Ramp Checked

[RotorAndWing]

Yeah, I agree that any organization will have bad actors - a big government agency might consider itself lucky to only have 2%. But you can't call BS when this stories exist and are out there. So, you calling BS on Flying Magazines report? You going to justify the incident? You say, "my ass would have been in a lot of trouble", but someone doing much worse was promoted TWICE.
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/faa-harassed-pilot-fatal-cj-crash?page=0,1

The Agency has it's share of problems (like the rest of the government) but there are people there trying to make a difference and actually trying to do their jobs.

I left and went back to the cockpit. For my time there it was an education and eye opening. Are there bad actors? Sure. Do they get promoted? Yep, just like the military and all other government operations.

Don't persecute those that are actually trying to help and be responsible.

 

[iflyforfun]

You know, I can't help but laugh at pilots who think a ramp check by the FAA is so wrong.

If you guys think the FAA is this horrible, evil monster, just try stepping out of the USA and give other countries aviation agencies a try.

...

Yep, cry me a river about how bad it is in the USA. You guys don't know just how good you really have it.

1943
You know, I can't help but laugh at JAPS who think being locked up in a concentration camp in Hawaii is so wrong.

If you think America is this horrible, evil monster. Just try stepping in to Germany as a Jew or let Stalin send you to the front lines with no food, no guns and machine guns to your back.

Yep, cry me a river about how bad it is in the USA. You JAPS don't know just how good you really have it.

Complete friggin' ignorance.

 

[Lance F]

Again, you are confusing Flight Standards with Air Traffic Control.

As far as claiming "looking at pieces of paper that have no proven safety benefit" please cite your reference for that claim.

I am not confusing anything. I know these are different parts of the FAA. But they are both under the FAA's jurisdiction. My point, again, is that the FAA has a pot of money. A huge one actually. Much as they would like that pot to be bottomless, it is not. Therefore the FAA's leadership under the administration's "guidance" must decide how to divide up that pot. I am saying that there are things the FAA's limited budget could be spent on that improve safety MORE than ramp checks. IMHO, a lot more.

Cite your reference that quantifies the safety benefits of random ramp checks.

I think you are taking this way too personally. I (and most of the other posters in this thread) have nothing against the FAA or its people. I have friends in the FAA (including in Flight Standards); I am very grateful to be able to use our airspace system which has the best ATC in the world; I feel we have a very safe system due in some large part to the FAA. I just think with the current size of the pot ramp checks should go before control towers.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I am not confusing anything. I know these are different parts of the FAA. But they are both under the FAA's jurisdiction. My point, again, is that the FAA has a pot of money. A huge one actually. Much as they would like that pot to be bottomless, it is not. Therefore the FAA's leadership under the administration's "guidance" must decide how to divide up that pot. I am saying that there are things the FAA's limited budget could be spent on that improve safety MORE than ramp checks. IMHO, a lot more.

Cite your reference that quantifies the safety benefits of random ramp checks.

I think you are taking this way too personally. I (and most of the other posters in this thread) have nothing against the FAA or its people. I have friends in the FAA (including in Flight Standards); I am very grateful to be able to use our airspace system which has the best ATC in the world; I feel we have a very safe system due in some large part to the FAA. I just think with the current size of the pot ramp checks should go before control towers.

It's nothing personal to me, like I said earlier it's amusing to watch pilots cry about the FAA wanting to look at certificates.

As far as the safety of doing ramp checks, look at my previous example where non certificated pilots, pilots with medical deficiencies, un airworthy aircraft, illegal charter, etc, etc. I did a ramp on a guy flying a twin that couldn't produce his medical, he just landed from an IFR flight. He tried to convince me he left his medical at home. Upon further investigation his medical had been denied and he was out of instrument currency by several years. Yet there he was sharing your airspace under IFR. Are you going to try to tell me that wasn't a safety issue? Really?

 

[bnt83]

Are you going to try to tell me that wasn't a safety issue? Really?

Our armchair lawyers and inspectors have seen it all so its easier to complain.

 

[1600vw]

I agree just make sure all your papers are in order and you are good to go.

But I do see the other side of this. We are all seeing everyone cut from teachers to our grandmothers SS.

