Just Say No To Ramp Check?

[N33GG]

Has anyone seen this?  Opinions?

 

 

Sorry, was having trouble getting a file to attach.  The info is in this thread...

 

 

Go to page 19 here:  http://azpilots.org/images/newsletters/2013/apanewsletter2013-09sept.pdf

[midlifeflyer]

Seen what? Was that supposed to link to something?

[N33GG]

Sorry, had trouble getting link to work... please see revised post above.

[PTK]

There are also protesters who similarly argue that federal taxation violates several Constitutional amendments.

 

Try saying no!

[midlifeflyer]

The article has the same fault as those the author complains about other articles. Accurate information couples with things that are wrong. 

[aaronk25]

The government continues to become more involved with our lives. I also woul take the same stance. I don't care if its there job I want nothing to go with any gov official bothering me. If they have a warrant I will honor there request.

[flyboy0681]

I did find this passage quite compelling:

 

Even if the FAA's internal rules did apply to you, that doesn't automatically make them lawful orders.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that, the Constitution notwithstanding, an internal FAA order said an FAA Inspector could board your Part 91 private plane during a ramp check. That would be like the IRS writing an internal rule in its Special Agent's Handbook saying an agent could kick down your door anytime he wanted. That is unconstitutional and therefore, not lawful. You do not have to comply.

 

 

My next question is, have there been documented ramp checks where the inspector (not CBP agents, that's a whole other story as you know) insisted on climbing aboard?

[jetdriven]

The DOT administers pilot certificates, and with that comes compliance with 14 CFR FAR's, (administrative law)  one of which is submitting to a ramp check.  Now they have to be reasonable, which ALJ's have considered to be a visual inspection of the exterior, and permission to board for interior search.  DHS goes even further.  You can refuse it, but dont be surprised when they revoke your certificate, which is also not a Constitutional right.   There's an old saying, go along and get along.

 

Don Muncy, what says you?

[John Pleisse]

There was a great insert in an AOPA Pilot recent issue. You can tear it out and keep it in the plane.

[DonMuncy]

First, this is not legal advice; it is practical advice.

My experience with administrative law (this is where governmental agency cases are dealt with) is limited. I have done a little, and their rules and procedures are substantially different from ordinary civil and criminal law. They are HEAVILY weighed in favor of the agency involved. So even if you are right, it will be tough going.

I assume everyone on this forum is smart enough not to be physical and/or try to prevent any apparently legal authority from searching their plane if they plan on doing it anyway. You may be right, but after spending some time in jail, and spending a few thousand $, it definitely would not be worth it.

Also, if they do something wrong, (like inspecting your plane without authority), and you pushed it to the end, someone would get penalized (demotion, loss of job, etc.), but you would likely have no real damages, and would most likely not get anything else for your efforts.

Any fight you took on with an agency would be VERY expensive. No lawyer will take your case without being paid.  “They” have unlimited lawyers and resources. So they have zero costs and the ability to drag it out, making your fight even more expensive.

If you are filthy rich and don’t have anything else to do for a few years; I’m on your side. Go for it.

For my part (if it should happen to me), I plan on being cordial and respectful. I will probably answer their questions about where I have been and where I am going.

If they want to enter my plane, I think the best answer is “There is nothing on board that I really care about anyone seeing, but on principle, I do not grant permission for anyone to search my house, car or plane.”

There is a pretty good article in the August 16^th edition of General Aviation News, that I would recommend everyone read.

[N33GG]

I was told recently that flying has been determined to be a right, and not a privilege. If true, what bearing would this have, if any, on this issue? Just curious.

Thanks everybody. Very interesting.

[Comatose]

Even if that's accurate, unless there's something up with your plane or credentials, why is this worth putting up a fight for?

 

I guess I try to ask myself "Is this a hill I'm willing to die on" when faced with this sort of thing. Anything incriminating is either something they can legally ask for (expired medical) or something in the logs, like no annual for the past 8 years. What's in the plane to see?

 

Besides the dead hookers, kilos of drugs, the automatic weapons and the foreign nationals, of course, but those were factory installed. 

