Dealing with foreign aviation authorities

[Squawk7777]

This following incident happened to a colleague and it made me think. I'm not going to name any country or airline since it is irrelevant. Landed at XXX [foreign airport] and got ramp-checked by the local aviation authority. Not only flight crew licenses we requested, but also aircraft avionic (successful) self-tests. The captain knew where to flip a switch or two, tests were satisfactory, and after 30 minutes of document and avionic checks the airplane was released by the local authority.

My concern is the legality of certain procedures (in this case the avionic check which can be accessed behind a panel). Most pilots have a little inside knowledge of their airplane, engineering procedures/checks etc.; however, if a foreign aviation authority requires the captain to perform a procedure that is only to be performed by engineering, what would be the best thing to do? If you refuse to perform the test the plane would surely by grounded, if you comply with the foreign CAA you could get in trouble by the domestic CAA for performing a procedure that is only to be done by engineering. Does ICAO cover a situation like this? :confused:

Your thoughts?

7 7 7 7

[Spitoon]

As I understand it, in principle, a ramp check should establish that the rules are being complied with. The rules will be a combination of ICAO and any national or regional rules. If there is a rule that says avionics tests should be done then it is fair game for a ramp check. If that means getting an engineer to demonstrate compliance with the rules, so be it. Well, that's the theory. The practise is, no doubt, rather different in some cases.

It's not my area of expertise but I have had some peripheral involvement with the SAFA programme. I understood from those doing the ramp checks that they would routinely limit their enquiries to paperwork unless that elicited evidence of non-compliance.

[NigelOnDraft]

On my recent Ramp Check, they asked for the CC Licences & Medical Certificates... Never seen the CC look so worried :ooh:

I did promise them to tell our employer, after the ferry return, which prison they were in :)

NoD

[FE Hoppy]

Unless the Captain has a release to carry out the check in question then he should not do it.

He cannot be requested to do any check he is not licensed to carry out.

If the ramp checkers demanded to see a check that is not part of a standard turn round then engineering should be contacted.

[Dufo]

Somewhere in the UK we had to perform TCAS and GPWS show to an audience of two - SAFA.

[411A]

Somewhere in the UK we had to perform TCAS and GPWS show to an audience of two - SAFA.

Common practise.
Certainly OK, just push the test button and it does its thing.
Inspectors seem pleased, and depart, smiling.

[fdr]

concur with FE.

The pilot is ordinarily obliged to give access to the aircraft, and to show documentation as necessary, but any test that is not part of routine operations, or is not in the supplemental procedures section of the POM/FCOM should not be undertaken by the pilots for the inspector.

The courteous answer is that you are not authorised to conduct such a check, so need to get an authorised person to conduct it, at the request of the inspector. :)

Be aware also, that an inspector is required to show an ID (and for the FAA a badge nowdays), on a ramp check, and they have been known to swap ID's between 2 inspectors, and then fine the operator for failure to check. As it is a civil penalty, under USC 49, each event is a max fine of 10K, ie 20K fine just for acquiescing to their presence without checking docs. The same argument could be made for conducting a test thast you are not licensed to undertake, so beware.:}

Majority of EU SAFA inspections are (IMHO) rational, and comply with the checklist and standards of:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 768/ 2006 of 19 May 2006 implementing Directive 2004/36/EC
Commission Regulation 351/2008 EC on prioritisation of inspections
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 768/2006 of 19 May 2006 implementing Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the collection and exchange of information on the safety of aircraft using Community airports and the
management of the information system
Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,
Commission Directive 2008/49/EC of 16 April 2008 amending Annex II to Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the criteria for the conduct of ramp inspections on aircraft using Community airports.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 of 16 April 2008 implementing Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the prioritisation of ramp inspections on aircraft using Community airports.

Standardisation | Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (EC SAFA Programme) (http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/s/s_safa.php)

FAA 8900.1 Flt Standards ISM section re surveillance (refer pt129 inspections for Foreign cariers, pt 91/121/125/135 as applicable for local carriers).

Flight Standards Information System (FSIMS) (http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=SubjectCategories&area=06&subject=03&regulation=all)

USC TITLE 49 TRANSPORTATION sources:
U.S. Code (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t49t50+2+224++(49)%20%20AND%20((4 9)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20)
USC 49 - US CODE 49 - US Code - Title 49: Transportation - vLex (http://vlex.com/source/1048)
US CODE: Title 49,TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode49/usc_sup_01_49.html)

Key Provisions of the US Hazardous Materials Transporation Act (HMTA)
Hazardous materials regulations are subdivided by function into four basic areas:
Procedures and/or Policies: 49 CFR Parts 101, 106, and 107
Material Designations: 49 CFR Part 172
Packaging Requirements: 49 CFR Parts 173, 178, 179, and 180
Operational Rules: 49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177

Be aware that in the USA, security can become a USC TITLE 18 crimes issue really fast... a foreign carrier travelling to or from the USA has a US jurisdition imposed from these regs, which takes things into the serious mode... additionally, a case reviewed in 2006 concludes that the US bill of rights, doesn't have to apply to foreigners. That was upheld in review, and so any visitor may be fairly exposed ie, no 4th or 5th ammendment rights... go to Gitmo, do not pass Go etc... :ooh::uhoh:
Be nice to the Feds... :oh:

[minstermineman]

Be aware also, that an inspector is required to show an ID (and for the FAA a badge nowdays), on a ramp check, and they have been known to swap ID's between 2 inspectors, and then fine the operator for failure to check. As it is a civil penalty, under USC 49, each event is a max fine of 10K, ie 20K fine just for acquiescing to their presence without checking docs.

So do they also get a fine - taken to court for fraudulent use of someone elses id ?

[Nightrider]

Opening a panel may require a screwdriver. In this case this is not acceptable for flightcrew as special tooling is required.
Read your MEL and your FOM, you may be allowed to "rectify" a minor fault as an "operational" item, i.e. resetting the APU overspeed CB in the avionics bay, but nothing which requires any tools.
Documentation of aircraft and crew is perfectly ok, and as soon as there are visible system deteriorations, i.e. oil leaks, tire cuts etc, the SAFA inspectors can (must) take respective actions and engineering support has to provide further inputs.
Not even a Bite test on the FMS is part of flight crew operational procedures.

End of procedure!

[Speedbird48]

fdr,

Not quite correct. The FAA inspector has only to show his credentials (Form 110A)

They do have a badge, but that is to be worn at accident scenes and not used for normal "Ramp Checks".

Speedbird48

[HAWK21M]

Does it come within your qualification to perform the action called for by the foreigh regulatory authority...if yes...go ahead.If no....Then convey it to them.
If they insist on getting the authorised person to do that check,then so be it.But I'd be surprised if a regulatory authority person would want to delay a commercial flight.

regds
MEL