Ramp Checks - Do they legally exist in Part 91 Flying?

Forwarded to me by a non-social network non-forum aviation buddy. Figured it would spark some interesting discussion amongst the amateur lawyers here on PoA.

Do Part 91 pilots have to submit to a "Ramp Check" beyond showing Pilot Certificate, Medical, and Photp ID?

This guy says not.

Airworthiness Certificate? No I do not consent to searching my private property (the aircraft)...

W&B? In the locked airplane. I'm late for lunch. Etc.

Not my words. Just giving the executive summary...

Legal Beagles, besides poking the Tiger square in the eye, is he right??

-----

Seen at: http://azpilots.org/
Part 91 ramp check? Just say "No." - (I did.)
Mike Palmer, ATP/x-CFII

The August 2013 issue of the APA's Newsletter offered some advice about how pilots should deal with ramp checks. (See the Executive Director's Report, pages 3 and 4.)

Unfortunately, the Executive Director did not make any distinction in the article between Part 135 operators ("Commercial" pilots), Part 121 operators ("Airline" pilots) or the general catch-all, Part 91 operators ("Private" pilots). But these are important distinctions because, per the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, there is no such thing as a "ramp check" for Private pilots!

See, according to the Constitution, which calls itself the "Supreme Law of the
Land" (supreme over the FAA and Homeland Security), you have a right to be free from warrantless searches. As it pertains to Private pilots and so-called "ramp checks," the Fourth Amendment means that an FAA Inspector does not have the right to board or enter your private property (your aircraft) unless he has a search warrant. Even the chief legal counsel of the AOPA sees this. (See the last paragraph of the January 2011 article Ramp check by John Yodice.) As such, a lot of what you've been told about ramp checks (even by the AOPA in a later article and on its website) is wrong.

Since you'll probably have to educate the authorities about this (as I once had to), let's start by discussing where the concept of a "ramp check" came from in the first place. It's quite logical when you know the facts. Unfortunately the logic has become fuzzy over time.

So first, so that you know the facts, you need to know that we pilots are bound by law to obey the FAR's only. That is, we are NOT bound to obey the FAA's internal rules for its employees, known as FAA Order 8900.1, as some would have you believe.

Unfortunately, that title, "Order," for the FAA's Handbook is an intimidating misnomer. It has even confused at least one federal judge who improperly dismissed an aviation matter because the judge took the title too literally. But the FAA's internal regulations are not "orders" that apply to YOU. They only apply to FAA workers.

Nevertheless, the belief that the FAA's Handbook is controlling law for pilots is fairly entrenched within the FAA. See, for example, this article on ramp checks, written by a FAASTeam Program Manager. Notice that he says HE is required to obey the Handbook. Again, that does not mean YOU are. (Kudos to him for getting some things right, as we'll see below. But he gets some things wrong too.)

Now that we know we are only bound by the FAR's, let's examine them. It might surprise you to know that there IS such a thing in the FAR's as a "ramp check!" (Although it's not called that by name.) But ramp checks are only for FAR Part 135 Commercial operators and FAR Part 121 Air Carriers. See FAR 135.73 and FAR 119.59 respectively. There is a logical basis for this.

See, these operators fly the public around for hire. And the FAA's mandate is to protect the public. Therefore, Congress gave the FAA the right to board these aircraft for inspection whenever it wants. In essence, these operators waived their Fourth Amendment right to warrant-less searches when they signed up to carry passengers for hire. But if you're a Part 91 Private pilot, none of the FAR's about impromptu invasive inspections (i.e., ramp checks) apply to you.

Unfortunately, fuzzy logic has crept in over time. While it's the FAR's that give inspectors the legal authority to inspect commercial operators, when it comes to inspecting private operators, Inspectors cite their internal Handbook for authority instead. But, as we've said, the Handbook is not controlling law for pilots.

Kudos to the FAAST guy (above) for acknowledging that, per the FAR's, private pilots don't have to provide access to their aircraft. Too bad he contradicts himself later when he says you may have to remove your Airworthiness Certificate so he can inspect it. (He cites FAR 91.203 for authority but FAR 91.203 does not say that.)

