Jump to content

Got ramp checked


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

It depends on two things; policy language and state law.

And a third, namely how it will affect business when/if word of the denial spreads.  Aviation insurance is a small industry, not at all like auto, homeowners, and health insurance.  I've had multiple brokers tell me claim denials are infrequent at least partly due to industry dynamics.  A reputation for weaseling out of claims on technicalities (even when the carrier is legally right) is harder to mitigate in aviation than in the trillion-dollar scale of those other insurance markets.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i Thought the PPS would basically answer a few questions, simple advice, then is a referral service to a attorney at your cost, not a form of lawyer insurance
.#bettercallsaul


Nope. Read the details on the website, but depending on the type of matter, some lawyer time (in some matters enough to resolve the issue) is at no charge to the AOPA member, who also gets the benefit of someone current and active in the field and perhaps the reduced billing rate AOPA has negotiated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



The pilot also has the right to remain silent (as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment).

Over my lifetime of public safety I have experienced countless people skate off with no repercussions solely due to them withholding the necessary self-incriminating evidence needed to charge them with a crime or violation. It is their right to remain silent - there is nothing we can do to compel them.”


There’s a reason “do you know how fast you were going” is such a common line (my personal favorite response is to look confused and blurt out “um, I thought YOU knew?!” Mixed results so far).

Anyone who falls for the “just a couple questions and we’ll have this all cleared up” routine should watch an episode or two of the old Columbo TV show. I know a pilot who’d busted a presidential TFR and was walking through parking enroute to the field diner when a city police patrol car pulled up, lights flashing.
Cop: “Did you just land?”
Pilot: “Yes”
Cop: “Did you just fly from X airport (name redacted to protect innocent)?”
Pilot: “Yes”

After some radio chatter, the pilot found himself on the receiving end of a suspension. This was a few years back, perhaps the outcome would be different today. I would like to think so.

Some people I know would’ve answered “I wish, these airplanes are cool, know where I can get a ride?” Others would’ve dodged, and maybe some of us would’ve flat out said “sorry, I’m not sure whether l have to answer that, l would like some legal help.” It’s a judgment call.

It’s important to remember you are being questioned for a reason, it’s not a social visit. If you’re not being detained, you can leave; if you’re being detained, you have a right to counsel. Even in court you could defer testifying from memory in favor of referring to documents you don’t have in front of you, so why volunteer anything where any inconsistency in your answers, even honest ones, could result in a “gotcha”—or create a belief you’ve made a false statement. No reason to be a jerk, but the truth is most people do themselves in. Why hang yourself?
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad there is the part in the FARs about being English proficient...


I knew a guy who had a tremendous stuttering routine he swore never failed. He re-enacted it for me and it remains one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen. An awesome touch was how it progressively worsened while he tried to apologize because he was nervous. Extra points for him was an officer with a complex name, which he would - of course - try to pronounce. Still don’t know how he pulled it off without losing it.
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fall under he category here of those who said that if you have nothing to hide there is no problem in cooperating.


That doesn’t really address the issue, does it? How do you KNOW 100% you’ve got nothing to hide? Most pilots who bust some airspace don’t KNOW they did it, or they wouldn’t have busted it!

In discussing the probable cause requirement with an experienced senior deputy friend once, he told me “l can justify probable cause to stop anyone, anytime.” He wasn’t joking. Didn’t matter what you were doing or were thought, he’s an expert and has a badge. Anyone who isn’t as well is facing a stacked deck.

As far as “if one has nothing to hide, just submit,” that is anyone’s prerogative. Go ahead. In some cases, that’s probably the wisest course. It’s situational, and there is no ONE answer for every situation from traffic stop/ramp check/Terry stop to “you fit the description”, “CI tip” or “mine if we come in and take a look around.”

As for me, the “nothing to hide so just submit” approach - applied generally - would sure undo a lot of hard work and sacrifice for people who established the rights we have and the many since who sacrificed to preserve them. The rules are there for a reason; I’ll use and respect them, and expect those enforcing them do the same...including the rules that are my rights.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FAA has two basic options:
  • Assess a civil penalty (akin to a fine);
  • Refer the matter to the US Department of Justice for federal felony prosecution. The criminal offense of operating without a pilot certificate carries a maximum penalty of 3 years in federal prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. And yes it had been used.


Local PD can also charge nuisance/reckless endangerment-type offenses if the unlicensed operation’s facts supported it. The theory is that a nonpilot flying a plane is on its face dangerous to others. I’ve never followed up to see how those turn out, never heard a trial result one way or the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N9201A said:

 


Local PD can also charge nuisance/reckless endangerment-type offenses if the unlicensed operation’s facts supported it. The theory is that a nonpilot flying a plane is on its face dangerous to others. I’ve never followed up to see how those turn out, never heard a trial result one way or the other.