[aviatoreb]

I have not been surprise ramp checked but I have submitted to Border Patrol check when returning to the country, and I can say that I found them to be rude and aggressive each time.  They are armed and use dogs as well.  It is very intimidating, by design of course.

 

Thinking of the reports of John and Martha King when they are accosted, with guns drawn, and their feedback of the situation.  Seriously my reaction for my own safety would not be to be to refuse compliance at that time.  When there is a gun pointed at you, even if you are on the Constitutionally correct side of the argument, it is still a dangerous situation since you do not know how well disciplined and trained is that government agent with his or her finger on a trigger.  Even if the gun is not drawn, it is still at the ready.  I would not want to be awarded damages after being shot.  I would rather comply, defuse the situation, and complain later.

[midlifeflyer]

I did find this passage quite compelling:

 

Even if the FAA's internal rules did apply to you, that doesn't automatically make them lawful orders.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that, the Constitution notwithstanding, an internal FAA order said an FAA Inspector could board your Part 91 private plane during a ramp check. That would be like the IRS writing an internal rule in its Special Agent's Handbook saying an agent could kick down your door anytime he wanted. That is unconstitutional and therefore, not lawful. You do not have to comply.

 

 

My next question is, have there been documented ramp checks where the inspector (not CBP agents, that's a whole other story as you know) insisted on climbing aboard?

Don't know if there are publicly-available "documented" cases, but just like enforcement officers of any type, there are those who overstep their bounds and act with "power" rather than with "authority." Thinking it never happens is akin to thinking that the police never do an improper warrantless search. That's probably the source of the "don't let go of your certificate" nonsense when an inspector asks you to examine it. 

 

One thing the article complains about is a lack of differentiation between Part 91 and Parts 135/121 ramp checks. In truth, the "handbook" (FAA Order 8900.1, available to all at http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents) separates them. And for Part 91 ramp checks, the handbook clearly tells Inspectors

 

==============================

 An inspector must not open or board any aircraft without the knowledge and consent of the crew or owner/operator. Some operators may prefer to have a company representative present to answer questions.

============================== 

 

If you have the time and interest in the FAA's instructions to its inspectors on Part 91 ramp inspections, it's Chapter 1, Section 4 of the handbook.

 

So, compelling or not (compelling is an excellent way to get your attention and your emotion; I'm not sure how one "complies" with having their door kicked down), the statement assumes something that is a fallacy. FAA does not have an "internal rule"  that an inspector may board your aircraft without your consent. To the contrary, it has a publicly available "internal rule" that an inspector may not do so. That an individual Inspector might insist contrary to the rules that apply to him is not, IMO, an indictment of the system but of the individual inspector.

 

That's not to say that the "ramp check" has not been used as a pretext for other types of law enforcement  investigations, such as the recent Border Patrol incidents AOPA is trying to fight or as a pretext for a state or DEA drug search of an aircraft.

[midlifeflyer]

Thinking of the reports of John and Martha King when they are accosted, with guns drawn, and their feedback of the situation.  Seriously my reaction for my own safety would not be to be to refuse compliance at that time.  When there is a gun pointed at you, even if you are on the Constitutionally correct side of the argument, it is still a dangerous situation since you do not know how well disciplined and trained is that government agent with his or her finger on a trigger.  Even if the gun is not drawn, it is still at the ready.  I would not want to be awarded damages after being shot.  I would rather comply, defuse the situation, and complain later.

 

I think that misses the point. "Refusing to comply" does not mean trying to stop armed Federal agents from boarding your aircraft. It simply means saying one word, "No," if asked whether they can board and inspect the aircraft. 

 

Whether you do that or OTOH, say, "sure; here's the keys" is a personal choice I wouldn't presume to make for anyone but me. But understanding your rights is the first step to making an intelligent personal decision.

[201er]

"L.    Conclude Inspection.

1)    Discuss any pertinent safety information with the pilot(s) or operator. 2)    Return any documentation. 3)    Advise the pilot(s) or operator of any upcoming accident prevention or other safety meetings. 4)    If no discrepancies are evident, compliment the pilot(s) or operator."