So when we hear of something like this, and we imagine seeing people paid with our tax dollars, out giving upstanding citizens a hard time at some little run of the mill airstrip, we see this as a waste. As we see safety checkpoints, not only against our rights but a waste.

So do not be suprised if you hear complaints.

 

[wabower]

Latest talley here is 13k hours, 1 ramp check.

So far I'm not finding it to be a major problem. I've had far more delays from leaving something in the truck that I had to fetch than from talking to the Man.

 

[denverpilot]

What was really disappointing was when my airfield hosted an avionics trade show. When I looked around the room, no one was below the age of 50. It looked like a chapter out of Jurassic Park (I can say this because I'm a T-Rex too). If we don't attract more younger pilots and find a way for them to afford to fly, FAA may stand for Former Aviation Administration.

I wouldn't get too worried about that. People in their 20s and 30s typically aren't shopping for avionics. And they're probably bored to death by the average trade show. They can get better information on said avionics via the Internet. Why attend the antiquated trade show?

Not to mention the fact that most folk are just going to install a Garmin in a certificated aircraft and be done with it. The competitor's options are pretty **** poor right now and have been for a long time for all sorts of reasons.

Anyway, back to the thread... Ramp checks... Fine by me. Check away. Never had one, but watched one happening ten feet away. The only problem is the lack of discipline for a few bad apple inspectors, which really don't appear to be the norm.

As far as FAA upset about accident rates... It's been clearly shown that more training always affects that number in a positive direction, so if the Agency were truly serious about fixing the problem, money spent inspecting would be better spent on training.

Heck, let's go full liberal here for a sec and say that socialized training would be the solution! (LOL!) Free training for all! Taxpayers get to buy for all of us!

Seriously though... Science and math say that free training would have a much larger impact than inspections. But government isn't about fixing problems permanently... It's about prolonging problems indefinitely.

And let's not forget with bell curves being the normal distribution of most things in nature, that the problem can never be truly fixed permanently without shutting down GA. If someone is concerned about GA accident rates, there's a non-zero number of people unconcerned.

Some of them are pilots, and no amount of free training will ever get them into a classroom, simulator, or airplane with an instructor. Some non-zero number of them will die.

 

[Lance F]

It's nothing personal to me, like I said earlier it's amusing to watch pilots cry about the FAA wanting to look at certificates.

As far as the safety of doing ramp checks, look at my previous example where non certificated pilots, pilots with medical deficiencies, un airworthy aircraft, illegal charter, etc, etc. I did a ramp on a guy flying a twin that couldn't produce his medical, he just landed from an IFR flight. He tried to convince me he left his medical at home. Upon further investigation his medical had been denied and he was out of instrument currency by several years. Yet there he was sharing your airspace under IFR. Are you going to try to tell me that wasn't a safety issue? Really?

Anecdotal examples do not good policy make. Sorry.
How much time and money were spent to find that one bad egg? If 99.9% of ramp checks find nothing, then I would suggest that the money would be better spent elsewhere.
I'm guessing the statistics that would really show the value (or lack of) either don't exist or aren't published. If they are published, please site the reference.
Maybe this is something the AOPA could go after with a FoI request.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Anecdotal examples do not good policy make. Sorry.
How much time and money were spent to find that one bad egg? If 99.9% of ramp checks find nothing, then I would suggest that the money would be better spent elsewhere.
I'm guessing the statistics that would really show the value (or lack of) either don't exist or aren't published. If they are published, please site the reference.
Maybe this is something the AOPA could go after with a FoI request.

Anecdotal?

First you try to claim there is no safety benefit to the ramp check, then I cite the different cases discovered during ramp checks and now you try to complain too much time and money are spent finding them??

So what you are really trying to convey here is the FAA has no business to enforce compliance and safety unless there is an accident??

Yes, the data is there, go do an FOIA on it. And while you are at it, please reread 49 USC 44709.

 

[Ted]

Anecdotal?

First you try to claim there is no safety benefit to the ramp check, then I cite the different cases discovered during ramp checks and now you try to complain too much time and money are spent finding them??

So what you are really trying to convey here is the FAA has no business to enforce compliance and safety unless there is an accident??

Yes, the data is there, go do an FOIA on it. And while you are at it, please reread 49 USC 44709.