 

Neither have I. From dangerous flight activities, recklessness, OUI, heard if a few here and there, but I doubt there would be much local interest in spending resources on a pure pilot flying without a license with no actual or immediate threat to persons or property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 1:17 PM, midlifeflyer said:

It depends on two things; policy language and state law. The number of state-specific issues and how different states can be is surprising to most. Assuming applicable policy exclusion language, in some states the reason for the denial has to be tied to the cause of the accident in order to deny coverage. That's tougher to do than one might think and probably results in claims being paid. In others, state law treats policy language very strictly - if it's a condition of policy coverage you be legally current for the operation, the insurer can deny coverage without having to show anything other than you weren't current.

Bingo.  Some states require a causal connection between the reason the claim is being denied and the cause of the claim.  Additionally, it's not only the policy that is considered.  Your application is taken into account.  The underwriters are assessing the risk based off of the information and warranty provided by the pilot on this document.  If you do not have a current flight review or medical, the underwriter would not have accepted the risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2017 at 3:57 PM, Vance Harral said:

And a third, namely how it will affect business when/if word of the denial spreads.  Aviation insurance is a small industry, not at all like auto, homeowners, and health insurance.  I've had multiple brokers tell me claim denials are infrequent at least partly due to industry dynamics.  A reputation for weaseling out of claims on technicalities (even when the carrier is legally right) is harder to mitigate in aviation than in the trillion-dollar scale of those other insurance markets.

One’s weasel is another’s paying what is owed or to quote (even when right).  I would rather have my insurance with a solvent carrier that pays a legitimate claim that is owed under the policy vs. “a nice carrier” that is poorly rated because they are not financially strong.  If I flew without a current medical and out of flight review currency I would expect to NOT have a claim paid...same as if I didn’t get a ferry permit.  Your insurance carrier is a business.  Read your insurance contract.  Policy language does vary.  You pay for what you get.

A guy here thinks using a speech impediment to avoid law enforcement is amusing.  Obstruction is what comes to mind.  Knowingly deceiving.  I know about the right to not self incriminate.  Not aware of lying and obstructing as a means to evade as being “lawful”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pmccand said:

 

So, what exactly are the requirements of "checking" a VOR unit?  how often, how to check it, and how to document that it has been complied with?

I believe the VOR check is only required for IFR, every 30 days, and you can keep a record on a used napkin if you want, just needs where you did the check the date and how far it was off.....

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, pmccand said:

In the FAA "rampcheck" SURVEILLANCE guidelines, Chapter 1 part 91 INSPECTIONS, the PROCEDURES section 6-101 (Aircraft Inspection) includes the VOR as one of the items to check ...

3)    If applicable, determine if the operator has performed a current very high frequency omni‑directional range (VOR) equipment check.

What I found interesting is that we as part 91 operators must show that the VOR equipment has been checked, and I read this to mean even if the VOR is not required for the phase of flight operations being conducted, it still has to be shown that the VOR has been checked.

So, what exactly are the requirements of "checking" a VOR unit?  how often, how to check it, and how to document that it has been complied with?

"If applicable" is the key phrase here. There are a number of things ASIs are asked to check on which do not mean you have do them whether or not there is a reg requiring you to. 

If you are a VFR pilot, you do not need VOR checks. The reg for VOR checks within 30 days prior to using them for navigation on an IFR flight, 91.171, is pretty straightforward and details the 5 check methods. The "log or other record" can be most anything. Some pilots keep a notebook for the purpose but it can easily be anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 CFR 91.171:

§91.171   VOR equipment check for IFR operations.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft— 

(1) Is maintained, checked, and inspected under an approved procedure; or 

(2) Has been operationally checked within the preceding 30 days, and was found to be within the limits of the permissible indicated bearing error set forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. 

[...]

(d) Each person making the VOR operational check, as specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, shall enter the date, place, bearing error, and sign the aircraft log or other record. [...]"

The regulation does not state that the "aircraft log or other record" must be carried in the plane. Nor does it specify when the information needs to be "entered" in the aircraft log or other record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes knowing your ground can allow one to stand firm. Once had an FAA type at KMDW do a ramp check on my 737 and he wanted to ground it and he had no idea what he was talking about (I also had many years as an airline A&P ) We went toe to toe yelling at each other. I flew away, he shortly thereafter got transferred.

Ones response to an airspace violation either by mail or ramp check will take on a new perspective once one is ADSB equipped. Even a minor accidental cut will be easily flagged by GPS co-ordinates. AOPA legal plan anyone? I've got mine!

I think AOPA should do some ground work now on how to respond BEFORE ADSB gets fully implemented. Those on the plans should be sent some guidance because its going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Sometimes knowing your ground can allow one to stand firm. Once had an FAA type at KMDW do a ramp check on my 737 and he wanted to ground it and he had no idea what he was talking about (I also had many years as an airline A&P ) We went toe to toe yelling at each other. I flew away, he shortly thereafter got transferred.

