Ramp Checks

[jetdriven]

Just because something is a privileged, it should not mean abandoning your constitutional rights.   In particular due process.[/quote

The burden of proof for aiministrative law are different than criminal law. Constitutional rights don't necessarily apply. Now you should understand your rights but they are not the same under Administrative law as constitutional law. It is what it is but ignore that at your own peril. Understand the differences between administrative law and federal law at your own peril. Having been though an enforcement action , it's important you understand what you are dealing with.

[PTK]

LEO's can't randomly pull you over without cause. I just don't see any difference between operating a car, plane or anything else that requires an operators license. FWIF, I have the same issue with the Coast Guard boarding boats to perform random "safety checks."

Yes they can and do! How about in the case of a traffic stop. All traffic is stopped and checked one by one for proper documents or for example drinking and driving around a long holiday weekend. Small inconvenience but well worth it if one drunk and/or high weirdo is taken off the roads!

The people who complain about these traffic stops and how "unconstitutional" they are offer no solution on how to deal with drunk drivers who take innocent lives.

[bnicolette]

Wow!  I can't believe all the stuff on this thread.  I guess I don't get what the big deal is?  I flew part 135 ops for four years and have only been ramp checked once.  And honestly it was a painless procedure.  I would also not hesitate to tell the Feds that I didn't have time if I really didn't.  However, given that I had the time, it was a non issue.  I had all my paperwork in order then and still keep everything in order. Want to see my doc's.........no problem.  Glad you guys are out here doing your job.

I guess there is always an exception to the rule but most Fed's I have dealt with are just normal people doing a job.  They're not trying to ruin anybody's life.

When paranoia sets in then I guess they are MONSTERS!!!  

I also have a LOA for a sightseeing operation (yep, using my Mooney) and my local FSDO was more than helpful when setting that up.  Still waiting for an inspection of that operation but not worried about it by any means.  Still have my doc's in order.

Why all this stuff about rights and constitution?  Ramp checks have been a part of our life for as long as I can remember.  Nothing has changed and it's ALL good.

 

Here is one exception to the rule though (this may make your blood boil) This is part 1 of 2 parts.

[Z W]

Yes they can and do! How about in the case of a traffic stop. All traffic is stopped and checked one by one for proper documents.

 

Traffic stops or "checkpoints" are presumed unconstitutional violations of the 4th amendment.  The State (or in this case the Feds) would have the burden to prove that they 1) Had a valid, safety-oriented reason to conduct the stop at this particular location, 2) took all possible measures to minimize the burden or inconvenience of the motorists (they can't search every car), and 3) stopped every single car, as opposed to randomly selecting a few that passed by.

 

These are just a few requirements, and the law is always changing.  There are probably more.

 

The health department inspections are another matter.  You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a restaurant where you invite in the public to eat your food.  The same is true for part 135 flight operations.

 

The argument could very easily be made we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our privately-owned part 91 aircraft, just like we do in our motor vehicles.  This is why the FAA does not claim to have the right to enter your aircraft during a ramp check, and why their policy states they have to let you go if you claim to have an "appointment."  It's all geared so someday they can argue you weren't stopped, and were free to go, and so it's not a search or seizure.  Therefore you don't get 4th amendment protections and they don't need any reason to ramp check you.

 

Someday, some unfortunate pilot will get caught without his documents and face a sanction.  He'll appeal it up, and we'll get the answer.

[chrisk]

Here is one exception to the rule though (this may make your blood boil) This is part 1 of 2 parts.

What makes my blood boil is that Air Trek was shut down for more than a year because of a bureaucrat.  A bureaucrat that  faces no personal liability for his actions.  