While the example you cited is certainly a case of someone who shouldn't have been flying, and I'm sure every inspector has those, I do question how many good eggs must be inspected for one bad egg. From your experience, what was the ratio when performing random ramp checks? Maybe it's a lot higher than we think.

One could also argue the someone sharing the airspace bit. I have no desire to let irresponsible folks fly in our airspace, and there are plenty of people who I would like to see removed from it. On the other hand, statistics show that those people are most likely to only kill themselves. So my desire is less from the perspective of making sure that they're not going to hurt me, but more because if they crash it looks bad for all of GA. Vehicle world is worse - I don't care about the image, cars aren't going anywhere. But the dangerous/illegal ones are probably going to try to hit me on my motorcycle.

 

[wabower]

How do you feel about IRS audits?

Anecdotal examples do not good policy make. Sorry.
How much time and money were spent to find that one bad egg? If 99.9% of ramp checks find nothing, then I would suggest that the money would be better spent elsewhere.
I'm guessing the statistics that would really show the value (or lack of) either don't exist or aren't published. If they are published, please site the reference.
Maybe this is something the AOPA could go after with a FoI request.

 

[RotorAndWing]

While the example you cited is certainly a case of someone who shouldn't have been flying, and I'm sure every inspector has those, I do question how many good eggs must be inspected for one bad egg. From your experience, what was the ratio when performing random ramp checks? Maybe it's a lot higher than we think.

One could also argue the someone sharing the airspace bit. I have no desire to let irresponsible folks fly in our airspace, and there are plenty of people who I would like to see removed from it. On the other hand, statistics show that those people are most likely to only kill themselves. So my desire is less from the perspective of making sure that they're not going to hurt me, but more because if they crash it looks bad for all of GA. Vehicle world is worse - I don't care about the image, cars aren't going anywhere. But the dangerous/illegal ones are probably going to try to hit me on my motorcycle.

While I have no problem with someone willing to kill themselves using stupidity they often take out others along the way. How many pilots are flying without certification or with a medical deficiency and carrying passengers who don't know the difference? For the guys flying IFR without currency or even a rating at what point are they going to come spinning out of the clouds and into a neighborhood?

Here's a tidbit on the "dreaded ramp checks". While I was a GA Inspector my work program (annual) showed me doing something like 6 Part 91 ramp checks. As part of the work program we would combine different task to complete an assignment such as a Part 135 base inspection, Part 135 ramp check and possible part 91 ramp check if time permitted. I can't recall any of the Inspectors I worked with justifying to the FLM (front line manager) to spend a day at the airport just doing ramp checks.

Ramp inspections for Part 91 is such a tiny part of the overall job that most GA pilots will never see one.

 

[tmyers]

I for one have never had a ramp check. I probably shouldn't have said that, hmmmm.

 

[Dave Theisen]

I've been ramped maybe 3 times in almost thirty years of 91 and 135 flying. None of them was that terrible of an experience.

I think ramp checks are necessary not so much that they actually catch the violators, but, just the idea of them keep most people in line. If there were no fear of getting caught, some might be more inclined to let annuals/medicals/flight reviews etc. go. I wouldn't want a cop on every corner, but the possibility of one being around the next turn keeps most of us from driving 90 mph.

Rotor, you may laugh when Lance called it anecdotal, but that is exactly what it was. Folks have asked you about percentages of violators you have found during ramp checks and you respond with "yeah, but I caught this guy." The reality is ramp checks are fishing expeditions. People ask how often do you catch fish, but you just want to talk about the big one hanging up over the mantle. And like fisherman, some are out there to actually eat what they catch, others just enjoy the sport of it.

 

[1600vw]

Why not just tape our Pilot certificate and OP limitations ect..to the window and the inspector can see them anytime they want.

I have been looking for something to use as shade on my canopy top. Maybe I should just tape all these documents to the top insdie of this canopy, I can use it as shade and any inspector or anyone can see I have my papers in order.

Sounds simple.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Rotor, you may laugh when Lance called it anecdotal, but that is exactly what it was. Folks have asked you about percentages of violators you have found during ramp checks and you respond with "yeah, but I caught this guy." The reality is ramp checks are fishing expeditions. People ask how often do you catch fish, but you just want to talk about the big one hanging up over the mantle. And like fisherman, some are out there to actually eat what they catch, others just enjoy the sport of it.

