Ramp Checks - Do they legally exist in Part 91 Flying?

Ron Levy said:
This brings to mind something I posted on the Red Board today...

You want the real answer to how to deal with the FAA on a ramp check?
  1. Obey the law.
  2. Use common sense.
  3. Stop immediately.
  4. Turn that [stuff] off.
  5. Be polite.
  6. Shut the [heck] up.
  7. Get a white friend.
  8. Don't fly with a mad woman.
Courtesy of Chris Rock.

When I was teaching at the U, I showed that video to my incoming freshmen (most of whom were black) every fall. Maybe we need to add it to the Sport/Rec/Pvt syllabus, perhaps with Chuck Yeager presenting? Or maybe Patty Wagstaff, who would have done well to have heeded its advice herself that dark night up at Oshkosh, and thus has a certain "street cred" for giving that advice?
Click to expand...

 
RotorAndWing said:
So a guy with no pilot license is giving kids rides at the local airport in his airplane that's not been annualed in the past few years. As far as anyone knows "he's not doing anything that outwardly visible as wrong/dangerous" and he should be left alone? :dunno: :nonod:
Click to expand...

We should have known that the FAA position is that they do ramp checks "for the children." :stirpot:
 
Skylane81E said:
Don't know Texas law, but if it is one of the states that does not require permission for a K9 search of the exterior of a vehicle that is not a bad way to do it, land, check, move on
Click to expand...

We have "border" check points about 50 miles from the border on all highways. You drive up, tell them your a U.S. citizen while the dog circles and either move on or asked to pull up to a holding station.

comanchepilot said:
interestingly = my first ramp and it was an aborted one at that. .. there were no airplanes over at the fly-in display yet and I think the inspector was getting bored . . .:D
Click to expand...

I've had several CBP checks due to location and about 50:50 day or night.

Only one near FAA ramp check. I was cutoff in the pattern and landed #2 behind a guy in a Cirrus. Was heading in to the FBO and the guy raced ahead of me walking to be first inside (we were both refueled and I guess he wanted to pay first). First person to meet him in the FBO was the FAA guy and he began his ramp check there.
 
Ron Levy said:
OTOH, to my knowledge, "ramp check" has always been the unofficial term for what the FAA has always officially called a "ramp inspection".
Click to expand...

I wish the FAA would do a check or inspection of the ramp at PAO; it's in TERRIBLE shape!
 
danhagan said:
We have "border" check points about 50 miles from the border on all highways. You drive up, tell them your a U.S. citizen while the dog circles and either move on or asked to pull up to a holding station.
Click to expand...

There is another one that is of marginal benefit. . . I've handed them my little card there too. They don't like that at all - and when they tell to pull over for further inspection I ask them to state their reasonable suspicion - I then remind that the USSC has not yet ruled that exercising ones rights is suspicious conduct . . . and to pull a supe over.

I don't like these - there is clearly no border crossing occurring here - and while the USSC has ruled they can stop us - there is no court ruling that we have to cooperate with them . ..
 
Ron Levy said:
You want the real answer to how to deal with the FAA on a ramp check?
Click to expand...

The FAA doesn't need to ramp check you to make your life miserable.

  1. Obey the law.
Click to expand...
Several posters to this thread obeyed the law and never saw a single human from the FAA prior to being summoned for reexamination. At least two posted that the cost (financial and emotional) of meeting the demand made them choose relinquishment of their certificates.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Several posters to this thread obeyed the law and never saw a single human from the FAA prior to being summoned for reexamination. At least two posted that the cost (financial and emotional) of meeting the demand made them choose relinquishment of their certificates.
Click to expand...
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that reexamination is only for violations of the regulations. While a violation may lead the FAA to do that, that is not a necessary condition. By law, the FAA needs no reason at all, and could, if they wanted, do a random sampling of pilots every year, but they don't, and AFAIK, they have no intention of changing that (nor the staffing to consider it even if they wanted to). Outside of bad examiners, the only time a reexamination actually happens is when a pilot by his/her own actions gives the FAA reason to question his/her competence to hold his/her Airman Certificate or ratings thereon, and in that case, the pilot can hardly blame the FAA for wanting to investigate that competence as a matter of public safety. If you know of a case where someone was called for reexamination with no reason at all (and I'm talking no reason at all cited in the letter, not one of those "well, I don't think that was reason enough" deals) , I'd love to hear about it.