[bnicolette]

Could be worse:

 

http://www.casolution.com/RampChecklist.pdf

[scottfromiowa]

I have a healthy respect for the Constitution and individual freedom and responsibility. I pay a lot to maintain my bird, get flight review medical. I keep up my operating handbook etc...I know some don't. I welcome/vs. fearing a ramp check. Now the road block after the Dead concert in the 80's in Indiana where I had to wait a frigging hour and a half while checks were performed....THAT is another story. Apparently big brother felt many were "driving that train high on...but I digress

Ps-any Hitler/nazi references and argument is lost by lister...you lose Rocky, you lose

[cujet]

Cujet, I reject your premise that "the inspector's only goal is to find violations."  Any aircraft can be found unairworthy, and of course flying an unairworthy aircraft is a violation.  Yet, somehow, most ramp checks don't end in condition notices being attached to the aircraft or the pilot being charged with violations.  These facts can't be reconciled with your assertion.

 

It's also false that the FAA can yank your tickets on a whim, and that you have no recourse.  They can only perform an emergency revocation if you're demonstrably a danger to the skies (anything other than an emergency requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before they take any action), and you do have recourse, including (but not limited to) taking them to court.

I agree about airworthiness. But, the inspector is looking at paperwork, not the crack in your engine case and your corroded main spar. 

 

The FAA follows "guidance". But, they are not held to it, and they often act however they want, AND you have NO RECOURSE. Our chief pilot lost his cert for 6 months. The FAA did not follow the very guidance they publish! No, they did not "YANK" his ticket on the spot. They informed him that it was to be sent in. The outcome was the same, no ticket. He was able to get it back, after hiring a very expensive lawyer and battling the FAA, proving that they were in the wrong. Your failure to see the seriousness of destroying one's livelyhood on a whim bothers me. To claim this does not happens flies in the face of the facts. 

 

Forget your reading glasses on a clear and bright day, and see how well your "ramp check" goes. 

[cujet]

Cujet, you seem to be under the false impression that you have a right to your tickets! Our certificate is not a right but an FAA issued "privilege." The FAA issues these privileges with conditions in the form of FAR's that we agree to abide by and they need to enforce. The Constitution offers no protection here.

I reject your notion that they somehow target an airplane on the ramp because they feel like "...today is a good day to ruin somebody's livelihood!"

That's paranoia!

I said nothing about having a "right" to an airman's certificate. Don't put words in my mouth! 

 

Nor will I accept your "paranoid" label. That's a disgusting tactic and you have no business using it here. 

 

Aviation is my business and I take it very seriously. I have a set of experiences unique to me. They include some stunning ones with the FAA. As I mentioned above, the FAA can and sometimes does act in an arbitrary manner and there is nothing one can do to change that. One has no constitutional protections against such behavior. 

[danb35]

FAA inspectors do not have the authority to suspend or revoke certificates.  If they believe the situation warrants it, they can recommend enforcement action, but they can't take that action themselves.  If you're talking about enforcement actions, you've moved well beyond ramp checks.  And, as your own story illustrates, you do in fact have recourse if such action is wrongly (or even justly) taken against you--first at the administrative level, then in the courts if necessary.

 

And perhaps you can explain how the weather conditions affect your near vision, and thus your need for reading glasses?

 

ETA: And yes, you do, in fact, have Constitutional protections when dealing with the FAA.  However, they're not the same protections as apply in a criminal case--that would be because it isn't a criminal case.

[PTK]

And your chief pilot lost his certificate for six months...why?

You believe that someone from the FAA in an "arbitrary manner" single handedly decided to target you or your pilot that day without reason or justification? Is this what you believe?

You do have some "unique" and "stunning" experiences with the FAA.

Since aviation is your business and as you say you take very seriously, in retrospect, was there anything you or your pilot or anyone could have done differently, short of running and hiding to avoid a ramp check, where that wouldn't have happened?

Because running and hitting the "head" or "rent a car and stay in a local hotel" rather than "risk a ramp check" hoping they'll go away just doesn't seem the appropriate method. What are you running away from? If not a routine ramp check then yes it is paranoid behavior. Did that make them go away?

According to the AOPA the FAA 9 times out of 10 comes out in response to a complaint.

