Run-in with the law - so to speak

[Hank]

Sure, that's the law. But now, flying under Basic Med, there are no "establishing" documents that I'm required to carry. They live in my logbook, and I'm not required to carry either my personal/flying logbook or the airplane's logbook with me. Ref. 14 CFR 68.3

 

[jaylw314]

27 minutes ago, Hank said:

Sure, that's the law. But now, flying under Basic Med, there are no "establishing" documents that I'm required to carry. They live in my logbook, and I'm not required to carry either my personal/flying logbook or the airplane's logbook with me. Ref. 14 CFR 68.3

 

While I don't believe it's required, the AOPA medical education course does have a wallet-sized completion certificate that you can carry with you to demonstrate compliance with at least that part of Basic Med.  Whether you'd want to present that for a law-enforcement officer is a whole other question.  It might just encourage them to dig for more information with the erroneous expectation that they have a right to.

[Hank]

42 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Of course you still need to fly with your pilot certificate and state-issued photo ID, Hank.  I currently fly under a third class medical, personally, so I clearly have to carry it with me when I am flying.  Although it might not be required by the regs, if I was flying under BasicMed, I would probably carry evidence of it with me anyway when I was flying if for no reason other than to bolster my bonafides to The Man as a guy who is legit.  I’m not sure how many of them understand the distinctions between BasicMed and traditional medical certificates and sometimes an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  

There's a very unofficial wallet-sized card on the AOPA certificate cor self-education, but the only thing for the medical part is the whole sheet of paper thing with the doctor's signature. Kind of inconvenient to fold, staple, spindle, mutilate and carry with me . . . . Thus the instructions in the FARs to keep it with your logbooks "in a safe place." Hard to show on demand at any airport.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Hank

[flyboy0681]

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

 I’m not sure how many of them understand the distinctions between BasicMed and traditional medical certificates and sometimes an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  

In my original post I stated that the agent did not know what  BasicMed was and I had to explain it to him. You would think that after being introduced two years ago that he would have been informed about it or even run into a few by now.

[EricJ]

9 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said:

In my original post I stated that the agent did not know what  BasicMed was and I had to explain it to him. You would think that after being introduced two years ago that he would have been informed about it or even run into a few by now.

But he was DEA and not FAA, correct?   He probably got a one-minute brief on how to do a ramp check from somebody else in the DEA who did one once ten years ago or something.   

 

[rbridges]

On 4/24/2019 at 3:02 PM, Bravoman said:

I had a DEA agent approach me a couple years back when I landed at Marathon Fl. Same kind of thing. Just asked me for my pilots license and medical. Was very friendly, also a pilot and even talked about Mooneys and that he had owned a C model some years back. 

he must have been a pretty awesome guy.  

[Bravoman]

43 minutes ago, rbridges said:

he must have been a pretty awesome guy.  

I think all he really wanted to do was talk flying and Mooneys

[flyboy0681]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

But he was DEA and not FAA, correct?   He probably got a one-minute brief on how to do a ramp check from somebody else in the DEA who did one once ten years ago or something.   

 

Most definitely DEA. The badges around their neck instantly gave it away, and for good measure he took out his ID and opened it up (I think they like that part of the job). He also announced that "this is a DEA ramp check".

[steingar]

The really sad thing is all this legal encroachment is brought to you by America's long running War on Drugs, a war we lost long ago.  Heck in the middle of it we've an opioid epidemic started by US pharmaceutical companies and fueled by overseas chemical manufacturing that's killing more people than cars and guns combined.

[mike_elliott]

12 hours ago, Hank said:

There's a very unofficial wallet-sized card on the AOPA certificate cor self-education, but the only thing for the medical part is the whole sheet of paper thing with the doctor's signature. Kind of inconvenient to fold, staple, spindle, mutilate and carry with me . . . . Thus the instructions in the FARs to keep it with your logbooks "in a safe place." Hard to show on demand at any airport.

 

Looks like you might be required to now carry your logbook with you at all times, Hank.

[steingar]

"Made available upon request" can mean a lot of things, including faxing or E-mailing a facsimile to said official after you get home.  It does rankle just a bit, given my old man took a bullet fighting against guys known to say "Your paperz pleaze".

Edited May 1, 2019 by steingar

[flyboy0681]

I guess it depends on the definition of what is is.

[jaylw314]

16 hours ago, Hank said:

There's a very unofficial wallet-sized card on the AOPA certificate cor self-education, but the only thing for the medical part is the whole sheet of paper thing with the doctor's signature. Kind of inconvenient to fold, staple, spindle, mutilate and carry with me . . . . Thus the instructions in the FARs to keep it with your logbooks "in a safe place." Hard to show on demand at any airport.

IIRC, the medical form is actually part of your physician's medical record, and thus subject to healthcare privacy laws.  It is still discoverable by subpoena, since it is not privileged. 

Not that I'm suggesting shredding your copy, but in a weird way, it would be good NOT to keep a copy of this on you, because that copy would not be covered by healthcare privacy laws...

