M6RV6 wrote:Just tying to find someone that has been there.
GT
Thanks again.

watkinsnv wrote:CA. passed a law mind you not the FAA, that states you can only land and take off at or on a designated airport. Lance



About 25 years ago I was down in Truckee with a buddy of mine, and we were out goofing off in a mutual friend's Citabria. We took off from TRK and headed up to the "Old Truckee Airport" which was just some ruts in the sagebrush next to I-80 where the CHP scales are now.

We spent about an hour doing bounce and go's, landing south, up and 180, land north, up and 180, and so on. As we did this, we saw a CHP (California Highway Patrol) 4X4 sittin' on the shoulder of the freeway, and just figured he was there enjoying the show, and didn't really pay much attention to him.

After about an hour we got bored and headed back to TRK. We landed, and had barely parked the airplane when the airport manager came running out all excited, shouting, "What the f*** did you two do this time?!?!" Al and I pointed fingers at each other and said, "Who? Us?" not knowing what the heck he was talking about.

"Well, there's a CHP Officer here, and he's going to take you two to jail."

Oh well, that was a new one, but what the heck. About that time our young officer comes storming out, spittle flying, eyes bugged out, just screaming about pilot licenses, airplane registration, jail and handcuffs. Quite the show. I asked quietly and politely what the problem was, and he launched into a tirade about how we had broken "the law" by landing in the sagebrush and not at an airport, and he was going to arrest us.

"Ok," says I, "what law did we break by landing out there?"

He looked at me like I was stupid or something and said, "It's against the law to land an airplane somewhere other than an airport." I asked again, "What law? Give me the code section, and regulation it comes from, that you're gonna use to take us to jail and book us with." His answer was the same... "It's against the law."

This went on for probably ten minutes, back and forth, and I was actually looking forward to the trip to jail so I could get a cup of coffee and a sandwich. But my buddy Al, who was an Alaska float pilot in the summers and TRK CFI in the off seasons, had given the airport manager the high sign to call a flight student of his, who was also a Truckee CHP officer, to get down there and help get this train wreck straightened out.

The manager made the call and Scotty arrived shortly. He listened to the story for a few minutes, looked at Al and I and rolled his eyes, then pulled junior CHP aside and had a long talk with him. Our young officer never came back to apologize to us, but just stomped off after talking with Scotty. But, Scotty came back, said, "Sorry about that guys. Kid's new, fresh up from LA, and he's never seen an airplane land in the dirt before."

Maybe there is a law on the books now, but in my experience, most non-flying cops think off airporting is against the law just because they think it should be, but when pushed to cite the actual code section, they can't.

mtv wrote:Ditto on what Lowflyeby said. There was an article in AOPA Pilot magazine some time back regarding this, written by John Yodice, AOPA Chief Legal Counsel.

Local police do have the authority to inspect your license/medical, but even the FAA does NOT have the authority to keep it, without a "legal process".

MTV

A recent FAA enforcement case gives us an opportunity to review these regulatory requirements. It also gives us a real-life answer to some of these questions, especially to the "what happens" question.

Let's look at the rules. The regulatory requirements are contained in FAR 61.3(l) and 61.51(i). These regulations require a pilot to "present" for "inspection" certain pilot documents upon the reasonable request of certain officials. Yes, in answer to one of the frequently asked questions, the request must be "reasonable." While the word reasonable appears in only one of the two provisions — FAR 61.51(i) — it has been interpreted to apply to both. The concept of reasonableness is narrower than one might expect.

What documents must be presented? The credentials that must be produced for inspection are an individual's FAA pilot certificate, medical certificate, and pilot logbooks. There are other documents that must be produced, but they don't seem to raise the same level of concern. These are the records that are required to be kept by FAR Part 61. FAR Part 61 governs FAA certification of pilots and instructors. These records include special-purpose pilot authorizations such as the familiar LOAs (letters of authorization) and flight and ground instructor certificates.

The officials named in the regulations who may make such requests are: authorized representatives of the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board, and any federal, state, or local law enforcement officer.