I could go back to my old records and try to come up with a percentage of what I did personally, but whatever the number (30, 40, 50, 80%,etc) then your argument would be "See there were (70, 60, 50, 20%, etc) that didn't deserve to be checked!"

Across the Agency? Again I suppose if someone wanted to run a report through SPAS and link certain PTRS codes with EIR codes you could come up with a percentage. Since I no longer work there that's not going to happen, so that's what FOIA is for. Go for it.

Bottom line, go read 49 USC 44709. When you accepted your license you agreed to abide by the laws and regulations that pertain to flying and the FAA. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

 

[ClimbnSink]

I could go back to my old records and try to come up with a percentage of what I did personally, but whatever the number (30, 40, 50, 80%,etc) then your argument would be "See there were (70, 60, 50, 20%, etc) that didn't deserve to be checked!"

Across the Agency? Again I suppose if someone wanted to run a report through SPAS and link certain PTRS codes with EIR codes you could come up with a percentage. Since I no longer work there that's not going to happen, so that's what FOIA is for. Go for it.

Bottom line, go read 49 USC 44709. When you accepted your license you agreed to abide by the laws and regulations that pertain to flying and the FAA. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

So if I turn in my certificates I can decline a ramp check per fourth and fifth amendments? There is case law where the court held that felons are exempt from gun registration as that violates their 5thA rights. Going rogue looks better and better every day.

 

[wabower]

If you can do that and maintain your employment, it appears to be a slam-dunk. Be sure to post the outcome.

So if I turn in my certificates I can decline a ramp check per fourth and fifth amendments? There is case law where the court held that felons are exempt from gun registration as that violates their 5thA rights. Going rogue looks better and better every day.

 

[Dave Theisen]

I could go back to my old records and try to come up with a percentage of what I did personally, but whatever the number (30, 40, 50, 80%,etc) then your argument would be "See there were (70, 60, 50, 20%, etc) that didn't deserve to be checked!"

Across the Agency? Again I suppose if someone wanted to run a report through SPAS and link certain PTRS codes with EIR codes you could come up with a percentage. Since I no longer work there that's not going to happen, so that's what FOIA is for. Go for it.

Bottom line, go read 49 USC 44709. When you accepted your license you agreed to abide by the laws and regulations that pertain to flying and the FAA. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Nope, no reason for me to go read anything. I comprehend just fine. If you read my post again you'll see that not only did I say I never had a problem with them, I also gave a reason why we should have them. I was merely pointing out that you never answered the question. I don't think a formal report with spreadsheets and pie charts is necessary. A simple "in my experience of conducting ramp checks, I would guess it was around xx percent of the time I ended up issuing a citation" would suffice.

My thoughts are the majority of pilots try to stay within the regs, just as the majority of FAA inspectors conduct themselves in a professional manner. However it is the small percentage of pilots who skirt the rules and FAA inspectors who abuse their power, that give both groups a bad rap.

 

[ClimbnSink]

If you can do that and maintain your employment, it appears to be a slam-dunk. Be sure to post the outcome.

Slam dunk for hobby pilots. Who cares about the pros?

 

[ProspectingCFI]

That's it, I'm pulling my tow bar out. Come get me.

 

[Florida Cracker]

How do you feel about IRS audits?

You didn't ask me but it has been my observation that the IRS audits for three primary reasons.
1) What appears to be an obvious fraud.
2) People they "target" for one reason, or another.
3) Hoping to score big bucks in a short time.

One would seem appropriate. Two and three are government as usual. I read where TEA Party affiliated orgs are being audited quite aggressively but don't remember where.

 

[wabower]

I was in that game for a while. Big writeoffs of any kind, office in home, big charitable contributions, expensed vs capitalized items were known triggers. I think I've had more than a dozen, always owned at least one plane. So far so good.

That said, I'd rather have a ramp check any day.

You didn't ask me but it has been my observation that the IRS audits for three primary reasons.
1) What appears to be an obvious fraud.
2) People they "target" for one reason, or another.
3) Hoping to score big bucks in a short time.

One would seem appropriate. Two and three are government as usual. I read where TEA Party affiliated orgs are being audited quite aggressively but don't remember where.