[DonMuncy]

I haven't looked it up, but I thought that was the same language they use for producing your logbooks; "upon request". But it does seem odd, since we otherwise have to carry our medical with us.

[EricJ]

Yes, "upon request" does not mean immediately, it means you have to be able to produce it, just like your logbooks, which is why they're recommended to be kept together.   There is no need to carry the AOPA (or any other) Basic Med card.   You do need to be able to produce it "upon request", so keeping it with your logbook (which can be electronic these days) or someplace else accessible is sufficient.

If an authorized agent requests to see your logbooks or basic med documentation, just make arrangements to do so at some reasonable time.   Refusing to do so would be an issue.

 

[midlifeflyer]

7 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Looks like you might be required to now carry your logbook with you at all times, Hank.

 

1 minute ago, EricJ said:

Yes, "upon request" does not mean immediately, it means you have to be able to produce it, just like your logbooks, which is why they're recommended to be kept together.   There is no need to carry the AOPA (or any other) Basic Med card.   You do need to be able to produce it "upon request", so keeping it with your logbook (which can be electronic these days) or someplace else accessible is sufficient.

If an authorized agent requests to see your logbooks or basic med documentation, just make arrangements to do so at some reasonable time.   Refusing to do so would be an issue.

 

Exactly. You have always (at least for a number of decades) been required to produce  our logbooks upon request and it has meant within a reasonable time.

[flyboy0681]

10 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Yes, "upon request" does not mean immediately, it means you have to be able to produce it, just like your logbooks, which is why they're recommended to be kept together.   There is no need to carry the AOPA (or any other) Basic Med card.   You do need to be able to produce it "upon request", so keeping it with your logbook (which can be electronic these days) or someplace else accessible is sufficient.

If an authorized agent requests to see your logbooks or basic med documentation, just make arrangements to do so at some reasonable time.   Refusing to do so would be an issue.

 

There's been a lot of back and forth on what's required, what's not, what the Fed's can do, what they can request but let me pose this question... Is it worth the potential hassle? Let's say for a minute that they stop a strict constitutionalist and he carries on about how they don't have a right to do what they are doing, that he objects to them approaching him and that he will not show them his logbook. Is it worth the aggravation of possibly being written up by the agent if he is having a bad day, having to possibly call an attorney, or sit down with one, or have to visit the nearest federal building in your area? I cooperated and showed them what they wanted to see and they were on their way - as was I. No doubt some people would put up a fight, but would it ultimately be worth it?

No doubt some will argue that if others didn't put up a fight, these interdiction's would happen more often.

 

 

[EricJ]

4 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said:

There's been a lot of back and forth on what's required, what's not, what the Fed's can do, what they can request but let me pose this question... Is it worth the potential hassle? Let's say for a minute that they stop a strict constitutionalist and he carries on about how they don't have a right to do what they are doing, that he objects to them approaching him and that he will not show them his logbook. Is it worth the aggravation of possibly being written up by the agent if he is having a bad day, having to possibly call an attorney, or sit down with one, or have to visit the nearest federal building in your area? I cooperated and showed them what they wanted to see and they were on their way - as was I. No doubt some people would put up a fight, but would it ultimately be worth it?

No doubt some will argue that if others didn't put up a fight, these interdiction's would happen more often.

One of our local FAA Wings meetings last year included one of the local FSDO guys presenting on "surviving a ramp check".   He made it pretty clear in that meeting that there's nothing special going on, that you do not need your logbooks on you or your basic med docs.   Not having them is expected for GA non-sport pilots, so if I got flack for it I'd start calling around to make sure whoever was asking was really authorized.   My understanding is that they have had trouble with fake ramp checks before.

The gist of that meeting was that there's not really that much that they can do or are even looking to do and if you're even reasonably following the rules you have little to worry about.    They're looking for the guys, and apparently there are a LOT of them, that have no medical, that have no valid license, that have no current annual, etc., etc.   They have limited bandwidth and they need it for those guys, so they're gonna minimize what they have to spend on you if you're not one of those.    At least, that was my take-away from that particular meeting.

[jaylw314]

42 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said:

There's been a lot of back and forth on what's required, what's not, what the Fed's can do, what they can request but let me pose this question... Is it worth the potential hassle? Let's say for a minute that they stop a strict constitutionalist and he carries on about how they don't have a right to do what they are doing, that he objects to them approaching him and that he will not show them his logbook. Is it worth the aggravation of possibly being written up by the agent if he is having a bad day, having to possibly call an attorney, or sit down with one, or have to visit the nearest federal building in your area? I cooperated and showed them what they wanted to see and they were on their way - as was I. No doubt some people would put up a fight, but would it ultimately be worth it?

No doubt some will argue that if others didn't put up a fight, these interdiction's would happen more often.

