Another ramp check question.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:39 am

I have another ramp check question.

Yesterday I did the first flight test on a new RV8, the " Flight Authority " that was issued for the first twenty five hours of flight restricts me to a radius of twenty five nautical miles from the base from which the airplane is operated.

My GPS shows Qualicum Beach to be 26.72 nautical miles from Nanaimo.

If I were to find myself at say at two thousand five hundred feet exactly at the outer edge of my twenty five mile limit and decided that the airplane will easily glide to the Qualicum airport even with the prop stopped and I threw caution to the winds so to speak and landed at Qualicum for a piss or something like that, and when I returned to the airplane , low and behold standing by the RV8 is one ( or more ) of TC's ramp checkers.

The law requires me to produce the required documents one of which is the " Flight Authority " which is the Cof A at this stage of the flying.

Would I be in violation of the rules?

Airports are measured from center to center, would I have an argument that edge to edge they are twenty five miles apart?

By the way you can ask for an exemption to the twenty five mile rule and yesterday I spoke to four TC Worker Bees and still have not got anyone to actually take the risk of allowing me to venture more than twenty five miles from my home airport.... I was given another person to contact, but alas, when I phoned it was after three o'clock and that individual had left his office for the day.

So I am asking all you experts out there to advise me in this very serious and perplexing issue, remember that " SAFETY " must be your first concern so do not give me advice that may put me in danger.

Cat

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:12 am

Griffon :

I am asking because I am bored, and this site needs traffic and entertainment.

But being bored aside, I have another very serious reason for posing this question and it has to do with a letter that was written to me by the Director General Civil Aviation wherein he clearly outlines what a pilot should do in such a circumstance.......you all will love his thought on an issue such as this....you will just love it.... Wave

Back to my question regarding measuring distances, if the nearest edges of the airports were within the 25 mile limit why would you not have a good argument?

But even more important would one of TC's " Ramp Checkers " actually enforce this rule when there is such a small difference in the distance?

Maybe that is the question I should ask.

Maybe the answer would tell us more about the mentality of the " Ramp Checkers " ??

Cat

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:19 am

My apologies Cat... I shnookered you by removing my post... evidently as you were replying. (figured I should shut up, and resume my observer status)

I suspected you might have been after just that. I agree, to enforce the rule strictly there would be ludicrous... When enforcing laws and rules etc, those doing so ought to be considering the intent of the law. Clearly, in that case, the intent isn't breached at all.

Cheers,

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:09 am

Well I guess if I were ramped in a situation such as the one that I have outlined the best thing is to lie to the " Ramp Checker " and state that I landed for safety reasons due to a problem with the airplane, maybe a rough engine or something that is plausible.....even though you are lying it really does not matter because lying is a virtue with these people in TC.

If it is O.K. for them by default it should be O.K. for us.

Now I know most here will jump all over me for suggesting that you lie to a Government official, however in the case of Civil Aviation it is an acceptable practice to lie if it is in your own best intrest.

I base my opinion on the position taken by our Director General Civil Aviation wherein he clearly has told me that lying is quite satisfactory and has his full backing.

Now I also know that many out there will be rather doubtful about this, but that is a fact.

On many occasions I have asked the Director General Civil Aviation to retract his statement, however he clearly stands by his position that dishonesty is in his own words in a letter to me and signed by him, Quote: Quite satisfactory and he personally fully backs such actions.

Strange but true...

Eventually I shall post a copy of said letter on.

http://www.underground.tc.ca

We must abide by the spirit of the regulator and beyond doubt their position is dishonesty is the best way to go.

Kind of blurs the ground rules , doesen't it?

Cat

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:12 pm

When test flying aircraft i have occasion gotten lost and found myself beyond the 25 nm limit .. Of course as soon as i discovered this i returned to the specified limits

.

I always figured the intent of the 25 nm rule was to try to force you to do some sort of test flight program and to prevent you from galloping off on an extended cross country with an untested aircraft.

And yes it is disgusting how little some of the vancouver office people are actually in the office rather than "being taken out to lunch" or "left a little early".

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:18 pm

Abramin :

Well I finally talked to someone in M&M about getting approval for a corridor instead of a radius to fly in, such as Nanaimo to Qualicum Beach.

Well he opined as that may be approved but I can not land at Qualicum Beach.....

Jeses what in the hell has happened to sanity in aviation?

Anyhow when I started to query why I couldn't land he started to get real hard nosed about it, so I said O.K. if that is the attitude I get when I ask reasonable questions then I guess I will just land and my defense will be safety....I had a problem that caused me concern so for safety I landed to check it out.......Fu.k em, I don't really care anymore I intend to do what ever safety compels me to do and they can kiss my ass...

Anyhow I should never have asked in the first place, because I would be the last person in the Pacific Region these guys would approve anything for.

Cat

W5 · Post by W5 » Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:40 pm

Remember the old saying: "It's easier to get forgiveness, than to get permission"!

