Ramp Check Question
03-11-2009, 07:16 PM
#21
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,289
Originally Posted by NoyGonnaDoIt
They can't make a violation stick under (normal) Part 91 unless there was a problem caused by the failure to have current charts (in which case there's another violation - usually 91.103 and/or an airspace violation.
My WAG is this: Although we usually think of ramp checks as a simple surveillance activity - just checking up - they are also done in the event that a unsafe operation is brought to the attention of an inspector. All the inspector guidance is doing is setting up a standard and consistent procedure for the inspectors to follow whatever the reason.
My WAG is this: Although we usually think of ramp checks as a simple surveillance activity - just checking up - they are also done in the event that a unsafe operation is brought to the attention of an inspector. All the inspector guidance is doing is setting up a standard and consistent procedure for the inspectors to follow whatever the reason.
But if you got ramped after landing on an obvious IFR day (010OVC, 2SM) and had old charts, I bet they could get a 91.13 out of it.
03-12-2009, 03:51 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: retired
Posts: 645
Sounds like she may face (the or) an inspector and a faa attorney in a meeting with her aopa attorney.
My 2 cents on c.y.a. :
Office supply stores have clear ID sleeves that can hold your certificates.
Fold your medical in half and keep it in the sleeve with your certificate.
Charts - If out of date and you want them for reference purposes only, clearly mark them "not for navigation."
Manuals - do your revisions (as you receive them) in cruise flight when you're pilot non flying, they ARE approved reading material (verses the paper or puzzles).
Fly and pilot non-fly like your family is on board, your supervisor is listening and the faa is in the jumpseat...
My 2 cents on c.y.a. :
Office supply stores have clear ID sleeves that can hold your certificates.
Fold your medical in half and keep it in the sleeve with your certificate.
Charts - If out of date and you want them for reference purposes only, clearly mark them "not for navigation."
Manuals - do your revisions (as you receive them) in cruise flight when you're pilot non flying, they ARE approved reading material (verses the paper or puzzles).
Fly and pilot non-fly like your family is on board, your supervisor is listening and the faa is in the jumpseat...
04-09-2009, 02:40 PM
#24
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 20
Well I wanted to update the board as to the current status of this matter. At this point she has received a letter from the FAA regional counsel. They have proposed a 180 day suspension. She did file her NASA form in a timely manner and her AOPA attorney has sent a copy of te strip along with a letter detailing the cirumstances to the FAA.
He feels it is a toss up as to weather or not they are going to argue that her actions were deliberate and as such the NASA form should not apply. If this happens she, ofcourse, intends to appeal the matter to a NTSB hearing and she if she can get a better outcome. I have talked to a few others that have gone to NTSB hearings (for non-related matters) and they have all said that the pilot is really given the benefit of the doubt by the Admin Judge and unless there was a true disregard for the regulations or unless their actions were reckless they usually side with the pilot and strongly warn them to be more cautious in the future.
Does anyone else have any info on the vibe in these NTSB hearings?
He feels it is a toss up as to weather or not they are going to argue that her actions were deliberate and as such the NASA form should not apply. If this happens she, ofcourse, intends to appeal the matter to a NTSB hearing and she if she can get a better outcome. I have talked to a few others that have gone to NTSB hearings (for non-related matters) and they have all said that the pilot is really given the benefit of the doubt by the Admin Judge and unless there was a true disregard for the regulations or unless their actions were reckless they usually side with the pilot and strongly warn them to be more cautious in the future.
Does anyone else have any info on the vibe in these NTSB hearings?
04-09-2009, 03:41 PM
#26
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 20
That was my inital response. I am hearing that this is pretty much the regular amount of time they propose. If you go to the informal hearing and speak with the attorney they tend to reduce it by half, as long as you are apologetic and admit your wrong.
I'm sorry 90 days still seems a bit ridiculous to me. Her attorney is saying that sometimes you can get the whole thing reduced to a financial penalty. I wouldnt want to hear what they would want (moneywise) if they wanted 180 days! Ouch!
I'm sorry 90 days still seems a bit ridiculous to me. Her attorney is saying that sometimes you can get the whole thing reduced to a financial penalty. I wouldnt want to hear what they would want (moneywise) if they wanted 180 days! Ouch!
04-09-2009, 06:57 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by cpatterson19
If I remember correctly there is a chart of violations somewhere that states the disiplinary actions taken by the FAA for certain violations. It also mentions the steps taken. If someone has that feel free to post it.
Within the document search for "Table of Sanctions" (without the quotes). That's the top of the tables. For the GA stuff search for "Individuals and General Aviation"
The range for operation without a medical is 30-180 days. Why they are pressing for the max is something her lawyer will hopefully be able to find out.
04-09-2009, 09:51 PM
#28
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,289
Originally Posted by F172Driver
180 days!!! For not producing your medical?!! What is this Nazi Germany, show me your papers or face the punishment?
04-09-2009, 10:13 PM
#29
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by jedinein
FAA is not allowed to discuss open investigations with other parties. Now is the time for the gal to contact the FSDO Manager and get this put to rest immediately.
04-10-2009, 06:47 AM
#30
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 20
Does anyone know of an actual regulation or policy (that I can see in black and white) that prohibits the FAA from discussing open investigations with third parties?
I ask because I felt this was a very serious mis-step, by the FAA, as well. The only problem that I can see is that they would simply say that they were merely conducting their investigation and in the process of such they spoke with the FBO regarding the aircraft. Now the area that is a little off here is that the FBO was told that she was flying "illegally". This statement (since it has caused her harm and damage to her reputation in the aviation community) might raise to the level of slander.
Im not sure where she is with the AOPA attorney on this front. Any (black and white) info on this might be helpful though.
I ask because I felt this was a very serious mis-step, by the FAA, as well. The only problem that I can see is that they would simply say that they were merely conducting their investigation and in the process of such they spoke with the FBO regarding the aircraft. Now the area that is a little off here is that the FBO was told that she was flying "illegally". This statement (since it has caused her harm and damage to her reputation in the aviation community) might raise to the level of slander.
Im not sure where she is with the AOPA attorney on this front. Any (black and white) info on this might be helpful though.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RVSM Certified
Flight Schools and Training
22
02-27-2009 12:04 PM