Ones response to an airspace violation either by mail or ramp check will take on a new perspective once one is ADSB equipped. Even a minor accidental cut will be easily flagged by GPS co-ordinates. AOPA legal plan anyone? I've got mine!

I think AOPA should do some ground work now on how to respond BEFORE ADSB gets fully implemented. Those on the plans should be sent some guidance because its going to happen.

 Reminds me of a buddy who got ramp checked with his turbo 210 on the ramp in Topeka. Couple of feds flew out of Kansas City downtown to do some ramp checks in a rented bonanza. He went inside to get coffee or something and pay for the fuel and it comes out and they hang a tag on his propeller that says this airplane is unairworthy. There was a crack emanating from the screw In the wingtip. They thought they had him. So he pulls out a drill, stop drills the crack and then signs off the tag because he’s an A&P and then before he leaves, he goes over to the beechcraft and he finds a couple things that grounds that airplane and then says have a nice day and takes off. Week later, the same feds with a bonanza are there but when he taxied by they just turned around looked the other way. 

Edited by jetdriven
  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Deb said:

14 CFR 91.171:

§91.171   VOR equipment check for IFR operations.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft— 

(1) Is maintained, checked, and inspected under an approved procedure; or 

(2) Has been operationally checked within the preceding 30 days, and was found to be within the limits of the permissible indicated bearing error set forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. 

[...]

(d) Each person making the VOR operational check, as specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, shall enter the date, place, bearing error, and sign the aircraft log or other record. [...]"

The regulation does not state that the "aircraft log or other record" must be carried in the plane. Nor does it specify when the information needs to be "entered" in the aircraft log or other record.

nor does the regulation require you to do the check if you are not operating a civil aircraft using the VOR system. /G will preclude the record keeping necessity on your flight plan. Military aircraft are exempt I summize

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Sometimes knowing your ground can allow one to stand firm. Once had an FAA type at KMDW do a ramp check on my 737 and he wanted to ground it and he had no idea what he was talking about (I also had many years as an airline A&P ) We went toe to toe yelling at each other. I flew away, he shortly thereafter got transferred.

Ones response to an airspace violation either by mail or ramp check will take on a new perspective once one is ADSB equipped. Even a minor accidental cut will be easily flagged by GPS co-ordinates. AOPA legal plan anyone? I've got mine!

I think AOPA should do some ground work now on how to respond BEFORE ADSB gets fully implemented. Those on the plans should be sent some guidance because its going to happen.

I'm not sure what good a legal plan will do when they have that kind of evidence.  If it's an inadvertent violation they are just going to tell you to file an ASRS form with NASA and act contrite when talking to the FAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jetdriven-

I took a Robbie heli to an FAA 135 maint certification once. Was met by 4 feds and just me. The first thing they told me was they had never OK'd a 135 on the first maint go-around. Nice way to start the day wasn't it?

1 guy on engine logs, another on airframe , another on the radios and the last general looking around. The engine guy says I'm over on oil change (38 hrs). I said what do you mean. He says that the Lycoming handbook says 35 hrs. I went to the computer and pulled a current copy of the applicable SB showing 50 hrs. He shut up.

The one on the walk around says I'm missing cotter pins in the door hinges (they are not required because the doors are quick disconnect for removal but they have holes drilled in the pins). Rather than try to explain to someone obviously not familiar, I went to the FBO got 4 cotter pins, installed same and signed off the log book right in front of him with my A&P number. He shut up.

After 2 hours of looking I walked out with the 135 approval!

Sorry for the drift-back to our program

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

 Reminds me of a buddy who got ramp checked with his turbo 210 on the ramp in Topeka. Couple of feds flew out of Kansas City downtown to do some ramp checks in a rented bonanza. He went inside to get coffee or something and pay for the fuel and it comes out and they hang a tag on his propeller that says this airplane is unairworthy. There was a crack emanating from the screw In the wingtip. They thought they had him. So he pulls out a drill, stop drills the crack and then signs off the tag because he’s an A&P and then before he leaves, he goes over to the beechcraft and he finds a couple things that grounds that airplane and then says have a nice day and takes off. Week later, the same feds with a bonanza are there but when he taxied by they just turned around looked the other way. 

Why isn't there a DOUBLE LIKE BUTTON!!!!! 

After the crap the GRR FSDO put me through with my AAIP (Approved Aircraft Inspection Program, required for Experimental Turbines) and my Airworthiness Inspection (and my poor DAR), I LOVE to read something like your post!

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what good a legal plan will do when they have that kind of evidence.  If it's an inadvertent violation they are just going to tell you to file an ASRS form with NASA and act contrite when talking to the FAA.


The best advice in the world is worthless if it isn’t followed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.