And regarding the FAA making someone's life miserable, other than medical issues or a bad examiner, I have yet to hear of the FAA doing that without the person involved having done something (innocently or otherwise) to bring it on themselves. Again, if you know of that happening, please share that with us.

As for a bad examiner, the FAA is required by the public interest to retest those who were granted their certificates/ratings based on someone selling approvals without meeting all the standards. Yes, I know, it seems unfair to those who feel they did meet the standards, but the FAA cannot live with writing a letter to each and saying, "Please tell us if you think you were properly tested, and if you were, never mind."
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that reexamination is only for violations of the regulations. While a violation may lead the FAA to do that, that is not a necessary condition. By law, the FAA needs no reason at all, and could, if they wanted, do a random sampling of pilots every year, but they don't, and AFAIK, they have no intention of changing that (nor the staffing to consider it even if they wanted to). Outside of bad examiners, the only time a reexamination actually happens is when a pilot by his/her own actions gives the FAA reason to question his/her competence to hold his/her Airman Certificate or ratings thereon, and in that case, the pilot can hardly blame the FAA for wanting to investigate that competence as a matter of public safety. If you know of a case where someone was called for reexamination with no reason at all (and I'm talking no reason at all cited in the letter, not one of those "well, I don't think that was reason enough" deals) , I'd love to hear about it.

And regarding the FAA making someone's life miserable, other than medical issues or a bad examiner, I have yet to hear of the FAA doing that without the person involved having done something (innocently or otherwise) to bring it on themselves. Again, if you know of that happening, please share that with us.

As for a bad examiner, the FAA is required by the public interest to retest those who were granted their certificates/ratings based on someone selling approvals without meeting all the standards. Yes, I know, it seems unfair to those who feel they did meet the standards, but the FAA cannot live with writing a letter to each and saying, "Please tell us if you think you were properly tested, and if you were, never mind."
Click to expand...

What does my current temporary airman certificate say under "conditions of issuance?"

It might just jive with what you said here:wink2:
 
Ron Levy said:
If you dig into the various governmental publications, the term "FAR" is used for the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, are you referring to Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations which inside the applicable agencies and the government contract community is referred to as the FAR? [/QUOTE]
 
Ron Levy said:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that reexamination is only for violations of the regulations.
Click to expand...

You are under the mistaken impression that I asserted or believe any such mistaken impression.
 
Ron Levy said:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that reexamination is only for violations of the regulations. While a violation may lead the FAA to do that, that is not a necessary condition. By law, the FAA needs no reason at all, and could, if they wanted, do a random sampling of pilots every year, but they don't, and AFAIK, they have no intention of changing that (nor the staffing to consider it even if they wanted to). Outside of bad examiners, the only time a reexamination actually happens is when a pilot by his/her own actions gives the FAA reason to question his/her competence to hold his/her Airman Certificate or ratings thereon, and in that case, the pilot can hardly blame the FAA for wanting to investigate that competence as a matter of public safety. If you know of a case where someone was called for reexamination with no reason at all (and I'm talking no reason at all cited in the letter, not one of those "well, I don't think that was reason enough" deals) , I'd love to hear about it.


And regarding the FAA making someone's life miserable, other than medical issues or a bad examiner, I have yet to hear of the FAA doing that without the person involved having done something (innocently or otherwise) to bring it on themselves. Again, if you know of that happening, please share that with us.

As for a bad examiner, the FAA is required by the public interest to retest those who were granted their certificates/ratings based on someone selling approvals without meeting all the standards. Yes, I know, it seems unfair to those who feel they did meet the standards, but the FAA cannot live with writing a letter to each and saying, "Please tell us if you think you were properly tested, and if you were, never mind."
Click to expand...