 

Anyone ever been complimented on their ramp check?

[jlunseth]

The article is by and large accurate.  No need to be rude or impolite, but you are not required to allow entry into an aircraft, to provide charts, logs, w&b, or anything other than your certificate, medical, and the airworthiness cert. if requested.  I have been ramp checked at my home base, the agent was polite and limited his requests to those three things.  Same with CBP or any other law enforcement agency, I would not ever consent to an entry and search of the aircraft or to provide anything other than the three certificates.  I would do nothing to block them if they do attempt entry without consent, that is on them, but I would not ever consent.  CBP is notorious for tearing out parts during searches, which they decline to reassemble, and which they cannot reassemble anyway because they are not A&P's, so you are stuck with an unairworthy aircraft and a repair bill.

[RJBrown]

 

 

 

 or something in the logs, like no annual for the past 8 years. What's in the plane to see?

 

 

Neither your pilot logs or the aircraft logbooks are open for a ramp check. You do not need to carry them nor give them to a government official. If a ramp check catches a pilot with an out of annual plane the pilot gave information that he should not have. The ONLY things to show are airworthiness cert, pilots license (does not expire) Government photo I.D. (passport, drivers license etc) and your medical. The medical could be out of date and that could catch you.   They have no way to check your currency in relation to BFR, landings, IFR currency etc. Only you can screw you in these areas.

[Seth]

I am not a lawyer, but I know why certain individuals never or rarely end up in prison.  A night in jail maybe, but prison, nope.

 

If you are ever in real trouble . . . . remember these three statements and state only these three statements:

 

1.  I do not consent to this search

2.  I would like to speak wtih my lawyer

3.  I have no further comment

 

Repeate as necessary, say nothing more.  You may be yelled at, slightly roughed up, whatever, but keep stating those three statements, use your right of silence, and you most likely will work things out after the fact.  Now, if you really did someething bad, all bets are off, but if it's just a routine stop . . . you should in the end make out okay.

 

I'm not sure how this would work in a ramp check, but I know many people who have used this advice and gotten out of a jam, and others that haven't and have had to deal with a lot of negative experiences.

 

-Seth

[midlifeflyer]

Neither your pilot logs or the aircraft logbooks are open for a ramp check. You do not need to carry them nor give them to a government official. If a ramp check catches a pilot with an out of annual plane the pilot gave information that he should not have. The ONLY things to show are airworthiness cert, pilots license (does not expire) Government photo I.D. (passport, drivers license etc) and your medical. The medical could be out of date and that could catch you.   They have no way to check your currency in relation to BFR, landings, IFR currency etc. Only you can screw you in these areas.

 

One of the accurate things in the article (albeit unnecessarily presented as something devious)  is something a lot of folks don't understand: The "handbook" tells inspectors what they should ask for during a ramp check; it is not a guide as to what the pilot mush have on board. The inspector is certainly entitled to as for them but, that's subject to whether (1) it's available and (2) the person in control of the aircraft consents. For example, the handbook instructs inspectors to "Determine if pertinent and current aeronautical charts are available." What we need to separate in our minds for understanding is that "asking" is not equivalent to "required to answer."

 

I think, though, you are at least partially mistaken about logbooks. Pilot logbooks, for example, are open for inspection at the reasonable request of the FAA or law enforcement (61.51(i) —  there's no reason to think that a request is "unreasonable" just because it happens at a ramp check (although it might be), if you are one of the pilots who, for some unknown reason, carries it with them. Student, recreational and sport pilots are required to carry their logbooks for certain purposes; the rest of us are not.  

 

Consider the following scenario: a student pilot on a solo cross country bounces a landing and there happens to be an FAA inspector around. The inspector conducts a simple ramp check and asks the student pilot to inspect his certificate. Noticing it's a student certificate, the inspector asks the student for his logbook so he can see the proper endorsements for the cross country flight. I have no problem with the concept that the request to show the logbook is reasonable and that the student is required by the reg to comply.

[midlifeflyer]

I am not a lawyer, but I know why certain individuals never or rarely end up in prison.  A night in jail maybe, but prison, nope.

