. He didn't ask, so I guess those are acceptable.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
What about the fact that you just flew the plane, was it unairworthy during that flight?
Click to expand...
Matter of opinion. I was PIC, I did the preflight, I considered it airworthy.
kimberlyanne546 said:
Did this guy show you ID or give you paperwork to prove he was legit?
Click to expand...
Yep, otherwise I'd have politely declined to say much to him, and would absolutely not have let him touch my logbook or the plane's. He had an FAA ID card and a badge.
 
DaleB said:
As a side note... if anyone remembers my earlier thread, the FAA guy examined my logbook endorsements closely, including the ones that were on adhesive stickers covering up the ones the newbie CFI had voided when I switched instructors. There's a handwritten and signed notation why the stickers are there. I thought about explaining that whole thing, but decided to keep my mouth shut unless he asked. He didn't ask, so I guess those are acceptable.
Click to expand...

Well at least that answered some of your questions, having an official look it over and not question it. That is a relief.
 
Who was the inspector?
 
I have to say that the fact that the guy who just had a logbook rewrite snafu having to turn his logbook over to someone else.... you must have been a little apprehensive to say the least.
 
> I'm glad I remembered to toss my logbook in the flight bag before I left the house.

Why? You are not required to carry your logbook. Nor the airframe, engine or prop logs.

> In other words... after he told me that, would I have been OK to take off
> again, had I not been headed for the hangar anyway?

Not okay. Unless you've got a reference in the AFM or tire mfgrs specs that
details precisely what cracks are (not?) allowed for airworthiness.

 
Last edited:
rainsux said:
> I'm glad I remembered to toss my logbook in the flight bag before I left the house.

Why? You are not required to carry your logbook. Nor the airframe, engine or prop logs.
Click to expand...

Doesn't a student pilot who is solo'ing have a solo sign off in the log book? Or do the ones on the medical count enough? Not sure why, but when I was a student I took my log book on every flight (solo). Now, as a pilot, others have told me NOT to have it on the plane, since I don't have to.
 
rainsux said:
Why? You are not required to carry your logbook. Nor the airframe, engine or prop logs.
Click to expand...
I think I am. Student pilot. :) My logbook normally lives in my flight bag but I had it out last night. I made a mental note not to forget to put it back before I left this morning... but then, I also made a mental not to take the boxes I had to drop at the post office, and they got left. But the logbook is kind of a checklist item for me.
ChrisK said:
I have to say that the fact that the guy who just had a logbook rewrite snafu having to turn his logbook over to someone else.... you must have been a little apprehensive to say the least.
Click to expand...
Well... my current CFI and an FAA inspector are probably the ONLY people I'd ever hand them over to now.
 
DaleB said:
I think I am. Student pilot. :) My logbook normally lives in my flight bag but I had it out last night. I made a mental note not to forget to put it back before I left this morning... but then, I also made a mental not to take the boxes I had to drop at the post office, and they got left. But the logbook is kind of a checklist item for me.

Well... my current CFI and an FAA inspector are probably the ONLY people I'd ever hand them over to now.
Click to expand...

And your DPE I hope!
 
DaleB said:
So he looked at the airframe log, did a walk around, said the front tire was unairworthy due to cracks in the tread area. Thanks, have a nice day, I put the plane away and emailed the club maintenance guy. He tells me the tire will be replaced tomorrow. I asked him this:

What I don't know, though, is whether the FSDO guy saying the tire is un-airworthy means that legally the plane can't be flown without a ferry permit or something. In other words... after he told me that, would I have been OK to take off again, had I not been headed for the hangar anyway?

If I'd planned on flying it again, I'd have asked... but it didn't occur to me at the time
Click to expand...

Did he tag the plane with an Aircraft Condition Notice (FAA Form 8620-1)? If not, the plane is fine to fly. And technically it appears he cannot ground it in any case; see these links:

http://avstop.com/stories/survive.htm
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=B31EC5608DF9D7798525734F00766694
 
No, he didn't tag it. In fact he didn't say anything other than that the front tire in its current state was considered "un-airworthy" according to the manufacturer's criteria, and needed to be replaced.
 