Bob Hoover???
 
Cmercado said:
Bob Hoover???
Click to expand...
Technically a medical issue which Ron excepted from his statement:
Ron Levy said:
And regarding the FAA making someone's life miserable, other than medical issues or a bad examiner, I have yet to hear of the FAA doing that without the person involved having done something (innocently or otherwise) to bring it on themselves. Again, if you know of that happening, please share that with us.
Click to expand...
 
midlifeflyer said:
Technically a medical issue which Ron excepted from his statement:
Click to expand...
And that medical issue is well documented in the NTSB proceedings.
We conclude that the Administrator proved by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent has a cognitive deficit which makes him unqualified to hold an unrestricted second-class airman medical certificate.
Click to expand...
Note that they gave Hoover one evaluation which came out unfavorable, and then another evaluation (also unfavorable) at his request before revoking his medical.

You can ask Bruce to explain the medical issues if you need more, as the "when to say when" issue is one he has discussed in the past both on the internet and in podcasts. Personally, I find this a sad situation, but cannot find fault with the FAA or NTSB for doing what they felt they had to do as a matter of public safety, especially since I know that at age 62, I'm closer to the end of my flying days than the beginning == probably much closer.
 
Last edited:
If I was treated like Bob Hoover was I'd DQ on blood pressure and psychiatric grounds alone . . .
 
Ron Levy said:
And regarding the FAA making someone's life miserable, other than medical issues or a bad examiner, I have yet to hear of the FAA doing that without the person involved having done something (innocently or otherwise) to bring it on themselves. Again, if you know of that happening, please share that with us.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the FAA OIG findings regarding Joe Brinell? Search for FAA CC-2001-221.

Nauga,
who won't forget anytime soon
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes...and the FAA personnel involved were punished for their improper actions. So what's your point?
Click to expand...
My point was to make you aware of an instance where even the FAA agreed that the FAA made someone's life miserable (for as long as it lasted) through no action on the part of that person - since you said you weren't aware of such a case. That the FAA representatives doing so were 'punished' (sic) in no way changes the fact that these actions occurred.

Nauga,
who watches the watchers
 
nauga said:
My point was to make you aware of an instance where even the FAA agreed that the FAA made someone's life miserable
Click to expand...
That is a misstatement of the facts. A few individuals employed by the FAA made someone's life miserable, not the FAA, which ended up punishing them for their inappropriate actions.
 
Ron Levy said:
That is a misstatement of the facts. A few individuals employed by the FAA made someone's life miserable, not the FAA, which ended up punishing them for their inappropriate actions.
Click to expand...
That's funny. I sent nauga a PM betting you'd respond with something like it's not the FAA unless it's the Administrator personally.

Sounds like I won! :cheers:

Sorry Ron. I know you have a generally pro-authority bent, but "A few individuals employed by the FAA" acting under color of their authority is the FAA with respect to the person whose life was made miserable.

I know that doesn't fit your world view but I bet if fits most people's.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's funny. I sent nauga a PM betting you'd respond with something like it's not the FAA unless it's the Administrator personally.

Sounds like I won! :cheers:

Sorry Ron. I know you have a generally pro-authority bent, but "A few individuals employed by the FAA" acting under color of their authority is the FAA with respect to the person whose life was made miserable.

I know that doesn't fit your world view but I bet if fits most people's.
Click to expand...

He might want to look in that Aviation Law book about the concept of "Vicarious Liability". The actions of the agent are the actions of the master.
 
At the 142 school where I worked as a TCE the POI from the local FSDO made it a point to remind us during each year's IP recurrent training sessions that "YOU ARE the administrator!" when acting in our capacity administering check rides, due to the authority vested in us to perform that duty.

But since the statement applied to the whole room-full of us, there was no opportunity to get all puffed up and throw our weight around. :p

midlifeflyer said:
That's funny. I sent nauga a PM betting you'd respond with something like it's not the FAA unless it's the Administrator personally.

Sounds like I won! :cheers:

Sorry Ron. I know you have a generally pro-authority bent, but "A few individuals employed by the FAA" acting under color of their authority is the FAA with respect to the person whose life was made miserable.

