Ramp checked!

[DanH]

Originally Posted by Auburntsts

If anyone is interested, AOPA has a good overview of the ramp check process:https://www.aopa.org/training-and-sa...nt/ramp-checks

The AOPA page says the inspector may not board without knowledge of the crew, but is authorized to check the ELT battery, VOR operation, and seat belts. It would seem the inspector must be granted access to the interior.

[Auburntsts]

Originally Posted by DanH

The AOPA page says the inspector may not board without knowledge of the crew, but is authorized to check the ELT battery, VOR operation, and seat belts. It would seem the inspector must be granted access to the interior.

My understanding is they can't board the aircraft without the pilot's/crew knowledge (ie you left your plane open while you went into the terminal, they walk by your unattended and climb in, etc) but once they ask you can't deny them access as long as you aren't being unduly detained by the request. Once inside they can only inspect certain items.

[DaleB]

I got ramped as a student pilot, right after a training flight. Had my CFI in the right seat, and when he saw the FAA guy on the way out remembered that he didn't have his wallet... so no CFI ticket or medical. He managed to disappear around the tail of the airplane while I distracted the FAA guy.

We had a nice little chat, then he moved on to the 135 King Air that taxied in. I suspect that was his real reason for being there, I was just "lucky".

[sblack]

Originally Posted by Bevan

Maybe it's just in Canada, but I thought ramp checks were a thing of the past. I seem to recall my flight instructor 22 years ago state they are seldom done anymore. The equivalent type of random check of a road motor vehicle is not acceptable to the courts. If the authority (in Canada) was to find something amiss without a valid reason to search, the charge could be thrown out. Ie lacking probable cause, profiling, carding, harassment etc. In other words there would have to be a valid reason (driving infraction, lights not working) for the police to pull you over in order to have a "legal" look inside your vehicle. Why would it be any different for a personal aircraft?

Bevan

Nope they are still happening in Canada. They showed up at my airport this summer and checked everyone in sight. It is very rare, I think mostly to due to budget cuts.

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by Auburntsts

My understanding is they can't board the aircraft without the pilot's/crew knowledge (ie you left your plane open while you went into the terminal, they walk by your unattended and climb in, etc) but once they ask you can't deny them access as long as you aren't being unduly detained by the request. Once inside they can only inspect certain items.

You certainly can deny them access to board your aircraft. You have the right NOT to consent to a search (that whole 4th amendment thing, IIRC). They can only board your aircraft IF you give them permission.

Pure speculation: [seat belt inspection] sounds like a backdoor request to enter the aircraft.

I looked up the latest FAA regulations, and as stated, they can check the VOR accuracy, ELT battery, and seatbelts. I assume if they had to board the aircraft to do any of this, they simply wouldn't be able to if you didn't allow them to board. And FWIW, there's no way to check my ELT battery without me removing the rear bulkhead...ain't gonna happen. So I don't think it's a "backdoor" way to violate the Constitution.

The 5th amendment issues you mention only apply during criminal not administrative violations.

I think you mean 4th Amendment (and probably 14th as well), not 5th. IANAL, but I believe one's Constitutional rights are always in effect. You always have the right to refuse consent to a search, or to remain silent, or to equal protection under the law, etc. I'm sure someone with more experience will chime in here.

[Auburntsts]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

You certainly can deny them access to board your aircraft. You have the right NOT to consent to a search (that whole 4th amendment thing, IIRC). They can only board your aircraft IF you give them permission.



I looked up the latest FAA regulations, and as stated, they can check the VOR accuracy, ELT battery, and seatbelts. I assume if they had to board the aircraft to do any of this, they simply wouldn't be able to if you didn't allow them to board. And FWIW, there's no way to check my ELT battery without me removing the rear bulkhead...ain't gonna happen. So I don't think it's a "backdoor" way to violate the Constitution.



I think you mean 4th Amendment (and probably 14th as well), not 5th. IANAL, but I believe one's Constitutional rights are always in effect. You always have the right to refuse consent to a search, or to remain silent, or to equal protection under the law, etc. I'm sure someone with more experience will chime in here.

I stand corrected. I did a little more research and it appears that you can't deny access for 121/135 ops only. Part 91 can be denied but the inspector can opt to get a federal warrant. Having said that, it would also appear, anecdotally, that based upon actual inspector comments that for 91 ops they are only generally interested in the bare minimums as far as the inspection goes unless they discover a discrepancy. Now what I've read is a bit contradictory as to the FAA's authority and whether a ramp check is a really a search or not, but I feel there's no need to be overly cautious during a ramp check -- My own plan is to cooperate and move on.

Now for a LEO (Police, CBP, etc) stop, that's a completely different animal and I would definitely recommend exercising extreme caution and understanding your rights inside and out.

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by Auburntsts

I stand corrected. I did a little more research and it appears that you can't deny access for 121/135 ops only. Part 91 can be denied but the inspector can opt to get a federal warrant.

Which requires probable cause (and in the U.S., refusal to consent to a search can not be used as a reason). ETA: Apparently, the ASI can't get a warrant...they're not Law Enforcement officers. Would require a LE agency to file for a warrant with a court, and the FAA is not LE.

Having said that, it would also appear, anecdotally, that based upon actual inspector comments that for 91 ops they are only generally interested in the bare minimums as far as the inspection goes unless they discover a discrepancy. Now what I've read is a bit contradictory as to the FAA's authority and whether a ramp check is a really a search or not, but I feel there's no need to be overly cautious during a ramp check -- My own plan is to cooperate and move on.

Now for a LEO (Police, CBP, etc) stop, that's a completely different animal and I would definitely recommend exercising extreme caution and understanding your rights inside and out.

Totally agree.

As I said, the FAA guy was polite, professional, quick and friendly, and never stepped into the "search" arena, so we didn't even have to have that discussion.

[az_gila]

The VOR checks and ELT battery checks pass/fail are pretty obvious.

What is the criteria for "checking" seatbelts?

Since a lot of us use racecar belts with no TSO can this cause a "fail" if the inspector gets picky?

Added

If it is only to Part 43, Appendix D then it should be OK...

(2) Seats and safety belts—for poor condition and apparent defects.

[TCONROY]

Originally Posted by DanH

Pure speculation: sounds like a backdoor request to enter the aircraft. IIRC, an inspector may act on anything he can see from the outside, but may not enter an aircraft without permission.

Not that it makes an great difference with most RVs, as everything is visible from the outside anyway.

Pure curiosity...was your canopy open or shut at the time?

I was ramp checked while on a quick turn in a business jet and did not permit the inspector to board the aircraft. He asked to see the aircraft docs and RVSM manual which I provided outside of the aircraft. I could tell he wasn't thrilled to have not been allowed to board but didn't give us any trouble.

[jrs14855]

A few years ago I was parking very close to the FSDO office in the morning after my scheduled 135 freight runs. One morning a FSDO Inspector ramp checked my airplane. The pilots shoulder strap looked like a rat had chewed half way thru it. The inspector asked "what do you think I should do about that?". I responded I think you should ground the airplane. My phone call to my boss was probably the only time I actually enjoyed talking to him. He really had to scramble to get the airplane fixed for that nights run.
The 135 freight business is slowly evolving for the better but there are still far too many airplanes that should have gone to the scrapyard 20 years ago.