DaleB said:
Nope. After reading about all the people who have flown for years without proper ratings or even a license, I figure I'll just fake it and never take the checkride.
:rofl:

OK, so maybe the DPE will get to see it too. And my wife. Maybe my mom too. But I pretty much trust them, for the most part.
Click to expand...

I had a six year old girl sit in my lap at a POA fly-in asking to "read my book". She looked at all the pages, one by one, not sure she could "read" them - then she took a pencil and signed her first and last name on some random page towards the end.

I still have that page. It is the cutest thing ever.
 
Whether the Inspector issued an ACN or not, after he spoke to you, you knew that the aircraft was unairworthy, and had you flown it again before the problem was fixed, you could have been written up for a deliberate violation of 91.7(a) -- and that's a much bigger issue than discovering after flight that the tire was no longer airworthy.

You might have had an A&P examine the tire and determine that it was not unairworthy, in which case you'd have a good argument of a trained, certified mechanic's opinion of an airworthiness issue versus that of an Operations (rather than Airworthiness) Inspector, but it's probably not a fight in which I'd want to participate.
 
Ron Levy said:
Whether the Inspector issued an ACN or not, after he spoke to you, you knew that the aircraft was unairworthy, and had you flown it again before the problem was fixed, you could have been written up for a deliberate violation of 91.7(a) -- and that's a much bigger issue than discovering after flight that the tire was no longer airworthy.

You might have had an A&P examine the tire and determine that it was not unairworthy, in which case you'd have a good argument of a trained, certified mechanic's opinion of an airworthiness issue versus that of an Operations (rather than Airworthiness) Inspector, but it's probably not a fight in which I'd want to participate.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not arguing that point. I'm asking because I want to know.

91.7(a) says it's a big no-no to fly when the plane is not airworthy, in addition of course to such a thing being incredibly stupid. But that's immediately followed by 91.7(b), which says that as PIC it's my call whether the airplane is airworthy or not.

The reason I wonder is this... Engine manufacturers also specify TBO, both in operating hours and years regardless of tach time. But for Part 91 operations, you're free to ignore that and overhaul when you feel it's needed. I just wonder if tires are the same. So assume that the tire does show very slight weather cracking, but in my opinion it's not critical enough to need immediate replacement. My call, or not my call?
 
Ron Levy said:
Whether the Inspector issued an ACN or not, after he spoke to you, you knew that the aircraft was unairworthy, and had you flown it again before the problem was fixed, you could have been written up for a deliberate violation of 91.7(a) -- and that's a much bigger issue than discovering after flight that the tire was no longer airworthy.

You might have had an A&P examine the tire and determine that it was not unairworthy, in which case you'd have a good argument of a trained, certified mechanic's opinion of an airworthiness issue versus that of an Operations (rather than Airworthiness) Inspector, but it's probably not a fight in which I'd want to participate.
Click to expand...

In order for that scenario to happen, the inspector must also be indicted (either a self-indict or by another inspector hanging in the shadows) since the FAA appears to require an ACN to be issued right then and there. As you may or may not realize, verbal exchanges normally leave no record and can later be disputed. E.g. "I heard him say he thought the tire cracks might make it unairworthy, but I would have expected an ACN if he was certain, but he didn't write one. So I examined the tire and in my opinion as PIC concluded it was airworthy."

No inspector has any business playing those sorts of ambiguous "gotcha!" games. The point I'd like to make is that the inspector wasn't doing any of the parties involved any favors in his ambiguous actions.
 
Jim Logajan said:
No inspector has any business playing those sorts of ambiguous "gotcha!" games. The point I'd like to make is that the inspector wasn't doing any of the parties involved any favors in his ambiguous actions.
Click to expand...
I don't know that he was being ambiguous, it's probably more that I have zero experience with this kind of thing and may not have really understood. After the fact I started to wonder whether he was saying "The manufacturer says a tire like that in un-airworthy, so you should replace it", or "This tire is bad, ground the plane until it's replaced". It seemed to me more like the former. At no time did he say specifically that the plane was not flyable. I'm just asking because I'd hate to be badly wrong (now or at some time in the future) for assuming what he meant.

