"We're with the FAA"

"Juan Jimenez" writes:


A LEO cannot pull you over and demand your license and registration
just because he needs a few more entries in his shift log (not to say
it is not done on a pretext)...

It's called a random checkpoint and yes, he/she most certainly can. You can
choose to think you don't have to stop. Just try.

Actually no, the rules are more complex than that.
And the Supremes keep watering them down.

But a checkpoint that looks at everyone is OK. Asking your name
may be legal [Hiibel va Nevada] but they stopped there. Separately,
there are "Terry stops" which have their own limits.

See http://papersplease.org for one starting place...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

The FAA doesn't define "operator", but if we accept a dictionary definition:
"One who operates a machine or device".

FAR 1:

Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to
use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter)
of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the
right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).
§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
condition.

§ 91.403 General.
(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for
maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance
with part 39 of this chapter. [NOTE that "operator" includes "pilot"]

§ 91.409 Inspections.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has
had-

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has
been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this
chapter; or [blah blah]

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire,
and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that
person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service
the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved
for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has
received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in
accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be
exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the
inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the
inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of
time in service.



About once a year our FSDO gathers up the CFIs in an area and rails at us
about various topics. Airworthiness is always one of those topics. They
are very emphatic that the CFIs must teach airworthiness compliance to
pilots they work with, and that the PIC is ultimately responsible for
determining the airworthiness of an aircraft before flight. This includes
required inspections and compliance with ADs, inoperative equipment
requirements, and presence of required AFM supplements in the airplane for
STCed equipment. In lieu of requiring the pilot to personally perform AD
searches and peruse the maintenance logs in excrutiating detail, they say
that, as a "safe harbor" good-faith action, the pilot may rely upon an
aircraft status board provided by the FBO or equivalent documentation in an
aircraft check-out notebook. But this documentation must cover required
inspections (annual, 100-hr, pitot/static, etc.) and status of recurring AD
inspections or actions. And they also stress that there is a zero-tolerance
policy for overflying an AD interval (and that the book will be thrown at
you in such an event), which usually means that the 10-hr grace period on a
100-hr inspection does not exist in reality for those aircraft requiring
100-hr inspections.

Airworthiness is not just being in condition for safe flight; it is
primarily paperwork.







"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...
Vaughn Simon wrote:

At a certain amount of risk of bing wrong because I don't have the
time to look up the applicable FAR, the short answer is "NO". The
operator of the plane is responsible for that stuff. I have no idea of
the annual date or even the 100-hour status of the planes I fly. I trust
the operator to do a professional job on that stuff, and the operator is
not about to leave the plane's logs out where they can be misplaced.

When I used to be an "operator" (I owned a plane leased to a flying club),
I kept an up-to-date signed document in the plane attesting to compliance
with the various airworthiness requirements, showing dates and times of
required inspections and the dates when the next action was required to
maintain airworthiness and fitness for IFR flight. The only exception was
the 30-day VOR check, which was explicitly noted as a pilot
responsibility.

AFAIK no inspector would care about such a document, but I think the
pilots appreciated having it.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:41:18 -0500, Stan Prevost wrote:

The FAA doesn't define "operator", but if we accept a dictionary definition:
"One who operates a machine or device".

I am certainly not an authority on this. To be sure, I'm simply
parroting. My DE told me, the FAA wants people to believe that operator
somehow translates to pilot; however, he said, the courts have ruled many
times that pilots are pilots and owner/operators are owner/operators. He
then led me through several logic paths in a couple of FARs which fairly
well became nonsense if you take owner/operator to mean pilot. At the
same time, the same FARs made sense when assuming an operator is not a
pilot.

He did not expand on the cases to which he referred. He did say,
according to the courts (obviously not a literial defination here), an
operator is more like an FBO, an air carrier, a flight school. I think we
can all agree on what an owner is.

[snip]

Anyone have any ideas as to the "cases" to which my DE referred?

Greg

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:16:35 -0500, Montblack wrote:
[snip]

However, if the inspectors don't have, on their persons, two forms of proper
ID...

Driver's license, Passport photo, Birth certificate g


You happen to have a link handy to the PA which states that?

Greg

Greg Copeland wrote:
He did not expand on the cases to which he referred. He did say,
according to the courts (obviously not a literial defination here),
an operator is more like an FBO, an air carrier, a flight school. I
think we can all agree on what an owner is.