Perhaps you haven't learned that attitude towards regulation is a very big factor that determines the outcome.

Wouldn't you agree that you'd be better off cooperating rather than fighting with the FAA?

[FloridaMan]

What makes my blood boil is that Air Trek was shut down for more than a year because of a bureaucrat.  A bureaucrat that  faces no personal liability for his actions.  

 

Rumor has it that in this case Air Trek was doing some things that were not safe. I don't know much of the story on it, but I've heard others say that they had something coming to them. 

[cujet]

 

And perhaps you can explain how the weather conditions affect your near vision, and thus your need for reading glasses?

 

 

 

With many people, pupils constrict significantly in bright light. The smaller pupil provides a greater depth of field and, in some cases, sharper vision. Often, 50 year olds are able to read newspapers in direct sunlight, but not in low light conditions. 

Matters not to the FAA, when a medical requires glasses. 

[bnicolette]

Rumor has it that in this case Air Trek was doing some things that were not safe. I don't know much of the story on it, but I've heard others say that they had something coming to them. 

 

That could quite possibly be true.  I ran into a flight crew of Air Trek in BUF last year.  They were surprisingly forth coming with what a "shady" operation it used to be.  A lot of Air Ambulance operators are squeaking by, by doing the absolute minimum.  However, it doesn't excuse what an idiot that FAA inspector was.

 

With many people, pupils constrict significantly in bright light. The smaller pupil provides a greater depth of field and, in some cases, sharper vision. Often, 50 year olds are able to read newspapers in direct sunlight, but not in low light conditions. 

Matters not to the FAA, when a medical requires glasses. 

 

Well that's easy........if your medical says you need glasses then take them with you.

[chrisk]

With many people, pupils constrict significantly in bright light. The smaller pupil provides a greater depth of field and, in some cases, sharper vision. Often, 50 year olds are able to read newspapers in direct sunlight, but not in low light conditions. 

Matters not to the FAA, when a medical requires glasses. 

 

This seems to be my experience, now that I have hit that age.  I'm able to read small print in bright light, but if its dim, forget it.   Fortunately, I am able to read well enough that my medical does not require reading glasses.   However, reading glasses are really cheap, like $5.  I just stash a pair or two in the plane. 

 

And back to the topic of ramp checks.   I know there is a requirement to show AROW, but I didn't realize there was a requirement to show your reading glasses (compliance with the medical restrictions).  

[rockydoc]

Wow!  I can't believe all the stuff on this thread.  I guess I don't get what the big deal is?  I flew part 135 ops for four years and have only been ramp checked once.  And honestly it was a painless procedure.  I would also not hesitate to tell the Feds that I didn't have time if I really didn't.  However, given that I had the time, it was a non issue.  I had all my paperwork in order then and still keep everything in order. Want to see my doc's.........no problem.  Glad you guys are out here doing your job.

I guess there is always an exception to the rule but most Fed's I have dealt with are just normal people doing a job.  They're not trying to ruin anybody's life.

When paranoia sets in then I guess they are MONSTERS!!!  

I also have a LOA for a sightseeing operation (yep, using my Mooney) and my local FSDO was more than helpful when setting that up.  Still waiting for an inspection of that operation but not worried about it by any means.  Still have my doc's in order.

Why all this stuff about rights and constitution?  Ramp checks have been a part of our life for as long as I can remember.  Nothing has changed and it's ALL good.

 

Here is one exception to the rule though (this may make your blood boil) This is part 1 of 2 parts.

wow!  wow!   and DOUBLE WOW!  How do you guys that feel the FAA is just doing their job feel after viewing this!  Government incompetency at its best!   I wonder how much the owners of the aircraft had to pay their legal representation to REGAIN their "privilege" to fly which had been revoked through "Emergency Revocation" incorrectly?   Would any of us as individuals pay that kind of money?  FYI, I personally purchased the AOPA's premium legal insurance plan just for this type of problem.