Of course, next time I'll bloody well ask specifically.
 
DaleB said:
No, he didn't tag it. In fact he didn't say anything other than that the front tire in its current state was considered "un-airworthy" according to the manufacturer's criteria, and needed to be replaced.
Click to expand...

It sounds like he was just advising you that it needed replacement, a courtesy. Since he didn't take it any further I wouldn't worry about it.
 
RotorAndWing said:
It sounds like he was just advising you that it needed replacement, a courtesy. Since he didn't take it any further I wouldn't worry about it.
Click to expand...
That's what it sounded like to me.

I've got his card. Tomorrow I'm going to call him and ask him... get it straight from the source, just tell him I want to make sure I understand just in case I run into a similar situation again some day.
 
DaleB said:
I'm certainly not arguing that point. I'm asking because I want to know.

91.7(a) says it's a big no-no to fly when the plane is not airworthy, in addition of course to such a thing being incredibly stupid. But that's immediately followed by 91.7(b), which says that as PIC it's my call whether the airplane is airworthy or not.

The reason I wonder is this... Engine manufacturers also specify TBO, both in operating hours and years regardless of tach time. But for Part 91 operations, you're free to ignore that and overhaul when you feel it's needed. I just wonder if tires are the same. So assume that the tire does show very slight weather cracking, but in my opinion it's not critical enough to need immediate replacement. My call, or not my call?
Click to expand...

It may be your call, but the FAA gets to enforce its own rules. On what basis would you have successfully argued that the inspector was wrong?

Engine TBOs alone are not regulatory at all. The FAA gets to decide when and how they become regulatory.

If I had encountered your situation and wanted or needed to fly the aircraft, I would have asked the inspector for clarification, rather than make an assumption which could result in enforcement action.


JKG
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
That's what it sounded like to me.

I've got his card. Tomorrow I'm going to call him and ask him... get it straight from the source, just tell him I want to make sure I understand just in case I run into a similar situation again some day.
Click to expand...

A good idea.
 
Sounds like the FAA Inspector was a nice guy.
 
never never never never carry your logbook with you unless you are a student pilot.

Take that advice for what you paid for it. But its good advice.
 
JGoodish said:
It may be your call, but the FAA gets to enforce its own rules. On what basis would you have successfully argued that the inspector was wrong?
JKG
Click to expand...

Simply by following the ICAs for the tire.

Not knowing what the inspector saw, or the condition of the tire, I'd hate to say if he was right, or just puffing his chest and flexing his authority.

In this case no damage was done, no loss of revenue, so I'd just move on and ignore it.
 
comanchepilot said:
never never never never carry your logbook with you unless you are a student pilot.

Take that advice for what you paid for it. But its good advice.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you?

I can't think of a time when I didn't carry mine.
 
RotorAndWing said:
It sounds like he was just advising you that it needed replacement, a courtesy. Since he Couldn't take it any further I wouldn't worry about it.
Click to expand...

Unless he was an ASI he could only call and get one out there to do the paper.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I don't carry mine simply because I don't want to risk losing it.
Click to expand...

are you that absent minded that you can take it out of your flight bag, make an entry, and put it back?
 
Tom-D said:
are you that absent minded that you can take it out of your flight bag, make an entry, and put it back?
Click to expand...

I can do that much. But I can see losing my flight bag.
 
Last edited:
As others have said, there is no requirement in the US to carry pilot or aircraft logs in the aircraft, except maybe student pilots.

It's a particularly bad idea to have your aircraft and engine logs anywhere except under lock and key when they are not absolutely required.

With respect to the tire, the inspector could have written you up but he just gave a verbal warning. Technically you could ignore this. Don't. Get the tire replaced.

The inspector is human and he did you a favor by not grounding your airplane on the spot.

Don't let him see that tire flying again!

If he sees that tire flying again then the odds are the next pilot won't get cut that much slack.

Going all hanger lawyer over a tire is not going to help out the GA pilot community.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I had a six year old girl sit in my lap at a POA fly-in asking to "read my book". She looked at all the pages, one by one, not sure she could "read" them - then she took a pencil and signed her first and last name on some random page towards the end.