Can we?

I'm a member of a club (A not-for-profit incorporated in Connecticut).
The club owns several airplanes. Am I an owner? Am I an operator?
Is the club an operator? Beats me. I figure if I assume the FAA will
take whichever view is most disadvantageous to me at any particular
time, I'll never be disappointed.

I do know that I've got a certified letter on FAA stationary at home
in which the local FSDO politely enlightened me as to exactly which
sins against airworthyness I had committed while acting as PIC in one
of the club aircraft. Was I disgruntled when I got that letter? You
bet. Disgruntled, but not disappointed :-)

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:32:15 +0000, Roy Smith wrote:

Greg Copeland wrote:
He did not expand on the cases to which he referred. He did say,
according to the courts (obviously not a literial defination here),
an operator is more like an FBO, an air carrier, a flight school. I
think we can all agree on what an owner is.

Can we?

I believe so.


I'm a member of a club (A not-for-profit incorporated in Connecticut).
The club owns several airplanes. Am I an owner? Am I an operator?

This would be defined by the state's laws, in which the company was
incorporated. My guess is no, you are not an owner. You would be a
member of the club and the club is the owner/operator of your aircraft.
Obviously, I am not an lawyer but chances are, I'm correct; while still
making a number of assumptions. Some people actually incorporate for the
sole purpose of owning an aircraft in order to deflect issues of
liability. Meaning, the company is the owner/operator. I know comparing
some of these details can get muddy from state to state, but for a given
state, I'm sure the answer is clear.

Is the club an operator? Beats me. I figure if I assume the FAA will
take whichever view is most disadvantageous to me at any particular
time, I'll never be disappointed.

I do know that I've got a certified letter on FAA stationary at home
in which the local FSDO politely enlightened me as to exactly which
sins against airworthyness I had committed while acting as PIC in one
of the club aircraft. Was I disgruntled when I got that letter? You
bet. Disgruntled, but not disappointed :-)

LOL. Nice.

Greg


Greg

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:41:18 -0500, Stan Prevost wrote:

parroting. My DE told me, the FAA wants people to believe that operator
somehow translates to pilot;

They *defined* it as such in FAR 1, as I quoted in my previous post and
present below. But only if we understand "operator" to be "one who
operates", and a pilot to be one who operates an aircraft by virtue of
piloting that aircraft.


§ 1.1 General definitions.
As used in Subchapters A through K of this chapter, unless the context
requires otherwise:

.......

Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to
use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter)
of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the
right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

........

This is what our FSDO relies upon. Dunno about the FAA in general.

The issue is further confused by an apparent distinction in the FARs between
two undefined terms, "airworthy" and "condition for safe flight".

§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining
whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command
shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or
structural conditions occur.

Greg Copeland wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:16:35 -0500, Montblack wrote:
[snip]

However, if the inspectors don't have, on their persons, two forms of
proper ID...

Driver's license, Passport photo, Birth certificate g


You happen to have a link handy to the PA which states that?

I believe the authoritative source on police IDs is the movie "The Treasure
of the Sierra Madre".

Dobbs: "If you're the police, where are your badges?"
Gold Hat: "Badges!? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I
don't have to show you any stinking badges!!"

So stay alert - that alleged "FAA" inspector just might be after your gold
- or your avionics! ;-)

(Actually some criminals have used bogus police ID to commit crimes. A real
cop should have no objection to providing ID and having it checked.)

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
...


And then they will turn around and throw the book at you, and get away
with it. This is similar to a problem the moron in the oval office seems
to have -- not being able to tell the difference between being steadfast
and being pigheaded.


That moron has been kicking the opponents asses for six years.

Dude, he can't even get one over on Iran, whose president is playing the
Shrub like a fiddle.

Do your know the difference between governing by principle and governing
by polls?

Sure, just haven't seen that since Clinton.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
...
I've been ramp checked three times. Twice it was just a pleasant exchange
of information. I was actually happy they showed up at one airport
because the place has a history of meatheads pulling stupid stunts.

So tell us how a ramp check would put a damper on the "meatheads"?

Because they know the FAA may be around, watching, from seeing the
inspectors making the rounds at the ramp. It's called "deterrence."

Ah, yes!, the old, "I have nothing to hide, so I'll drop my pants and
spread my cheeks."
Tyrants love your type!

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'll give that a 1.2.

Juan



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com