I know that doesn't fit your world view but I bet if fits most people's.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I always enjoy when people point to individuals being fired or disiplined as proof our government is corrupt. Actually its proof the government is working. The citizen's grievances are being adressed when the actions of our officials violate the rules.
 
Ron Levy said:
A few individuals employed by the FAA made someone's life miserable, not the FAA...
Click to expand...
That's a pretty fine distinction to have to make when they're standing in your office or in front of your airplane with their FAA-issued credentials in your face.

In no way am I implying that the FAA is generally corrupt, nor am I implying that this problem is widespread. I have provided a reference to the FAA's own documentation that shows that not all dealings with the FAA or its representatives are friendly and benevolent, even if you've done nothing wrong. I choose to comply, freely and willingly, but am mindful of abuse because it's been shown to exist.

Nauga,
who sleeps with one eye open
 
JeffDG said:
He might want to look in that Aviation Law book about the concept of "Vicarious Liability". The actions of the agent are the actions of the master.
Click to expand...
I wasn't even thinking in those terms. Just practical reality.

If you want to get into it deeper, read the Inspector General's (btw, that the Department of Transportation's OIG, not the FAA's , as you'll see) report: http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/pdfdocs/cc2001221b.pdf

It's not even an indictment of a few bad eggs in a good pool. It's of the system itself including the lack of oversight by FSDO management. It got to the OIG because of dissatisfaction with the FAA's own internal investigation into the matter. Just a few excerpts from the report to illustrate (emphasis added):

==============================
During the course of both our initial and subsequent investigations, we found no support for FAA's conclusion that the actions of the FSDO were appropriate.
==============================
Yep, the FAA internal investigation decided the actions were a-ok.

==============================
Due to the gravity of our investigative results, we question the Supervisor's suitability to serve as the FSDO Manager, the permanent position to which he was promoted while FAA's internal investigation was ongoing.
==============================
Yep. The FAA's handling of the investigation involved the promotion of the of one of the inspectors being investigated to a supervisory position.

==============================
We note that this is the third investigation we have conducted over the last three years involving fatal general aviation accidents and alleged improprieties on the part of FSDOs. In the two prior cases, both of which were requested by Members of Congress, we found FSDO personnel to have been remiss in performing their regulatory oversight functions.
==============================
Hey, 3 for 3 but who's counting?

I guess some might think this was just about two individuals, and not a federal agency, harassing a pilot to the point of at least illness. But it's certainly reasonable to conclude otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
I always enjoy when people point to individuals being fired or disiplined as proof our government is corrupt. Actually its proof the government is working. The citizen's grievances are being adressed when the actions of our officials violate the rules.
Click to expand...
I can't think of anyone in this thread who suggested that disciplining improper actions is evidence of government corruption. If I'm not mistaken, I think you are the very first person in this thread who even used the word.
 
Here's the deal..the FAA has the authority and responsibility to "Inspect" and the official term is "Ramp Inspection." Many serious safety violations of been discovered as a result of a routine ramp inspection and one former FAA Inspector has written a book about it "Surviving an FAA Ramp Inspection," available on Amazon.com.
 
RotorAndWing said:
sigh........:nonod:

These rules have been in place for what? 50+ years? Are you saying these people got certificated and bought airplanes totally unaware that they can have a ramp inspection?

Really?

And the DMV (or local LEO) can't set up a road block and ask to see your license? Really?

Or during that road block if they see a safety concern with the vehicle they can't say or do anything about it?

Really????
Click to expand...

That would be correct, St Louis City Police had set up in a park and stopped everyone and asked everyone driving in for a license. They got in big trouble over that.
 
Henning said:
That would be correct, St Louis City Police had set up in a park and stopped everyone and asked everyone driving in for a license. They got in big trouble over that.
Click to expand...
Totally irrelevant to the issue of checking pilot documents per 14 CFR 61.3. That regulation gives them all the authority they need any time they feel like it as long as you're in a situation where personal possession of that certificate is legally required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top