I still have that page. It is the cutest thing ever.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but did she sign her CFI number and expiration date? :)

Did you ask her for a complex/HP endorsement?
 
JimNtexas said:
As others have said, there is no requirement in the US to carry pilot or aircraft logs in the aircraft, except maybe student pilots.
Click to expand...

No "maybe" about it. Student pilots do need their logbooks to fly solo. That's where one of your two solo endorsements live, and you need both of them on you to fly legally. The other is on your medical. I'm a bit surprised this wasn't on your required pre-solo exam.

Private pilots do not need their logbooks, even if there are necessary endorsements in it (e.g., tailwheel).
 
MAKG1 said:
No "maybe" about it. Student pilots do need their logbooks to fly solo. That's where one of your two solo endorsements live, and you need both of them on you to fly legally. The other is on your medical. I'm a bit surprised this wasn't on your required pre-solo exam.

Private pilots do not need their logbooks, even if there are necessary endorsements in it (e.g., tailwheel).
Click to expand...

Sport pilots need logbooks. At least most. Actually, that brings up an interesting question...do sport pilots who don't have any endorsements (i.e. fly a tricycle gear airplane with Vh less than 87 (I think?) knots, etc) need to carry their logbooks?
 
RotorAndWing said:
Huh???

The OP stated he was an ASI and he showed his credentials.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't read that in this. just "FSDO guy"
quote
This morning I put an hour on the Hobbs, just flying the pattern. I'll spare the gory details on that. Suffice to say I'm glad I remembered to toss my logbook in the flight bag before I left the house.

So I get back to the ramp for gas, and see a guy coming out toward the plane... sure enough, my first ramp check. He introduces himself. I ask him if you need any kind of license or anything to fly one of these, it took me a couple of tries to figure out all the little dials and stuff. He said no, I didn't HAVE to have a license, it would just increase his paperwork load for the day. Anyway, the ramp check was pretty uneventful. He asked if I'd done a W&B before the flight, I said yes, I have a spreadsheet I use (and have checked it against the POH) and with either me or me and my instructor we're well within the envelope. He asked if it was my airplane, I said no, it's a club plane. So how do I know if the inspection is good? Well, all the logs are right here... Oops. Not that I don't want anyone to see the logs, but I do have to get to work eventually. So he looked at the airframe log, did a walk around, said the front tire was unairworthy due to cracks in the tread area. Thanks, have a nice day, I put the plane away and emailed the club maintenance guy. He tells me the tire will be replaced tomorrow. I asked him this:

What I don't know, though, is whether the FSDO guy saying the tire is un-airworthy means that legally the plane can't be flown without a ferry permit or something. In other words... after he told me that, would I have been OK to take off again, had I not been headed for the hangar anyway?

If I'd planned on flying it again, I'd have asked... but it didn't occur to me at the time.
end quote
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
never never never never carry your logbook with you unless you are a student pilot.

Take that advice for what you paid for it. But its good advice.
Click to expand...

I have been told by the DPE we use that if he catches me with my logbook still on me while flying my next Checkride won't go so well. I have my medical taped to the inside cover. So I still carry it because I can't take the medical out without making it unreadable. I know he is just messing with me but he was serious when he said I should not have at on me at all.

Our local FSDO ramp check one of our students and saw that the oil door latch was broken and wouldn't close. She politely suggested that they get that fixed before she saw the aircraft again for a CFI Checkride which happend to be the next day. They also don't like in switch labels being worn out. You should still have "ink" within the imprint and still be easily readable.
 
ARFlyer said:
I have been told by the DPE we use that if he catches me with my logbook still on me while flying my next Checkride won't go so well. I have my medical taped to the inside cover. So I still carry it because I can't take the medical out without making it unreadable. I know he is just messing with me but he was serious when he said I should not have at on me at all.

Our local FSDO ramp check one of our students and saw that the oil door latch was broken and wouldn't close. She politely suggested that they get that fixed before she saw the aircraft again for a CFI Checkride which happend to be the next day. They also don't like in switch labels being worn out. You should still have "ink" within the imprint and still be easily readable.
Click to expand...

She has a very valid point. Placards they all must be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top