 

If you are ever in real trouble . . . . remember these three statements and state only these three statements:

 

1.  I do not consent to this search

2.  I would like to speak wtih my lawyer

3.  I have no further comment

 

Repeate as necessary, say nothing more.  You may be yelled at, slightly roughed up, whatever, but keep stating those three statements, use your right of silence, and you most likely will work things out after the fact.  Now, if you really did someething bad, all bets are off, but if it's just a routine stop . . . you should in the end make out okay.

 

I'm not sure how this would work in a ramp check, but I know many people who have used this advice and gotten out of a jam, and others that haven't and have had to deal with a lot of negative experiences.

 

-Seth

 

I'm curious. Is that what you do and say when a police officer stops you for a possible traffic violation and asks for your license and registration? 

[John Pleisse]

I have kind of watched this back and forth on the thread. They have power and authority. It makes up for a mundane career and less than private sector salaries. They do have the ability to follow-up, request your logs, request a subsequent search of your plane and then........ (wait for it)....just like the IRS, once they crack you open, they can ask for more and really start nit picking.

 

it would take a lot for me not to be openly hostile to an FAA ramp check, but I would find a way. CPB totally has their act together. Last time I came through, they had a laptop and were waiting for me. They had already pulled up my address and knew my pilot ratings. To me, that deserves respect. DHS, FAA? Not so much.

 

I think the article is cavalier. The recent spike in ramp checks is the result of a bloated government, not some organized affront to GA (which is manifested elsewhere). I say cooperate, to the extent required, politely.

[midlifeflyer]

 

I think the article is cavalier. 

 

I agree. Also a knee-jerk reaction with inaccurate information.

 

There are also a number of completely separate things being discussed in the thread and they likely deserve a different response:

 

1. A run-of-the-mil FAA ramp inspection.

 

2. A ramp check used by an investigatory agency, not the FAA, as a pretext for some other investigatory activity.

 

3. A standard customs/security check when crossing a border into the US.

[AmigOne]

I have described it here before but for those who might have missed it: I have been flying since 1967 and I was ramp checked twice in a period of 4 months in 2010. First time a King Air was waiting for me at night landing in an airport somewhere in western Texas. Customs patrol, border security or something like that. My sin, flying through the corridor north of EL Paso, 1200 and radio silence, made the airplane look like a "drug runner" (they said that the end). Asked for the normal documents and to check my luggage. Showed it to them and pulled out my carry on, the whole affair took 1/2 hr, they were armed and polite, no dogs, no wanting to search the airplane. The second time in Springfield, MO, a young fellow approached me on the ramp, showed his FAA credentials, politely asked for the normal documents and took a picture of them. Whole thing lasted 15 minutes.

I know my rights, were they violated?, you be the judge I had nothing to hide, and they were doing their job. Comply and be nice and the whole thing lasts minutes, argue, play lawyer, etc, and who knows what can happen.

[midlifeflyer]

I have described it here before but for those who might have missed it: I have been flying since 1967 and I was ramp checked twice in a period of 4 months in 2010. First time a King Air was waiting for me at night landing in an airport somewhere in western Texas. Customs patrol, border security or something like that. My sin, flying through the corridor north of EL Paso, 1200 and radio silence, made the airplane look like a "drug runner" (they said that the end). Asked for the normal documents and to check my luggage. Showed it to them and pulled out my carry on, the whole affair took 1/2 hr, they were armed and polite, no dogs, no wanting to search the airplane. The second time in Springfield, MO, a young fellow approached me on the ramp, showed his FAA credentials, politely asked for the normal documents and took a picture of them. Whole thing lasted 15 minutes.

I know my rights, were they violated?, you be the judge I had nothing to hide, and they were doing their job. Comply and be nice and the whole thing lasts minutes, argue, play lawyer, etc, and who knows what can happen.

 

The bottom line is that, for all the chest-thumping by some of us, none of us know exactly how we would react in a given situation. And we need to keep in mind that not all warrantless searches are improper.

 

Sounds like you understand your rights. You made an informed decision at the time to comply with what you saw as a minimal, and to you reasonable, intrusion.  Makes sense to me.