Even if the FAA's internal rules did apply to you, that doesn't automatically make them lawful orders. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that, the Constitution notwithstanding, an internal FAA order said an FAA Inspector could board your Part 91 private plane during a ramp check. That would be like the IRS writing an internal rule in its Special Agent's Handbook saying an agent could kick down your door anytime he wanted. That is unconstitutional and therefore, not lawful. You do not have to comply.

Next problem: The FAA confuses the differences in the FAR's between commercial and private pilots, telling us you have to produce the same papers that a commercial operator would. But you don't.

For example, commercial operators have to calculate and record a Weight & Balance manifest before every flight for hire. But as a Part 91 operator, there is no such requirement for you. You only need know that you are within your W&B for safe flight. Kudos to the FAAST guy again for acknowledging that Part 91'ers don't have to show a W&B calculation.

Similarly, as a Part 91'er, you do not have to show aeronautical charts either. Again, that's a Part 135 regulation. (Specifically it's FAR 135.83.) See how this goes?

Now, as with a cop, an FAA inspector can ask you anything he wants. (The FAAST guy says he'll ask when you last had a BFR.) But as with a cop, you do not have to answer or consent to a search. And, as with a cop, anything you say can be used against you.

Fact is, by law, there's very little you have to do. The FAR's only say that you have to show (not give or surrender) your pilot's license and medical (and now photo ID) to an FAA inspector or law enforcement officer upon request.

I actually went through this once and survived. Years ago my airplane partner and I had flown in for an air fair in New Mexico to talk up General Aviation. I was immediately suspicious when some guy in a white shirt was kinda waiting for us as we taxied in. (Not a line man.) After saying "Nice airplane" (it's a Glasair and was a novelty at the time) he asked, "Where's your Airworthiness Certificate?"

I knew the only guy in the world who would ask about an Airworthiness Certificate would be an FAA guy. I didn't have to show it to him (especially since he hadn't identified himself), but I humored him. I knew it had to be legible to the passengers or crew and it was. Pointing through the canopy, I said, "It's there." Then I locked up the plane saying, "We're late for pancakes."

I thought that was the end of it, but he returned a few hours later, pulled out his wallet and flashed something at me that said "FAA" in big red letters. (Although I don't know what real FAA identification looks like. Especially nowadays, when anyone can print a fake ID on their computer. And this was a Saturday. Was he really on duty?) He said, "May I have the pleasure of giving you a ramp check?"

I said, "No." I told him, "There is no such thing as a ramp check for Part 91 operators. That's only for Part 135 and Part 121 operators." That stunned him. Then he asked to see my pilot license, which I acknowledged I had to show him. (Although, technically, I hadn't flown in, so wasn't acting as PIC. But I wanted to spare my airplane partner from my actions.)

Now, maybe flashing an ATP license helped, but that pretty much ended it. I did make the mistake of handing him my license. (Lesson from Bob Hoover. Don't do that. As with your driver license, the law only requires you show it. I now carry copies of my pilot and driver license to give to authorities when required.) Thankfully he didn't keep my license but merely wrote down my certificate number in a little notebook of his. I never heard more about it.

Look, our counterparts on the oceans have lost this battle. Pilots of boats let the Coast Guard board their private vessels all the time under the guise of "safety." (Even though the CG is really looking for drugs.) Like the FAA, the Coast Guard can legally board commercial ships without a warrant. But not private ships.

Nevertheless, boat pilots have abrogated their rights. Now so-called Homeland Security is trying to do the same to us. Don't let them. You have a Constitutional right "to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" no matter what some Agency writes in their little Handbook.

Exercise your Fourth Amendment right. "Use it or lose it," as the truism goes. When it comes to a Part 91 ramp check, just say "No."

