Is there no such thing as a Part 91 ramp check?

[bradp]

Came across this on CSOB and found it interesting if not compelling.  I want to re read 91.203 but this makes sense.  

http://csobeech.com/files/RampCheck-Part91.pdf

 

[AZM20C]

Makes ya proud to be an American. Fight the good fight. 

[tigers2007]

Most states require you to participate in a field administered electronic breathalyzer test (administered by a state certified law enforcement officer) as a condition of possessing a drivers license (which is required to drive on public highways). Willfully failing to participate in such exam will forfeit your privileges to drive on public highways. The entire event may be thrown out of court if the officer never had probable cause to initiate such exam in the first place.

In regards to refusing to submit to a "ramp check", I would consider knowing the rules exactly how they are written and to be able to reference them rapidly to keep things from getting out of control. You may win this battle but the FAA bureaucrat may end up winning the war. "People that play stupid games win stupid prizes"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

Quite interesting but after doing a little research its looking a bit sensationalized. For example from 8900.1 http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.6,Ch1,Sec4 its also says regarding part 91 ramp checks:

1)    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.

[RLCarter]

Im willing to bet, pissing off an FAA Inspector to save you 15 minutes will likely turn into several hours down the road as you sit and watch them go through your and your aircrafts logs with a fine tooth comb....

[peevee]

3 minutes ago, RLCarter said:

Im willing to bet, pissing off an FAA Inspector to save you 15 minutes will likely turn into several hours down the road as you sit and watch them go through your and your aircrafts logs with a fine tooth comb....

My logs are at home, in a safe. They're certainly not in the airplane.

[RLCarter]

Just now, peevee said:

My logs are at home, in a safe. They're certainly not in the airplane.

Good, if the logs are visible the FAA can review them right then, they can also schedule a time to review them at anytime

[bradp]

I like this mental exercise- let's say you provide your friendly FAA inspector with your last engine and airframe entry and documentation of compliance with applicable ADs. You are then proving airworthiness and nothing more is required to be presented, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tigers2007]

This is so subjective; it all depends on the bureaucrat you're dealing with that day. I'm one of them (not for FAA) and I could really care less about anything as long as it doesn't get me in a bind. We're all just trying to make it toward our guaranteed pensions. Must be a slow day at the office if the FSDO are messing with a GA owner/operator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

This reads like the recommendation to not allow an ASI to touch your pilot certificate lest the required paperwork trail for a voluntary surrender be condensed to 2 seconds. 

Which, in turn, sounds interestingly like the recommendation to keep your windows rolled up tight and hold your drivers license and registration up to the window when pulled over for a traffic stop so they can't smell the "odor of alcohol."

Yes, ASIs have many more restrictions when doing a vanilla check of a Part 91 flight than when the inspect a certificate operator. And the FAAs own guidance to its personnel reflect that difference. And yes, there will be cowboys and Dirty Harrys in the ranks. And yes, it is a good idea for all of us to understand our rights. Not too sure all that requires conspiracy theories or the type of musings one gets from a jailhouse lawyer.