It is worth knowing that you can't be threatened for not carrying your logbook or your BasicMed info with you.  That way, if you only have your pilot cert and your driver's license with you, you'll know to say "I'll cooperate if you wish to arrange a time and method to get you that information, but my understanding is I'm not required to have other information in my possession."

[jaylw314]

2 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

True.  Who wants to have to see them again at a later date, though? I don’t know about you guys, but my pilots medical records aren’t that interesting or sensitive. I am more than happy to get it over with by sharing them with them on the spot if they ask to see them, even if it isn’t required.  A consent search would be a different thing entirely.   I am a lawyer and would never agree to that under any circumstances.  But the level of cooperation we are talking about here just doesn’t seem that intrusive to me.  

That is cooperation, if I am agreeing to produce documentation related to my pilot's certificate and medical status, which is required by law and which I'm happy to do.  On the other hand, carrying around my pilot's logbook so that I can share it with a random law enforcement officer is just asking for trouble. 

It's like testifying in court--"just answer the question, please."  It's not just to protect you, it's better for everyone in the courtroom.

[Hank]

1 minute ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

True.  Who wants to have to see them again at a later date, though? I don’t know about you guys, but my pilots medical records aren’t that interesting or sensitive. I am more than happy to get it over with by sharing them with them on the spot if they ask to see them, even if it isn’t required.  A consent search would be a different thing entirely.   I am a lawyer and would never agree to that under any circumstances.  But the level of cooperation we are talking about here just doesn’t seem that intrusive to me.  

 

All we are saying is that we are following the regulations:  show our ID and certificate, and if necessary do a search on our phone for 14 CFR 68.3 where it directs us to keep our Basic Med paperwork with our logbooks and not on our persons. Unlike a Class I/II/III Medical, which only shows that we meet the standards plus whatever restrictions we must have, the Basic Med cintains actual medical information that should be protected. Plus it's four times as large as a medical cert and not as easy to carry around. So I don't, and have no plans to start until the FARs are revised to require that I do so. Hopefully the form will change by then, too. 

[N9201A]

Looks like you might be required to now carry your logbook with you at all times, Hank.

“Certificate of completion” ain’t a medical certificate. If a BasicMed holder held a Medical Certificate, s/he wouldn’t be flying on a Basic Med. Just sayin”...

[N9201A]

That is cooperation, if I am agreeing to produce documentation related to my pilot's certificate and medical status, which is required by law and which I'm happy to do.  On the other hand, carrying around my pilot's logbook so that I can share it with a random law enforcement officer is just asking for trouble. 
It's like testifying in court--"just answer the question, please."  It's not just to protect you, it's better for everyone in the courtroom.

THIS!!

The ONLY time I’ve got my logbooks in the plane is on the way to/from a checkride. And don’t produce them to the FAA unless/until someone who’s an expert has flyspecked them to catch errors. Everyone makes oversights or errors in paperwork—why let the regulator be the one to catch yours?

[tigers2007]

The federal agent that would make most pilots nervous is agent that is also a pilot. I like what BlueHighwayFlyer mentioned earlier how it is much easier to show a certificate now and be done with it versus further inquiries later. Further inquiries means that they will pick through your sh*t until they find something. They always “win”. This is fact and trust me on this; the Crown/Fed will always find an angle. Some advice that attorney mentioned to me years ago that I have passed onto others is this, the less time you spend in-person with an inquiring on-Duty Law Enforcement Officer, the better your situation will be. Keep the encounter short and sweet. 

Lots of interesting points in this thread. I just renewed my Class 3 and it apparently is no longer appropriate size to keep in my wallet. I will photocopy the form into miniature size and see what I can manage. 

BlueHighway may be able to comment on this but a miniaturized photocopy may be acceptable to display in lieu of the 8.5”x11” giant medical form. US Federal agencies have declarations on the acceptance of photocopies, in certain situations like border control, in lieu of originals due to, wait for it —— a common-sense and practical approach for operations. Keep in mind that the Fed already has your medical “on file” thus them asking your for your original certificate could be construed as a burden. Similar is true with automobile insurance with many states now - they will accept digital “proof” in lieu of a photocopy or genuine document issued by the insurance firm. This is because the insurance firms transmit current data with the DMV and the LEO has instant access to it before he/she even walks up to your car. 

[steingar]

15 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

There's been a lot of back and forth on what's required, what's not, what the Fed's can do, what they can request but let me pose this question... Is it worth the potential hassle? Let's say for a minute that they stop a strict constitutionalist and he carries on about how they don't have a right to do what they are doing, that he objects to them approaching him and that he will not show them his logbook. Is it worth the aggravation of possibly being written up by the agent if he is having a bad day, having to possibly call an attorney, or sit down with one, or have to visit the nearest federal building in your area? I cooperated and showed them what they wanted to see and they were on their way - as was I. No doubt some people would put up a fight, but would it ultimately be worth it?

No doubt some will argue that if others didn't put up a fight, these interdiction's would happen more often.

If we aren't willing to stand up for our rights sooner or later we won't have any.