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:49 pm

Exactly W5. Sometimes i think that is the only way anything gets done on this planet anymore.

I just try to spend more time grinding than being ground

.

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:14 pm

Cat:

Ramping you for 'potentially' breaking the 25' rule?! My God! It's like getting a j-walking ticket from a cop on a friday night (while there's a riot going on)!!

It sickens me to see how certain TC guys piss-away our tax dollars!

G

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:48 pm

Greenwich :

No they have not ramped me for this, I am only putting forth a question as to what could happen.

My position basically is that enforcement by ramp checks has become a method to entrap pilots who "may" be in violation of some rule or the airplane "might" have some mechanical problems.

We should have at least the basic right to go about our lawful business without being delayed by a ramp checker looking for infractions using the excuse that he/she has the right to demand you produce documents....which in many cases is only an excuse to entrap you.

Once you let the camel get its nose under the tent so to speak the whole animal will end up in your tent. ( some of my Arab stuff from my days in the Sahara Desert. )

I get bored on my days off and pass the time here examining how our industry works day to day.

Sometmes it makes for good discussions.

Cat

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:34 pm

Cat... Problem that comes to mind...
you want a couple miles... reasonable... maybe they turn their heads.... the next guy wants a few.... maybe they turn their heads to that too... then the next guy wants ten... then 20?... Where to draw the line? The rules were made to draw lines.
I agree with you that in the case you've described, obviously you should be free to do so... but what about the next guy?... and don't these TC folks have to consider that?

LT · Post by LT » Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:43 pm

Yes, if you suffer a mechanical problem it's just best that you kill yourself.

Don't break the TC rules to save your life.. I mean. You've been given a 25 mile border, don't break it...

I love rules, they're great..... When they're doing their investigation, they'll probably give you a fine for not going the extra .5 miles to the safer airport too.(If you had gone there, they'd give you a ticket for going)..

The system is designed with you and your safety in mind..

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 7:16 am

Griffon :

Thanks for your thoughts, however rules for the sake of rules can be detrimental to safety when there is no room for exceptions.

Lets take the 25 mile rule that I have to comply with here in Nanaimo.

I can go 25 miles to the south west and I will be flying in a very mountainous area, so if the engine quits I will force land in terrain where they may never find me should I be injured and unable to crawl home or call for help. In fact there are mountains just a few miles from the airport that run right up the Island.

If I fly anywhere to the North or East I will be over water with a 2,500 foot cap above me due to the Vancouver restricted airspace. If it quits and I go into the water, how long will I last at those temperatures?

However if I fly in the corridor where the Island highway runs from Victoria to Port Hardy there are many safe emergency landing sites plus some airports.

The problem with TC rules are they are very often poorly thought out and when you query them they either go into the "Those are the rules " mode or become agressive and attempt to intimidate you.

So all I am doing is posing reasonable questions and looking for suggestions.

I got the "Safety" crap from the TC guy when he stated that the rules are there and I must abide by them.

I have forgotten more about safety than these drones collectively will ever learn.

Cat

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:08 am

Applying those rules, without flexibility, especially in your situation, but probably in many others also, certainly does seem to qualify them as "drones".

Limits need to be given... lines do need to be drawn and enforced for safety purposes.... but reasonable lines, and with flexibilty and attention to the intent. Clearly, in your case, for refusing your request, they're not doing so... Is it personal, or do you think the same answer would have gone to anyone making the request?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:30 am

Griffon :

They have not actually " refused " me what I have gotten so far is a chase the monkey around its cage run around.

When you ask for anything out of the ordinary from TC you will usually get the run around from department to department and inspector to inspector....they cannot make a decision because that would imply accountability should something go wrong. Furthermore those who labour under the iron fisted rule of our regional manager of M&M in most cases fear the power of this corrupt individual. One who ( in my opinion ) exibits all the manifistations of being a psychopath, allowed by his superiors to run roughshod over anyone he chooses to.

Now if you were a TC inspector and . . requested an exemption from a rule, would you feel safe knowing your boss might not take to kindly to co-operating with .? Hey it's not like I am an unknown in aviation.

Limits and lines that are drawn to enhance safety are needed, dumb poorly thought out rules that are difficult to get exemptions from are exactly that dumb and only encourage non compliance.

Cat

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:48 am

Does anyone REALLY know why the rule was written as it is, or are we just surmising the rationale behind it? In reality, the rule is probably many years old and there is nobody in the local office who was a party to it's development. Therefore, like us, the front line inspector you spoke with probably doesn't even know why the rule is the way it is. But he certainly knows he can not tell you it will be OK for you to intentionally break a regulation.

It would be no different than you calling the police and asking for permission to break the speed limit on a certain stretch of road. It's highly unlikely the cop you speak with knows the reason for the limit being what it is. Just because you, and perhaps even the cop, believe it's safe enough to exceed the speed limit on that stretch of road, or that you know of other roads that are more dangerous, you are not going to be told that it's OK for you to break the speed limit.

