Ramp checked, my first time

[DaleB]

I'm starting a separate thread for this...

This morning I put an hour on the Hobbs, just flying the pattern. I'll spare the gory details on that. Suffice to say I'm glad I remembered to toss my logbook in the flight bag before I left the house.

So I get back to the ramp for gas, and see a guy coming out toward the plane... sure enough, my first ramp check. He introduces himself. I ask him if you need any kind of license or anything to fly one of these, it took me a couple of tries to figure out all the little dials and stuff. He said no, I didn't HAVE to have a license, it would just increase his paperwork load for the day. Anyway, the ramp check was pretty uneventful. He asked if I'd done a W&B before the flight, I said yes, I have a spreadsheet I use (and have checked it against the POH) and with either me or me and my instructor we're well within the envelope. He asked if it was my airplane, I said no, it's a club plane. So how do I know if the inspection is good? Well, all the logs are right here... Oops. Not that I don't want anyone to see the logs, but I do have to get to work eventually. So he looked at the airframe log, did a walk around, said the front tire was unairworthy due to cracks in the tread area. Thanks, have a nice day, I put the plane away and emailed the club maintenance guy. He tells me the tire will be replaced tomorrow. I asked him this:

What I don't know, though, is whether the FSDO guy saying the tire is un-airworthy means that legally the plane can't be flown without a ferry permit or something. In other words... after he told me that, would I have been OK to take off again, had I not been headed for the hangar anyway?

If I'd planned on flying it again, I'd have asked... but it didn't occur to me at the time

 

[Jim Logajan]

So he looked at the airframe log, did a walk around, said the front tire was unairworthy due to cracks in the tread area. Thanks, have a nice day, I put the plane away and emailed the club maintenance guy. He tells me the tire will be replaced tomorrow. I asked him this:

What I don't know, though, is whether the FSDO guy saying the tire is un-airworthy means that legally the plane can't be flown without a ferry permit or something. In other words... after he told me that, would I have been OK to take off again, had I not been headed for the hangar anyway?

If I'd planned on flying it again, I'd have asked... but it didn't occur to me at the time

Did he tag the plane with an Aircraft Condition Notice (FAA Form 8620-1)? If not, the plane is fine to fly. And technically it appears he cannot ground it in any case; see these links:

http://avstop.com/stories/survive.htm
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=B31EC5608DF9D7798525734F00766694

 

[Jim Logajan]

Whether the Inspector issued an ACN or not, after he spoke to you, you knew that the aircraft was unairworthy, and had you flown it again before the problem was fixed, you could have been written up for a deliberate violation of 91.7(a) -- and that's a much bigger issue than discovering after flight that the tire was no longer airworthy.

You might have had an A&P examine the tire and determine that it was not unairworthy, in which case you'd have a good argument of a trained, certified mechanic's opinion of an airworthiness issue versus that of an Operations (rather than Airworthiness) Inspector, but it's probably not a fight in which I'd want to participate.

In order for that scenario to happen, the inspector must also be indicted (either a self-indict or by another inspector hanging in the shadows) since the FAA appears to require an ACN to be issued right then and there. As you may or may not realize, verbal exchanges normally leave no record and can later be disputed. E.g. "I heard him say he thought the tire cracks might make it unairworthy, but I would have expected an ACN if he was certain, but he didn't write one. So I examined the tire and in my opinion as PIC concluded it was airworthy."

No inspector has any business playing those sorts of ambiguous "gotcha!" games. The point I'd like to make is that the inspector wasn't doing any of the parties involved any favors in his ambiguous actions.

 

[Jim Logajan]

That's what it sounded like to me.

I've got his card. Tomorrow I'm going to call him and ask him... get it straight from the source, just tell him I want to make sure I understand just in case I run into a similar situation again some day.

A good idea.

 

[Jim Logajan]

That let's you out.

Meaning the very act of him posting on the alleged contents of those records was an unauthorized act?

 

[Jim Logajan]

seems clear to me but then I wrote it :mad2:

It was clear to me the first time you wrote it, if that is any consolation.

I think at some point nothing can be done in repeating myself with a longer explanation, so I haven't bothered to followup to some replies to my posts on this thread.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Um, no, during a ramp check an ASI may ask to see your logbook, and that doesn't make you a target of an investigation.

You are replying to his post in 113, but if you had read his post in 108 you would have hopefully realized your post above was superfluous. This is also clear when his post in 70 is read entirely in context, presumably without coloring preconceptions (at least it was clear to me.)

 

[Jim Logajan]

If the FAA inspector asks you to sign the PBR statement, what would be wrong with asking him to show you the FAR that requires it?

The PBoR statute requires the FAA to provide timely written notification. It does not place any mandates on pilots - certainly none requiring the pilot sign anything. The signature "requirement" appears to be an FAA invention designed to provide proof to a court (when the need arises) that they provided timely written notification per the statute. There are other ways (and probably better ways) they could establish proof that written notification was supplied. They are just being lazy in wanting a single mechanism to cover every scenario.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Congress says they have to advise you, and they are within their authority in creating the proof that you were advised.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the FAA is within its authority to force you to sign anything during a ramp check. What precisely do you believe the FAA is allowed to do if a pilot is ramp checked and the pilot declines to sign a PBR notification? Certificate action? A fine? Something else?