P.S. If you don't have a cell phone or tablet that records audio, I suggest carrying a digital audio recorder with you at all times. It will record all day on a charge. They cost only $50 but will be invaluable if ever you have to fight for your rights.
More links:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/January/1/Pilot-Counsel.aspx
http://discountaircraftbroker.com/faa-ramp-checks/
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...BD3F956782901B178625694A006E92F3?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...376C727B4CA77C4386256959004CDFA3?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...A0957E8B4954C82086257775006C4F3C?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...B8999C7C195110558625694A006ECC07?OpenDocument
 
RotorAndWing said:
I honestly don't understand why all the ****ing and moaning that goes on about ramp checks. :dunno:
Same reason people would complain if the local DMV retained equivalent rights to inspect their cars at any time and retest a driver at any time. If complaints about that sort of thing happening also baffle you then I'm afraid I know of no way to convey the origin of the ****ing and moaning.
 
RotorAndWing said:
sigh........:nonod:

These rules have been in place for what? 50+ years? Are you saying these people got certificated and bought airplanes totally unaware that they can have a ramp inspection?
I wasn't aware that the ****ing and moaning is a recent thing. Lots of regs have been ****ed about since at least 1926.

And the DMV (or local LEO) can't set up a road block and ask to see your license? Really?
You yourself highlighted "may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft." That's asking to inspect the aircraft (car), not the pilot's certificate (driver license.) So your rhetorical question isn't addressing one of the differences.

For example, what is the DMV or LEO equivalent to a LOI or an EIR? In what states can I lose my license through a similar sequence if I "blow off" some cop attempting to inspect my car even if there is nothing visibly wrong with it from an external view?

Or during that road block if they see a safety concern with the vehicle they can't say or do anything about it?

Really????
If there is a qualifier to paragraph 44709(a) that says that such reinspections must have probable cause or something like that then your rhetorical question makes a valid point. However this is another case where you are selecting an analogous auto law when you fully well know I mean the ****ing and moaning is about non-analogous regulations and legal presumptions.
 
RotorAndWing said:
So now you are trying to say the Inspector may not ask to see the license or medical certificate?
No.

You have been arguing with claims I am not making. I see no reason to defend statements you write and then ascribe to me.

I was making a completely different point regarding the FAA's alleged right to re-examine airmen (not their papers) and owner's aircraft at any time for any or no reason. And that any attempt by those persons to deny the FAA that right can cause an airman or aircraft owner to have the respective certificates revoked, even when there exists no evidence that the airman or aircraft owner is in violation of any other regulation.

Let's try a specific: are you familiar with what happened to John Baker of this board? Was there any evidence specific to him that showed he might be unfit to fly that required he be re-examined?
 
comanchepilot said:
Just another guy who thinks being able to read enables them to practice law .
An idea: Only those who have been trained in understanding the laws should be bound by those laws. Seems unfair to jail people for violating arcane laws that are incomprehensible to them - they know not what actions are allowed, nor were they involved in the laws enactment - and seems imminently fair to me that those who have the clearest understanding of those same laws should be held to greatest account. Added benefit is that the pompous are removed from civil society.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's not a "right," it's authority granted the FAA by Congress and of which you were informed before you applied for an Airman Certificate.
I actually don't recall when or if a copy of 49 USC section 44709 was ever presented on any document that I had to sign. Since I knew about it due to my own readings well before I ever applied for a certificate it probably didn't register since it was knowledge I already had. The FAA could have required I admit that 1 + 1 = 3 before I got a certificate and I might have agreed to that (for large values of 1.) Hard to argue with people who hold all the force, you know?

Further, this has been upheld by the Judicial branch of the Federal government as constitutional.
That comment is about as relevant as pointing out that Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided against Scott by the U.S. Supreme Court. Technically true but doesn't address your view of whether the underlying philosophies and laws in either case are just, moral, or too open to easy abuse.
 
Ron Levy said:
You want the real answer to how to deal with the FAA on a ramp check?
The FAA doesn't need to ramp check you to make your life miserable.

  1. Obey the law.
Several posters to this thread obeyed the law and never saw a single human from the FAA prior to being summoned for reexamination. At least two posted that the cost (financial and emotional) of meeting the demand made them choose relinquishment of their certificates.
 
Ron Levy said:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that reexamination is only for violations of the regulations.
You are under the mistaken impression that I asserted or believe any such mistaken impression.
 
Back
Top