But, in both cases the inspector or cop can exercise discretion in enforcing the rule at the time of the occurrence. They have the ability to take action ranging from doing nothing at all, to warning you, to charging you. What action they choose is entirely up to them at the time. Just be careful with your strategy of claiming a mechanical problem. You may find you aren't allowed to fly the aircraft out until you have figured out what caused the problem and have fixed it.

Personally, I suspect the 25 mile rule exists to keep your homebuilt fairly close to your toolbox for those first few hours when the bugs are being worked out.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 9:07 am

Wilbur :

The flight authority clearly states that the Regional Director Aviation Licensing can grant authority for exemptions taking into account the safety of the flight.

My request was to ask for Qualicum Beach to be the limit of operations with this airplane, it is 1.72 miles outside the 25 mile limit....

When I phoned and asked to talk to the appropriate person to discuss this with I got passed form person to person, the last one I talked to said that the request could probably be granted but I would not be allowed to land at Qualicum Beach.

There is nothing in the 31 listed conditions that forbids landing at an airport other than the home base, so why the comment that I would be denied landing authority, is it dangerous to land at Qualicum Beach?

Having inspectors decide that their decision is going to be your limiting factor despite the wording of the rules is quite common when dealing with TC Civil Aviation, once they decide something you may not be able to get it changed, protection of the species is paramount at TC.

Cat

Ralliart · Post by **Ralliart** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:18 pm

We were ramp checked today. (Pacific Region)

2 TC personnel waiting as the aircraft taxied in and shut down, they introduced themselves as C (forget last name) and C (forget last name) from enforcement. They both had the same first name.

Anyways, it was a training flight with instructor and 2 students, so it was a good experience for the students, as TC checked their documents as well (for ramp check demo purpose, as the instructor was obviously PIC) then went through the AC documents and aircraft.

They explained a few extra pointers we didn't know regarding new info about going down to the US, then all shook hands and they were off.

All in all a pretty decent experience.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:13 pm

What do you mean they went through the aircraft?

Cat

mikegtzg · Post by **mikegtzg** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 11:18 pm

There is a simple way around this 25nm rule that should be considered. Move the location of the centre of your 25 nm. radius. There is nothing that says it must be a registered aerodrome. You could base it at a private strip (or farmers field) that is located in the centre of all aerodromes that you would like to fly to. The aircraft can be parked at any of these aerodromes as they are all within the 25nm. radius that you are restricted too. The 25 nm. restriction is still from the centre. I recently did this with a homebuilt with the understanding of TC personnel. It is entirely legal.
To fly the aircraft out of the 25nm. radius requires a $45.00 ferry permit (tax!) per occurence. Very expensive. If you have already been issued your interim CofA with your home aerodrome specified, they may charge you $250.00 to change the location.
Since I am not that familiar with your airspace (I'm a prairie boy). I'm not sure if this is an option for you. But I really doubt they will let you land at that aerodrome without there $45.00 fee.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 7:20 am

Mikegtzg :

When I talked to the TC guy he was going on and on about safety being the "only" consideration when deciding to allow exemptions to the flight authority.

So if pay $250.00 to change the limitations and then $45.00 per landing I will be safe?

Am I to understand that without paying TC all that money I am in danger of something really bad happening to me or the airplane?

Boy it sure reinforces the dangers inherent in not knowing all the rules.

All you young ones out there take heed of this and learn the rules of safety..

Cat

Ralliart · Post by **Ralliart** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:49 am

They checked inside the aircraft to see if there was any unsecured cargo, checked to see if there was a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, etc.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:44 pm

Ralliart :

Do you feel that having the taxpayer support two TC inspectors checking one school aircraft for some possible infraction like forgetting your license at home to be good use of our money?

Cat

mikegtzg · Post by **mikegtzg** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:08 pm

Yes Cat Driver you are correct. It is a joke that spending money within the beaurocracy all of sudden makes things safe. The proud new owner of an RV8 (I'm a little envious because I don't have one) would likely be the last person to consider an unsafe flight. But gov't has a tendency to tell us what is good for us because we as simple sheep couldn't possibly make sound decisions on our own.
Its unfortunate but reality that we should have to all be lawyers to get what we want within the 'system'. My previous posts description of how to clear the hurdles in the 'system' was by no means an endorsement of it whatsoever.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 9:09 am

Mike...

It is not my RV8, I am only doing the initial test flights for the owner. By the way he has invested $180,000 in it to this point and it is really a nice flying machine.

Over regulation aimed in a scatter gun manner such as paying two drones to hassel citizens, without probable cause, who going about their legal business , breeds contempt and eventually non compliance.

About a year ago I received a phone call from inforcement regarding a AOR, so I answered the questions because it was nothing important as far as I was concerned.

It ended up with three weeks of hounding me until I finally told enforcement to leave me alone or I would file an harrassement complaint, that did the trick and I never heard about it again.

So if they ever phone me again I will refuse to answer even the time of day.

Cat