OK, in summary then, a pilot is required to present for inspection his or her pilot and medical certificate and logbooks at the reasonable request of an FAA or NTSB representative, or a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer.

The pilot involved in this case is a flight instructor. He was administering a biennial flight review to another pilot when the Cessna 172RG they were flying landed gear up. The local FAA flight standards district office began an investigation of the incident. As part of the investigation, the FSDO wrote to the flight instructor asking him to present his pilot logbooks and flight instructor records for inspection. (Later in the proceedings, the FAA also demanded that he produce his medical certificate for inspection.)

For what he thought were good reasons, the flight instructor refused to comply. He was familiar with Part 830 of the National Transportation Safety Board regulations, which prescribes what accidents and incidents must be officially reported. This was not one of them. Since the involvement of the FAA was not required or invited, according to the flight instructor, he concluded that the FAA request was an unreasonable invasion of his privacy. He also believed that the FAA request was unreasonable because he had timely filed an Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) report about the gear-up incident, which he felt provided him with immunity from the FAA probing.

The refusal didn't sit well with the FAA. As is usual in such cases of refusal, the FAA issued an order suspending all of his airman certificates — not only his flight instructor certificate, but also his pilot and medical certificates. That is certainly one answer to the question of "what happens" after a refusal.

As was his right, the flight instructor appealed the FAA's order to the NTSB. A hearing was held before an NTSB administrative law judge. The flight instructor's arguments didn't sway the judge. The judge sustained the FAA order. The instructor then appealed to the full five-member board, as again was his right. The full board also affirmed the FAA order.

lowflybye wrote:Take a gander at 14 cfr part 61.51 (i) (iii)

Presentation of required documents.

(1) Persons must present their pilot certificate, medical certificate, logbook, or any other record required by this part for inspection upon a reasonable request by—

(i) The Administrator;

(ii) An authorized representative from the National Transportation Safety Board; or

(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.

(l) Inspection of certificate. Each person who holds an airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license required by this part must present it and their photo identification as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for inspection upon a request from:

(1) The Administrator;

(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;

(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or

(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.

courierguy wrote:Boy is this thread ever timely! My recent experience has nothing to do with the FAA, but does the authorities that be, and I do fly over the nearby Port all the time, it's a few miles from my strip.

I just drove my crane 4 miles, and of course had to go through the Inkom Port of Entry on I-15. I got the dreaded "brings papers inside" sign, and did so. While waiting several minutes at the counter (no one else there, the scale is automated, but she wanted to make me wait I guess) she checked the paperwork out and then like a dummy I said it had been a long day. "What time did you start " she asked. "6:00 AM, she immediately informed me I was "out of service", (it was 6:10 PM). I told her that she may have misconstrued my comment, as I was referring to burning some brush on my property (and you can SEE my place from the frigging Port) BEFORE running the boom truck for 45 minutes hours later and then driving it 4 miles. She said it didn't matter, work is work, and I was over the numbers for DOT "time in service"! At that point I turned to leave, and wished her a "have a nice day".

It started bugging me though, so after I got home I called the local state trooper barracks, and had a helpful trooper assure me it was meant to be "work for compensation" as in hours of service. I made it clear to him I putzed around the place, then ran the crane for less then an hour, and then, on the way to it's storage lot, had to go through the Port. No problemo he said, you're cool (or words to that effect). I should have quit there, but then I call the Port, ask her name and refer to the incident less then an hour earlier and mention (in as non threatening way as conceivable, "brown nosing") there seemed to be a misunderstanding as to her interpretation of the DOT rule. She wouldn't budge an inch, and I was tempted to tell her that if I WAS "out of service", why the hell did she allow me back on the interstate driving 45,000 lbs of truck! Then, as the trooper recommended I do, I asked when I could talk to her supervisor about her interpretation......

So now, come Monday AM, I have to decide if I walk in the Port with definitive proof of my correctness, or just eat it and let it slide. She's been a Port Puke (MEANT AFFECTIONATELY) for 21 years, is a local like me, and for the life of me I can't see why she had it in for me, and no, she was too old for that "must be that time of the month", thing. You are sexist for even thinking that!