RAMP checks... Easy or hard? Moving from the Coffs thread..... go ahead lads......

[Global Aviator]

:E Ok over the years I’ve had my fair share of checks.

Most memorable one, flying the boys in blue on a charter, CASA decide to do a ramp check. I had no issue as all things in place. Boys in blue had other ideas as wanted to go early as they were there. It was hard not to start pissing myself laughing..... hehehehe guess who won? Hint we left early!

Further into career a few here and there overseas however with a bus strapped to me arse, not quiet GA so never an issue.

I’ve never had a problem being ramped, I have had a problem with attitudes!!! Hmm that however is life!

[thunderbird five]

Some years back at a Point Cook Air Pageant, Ramp checkers sniffing around private aircraft landing.
Going well, right up until the RAAF Police and dog arrived to "escort" them off the airbase.

[Outtahere]

Early 90's, line training in a Metroliner into Mount Isa . Shutdown, disembark passengers & note an FOI & AWI wandering around the aircraft. FOI then starts to ask questions.

Line trainer (formerly very senior CASA management) pops his head out of the door & instructs both the FOI & AWI to return to the airport gate, come back out & identify themselves correctly as the first step required of a ramp check.

Ramp checkers do as instructed & we receive a pleasant & cursory ramp check.

[andrewr]

It's interesting that people are so hung up on Strict Liability but have no problem with the CASA guidance for ramp checks. Strict liability is no big deal and we deal with it every day e.g. traffic laws, but the CASA ramp check guidance that says we need to provide weight and balance, fuel calculations etc. for the previous flight is an issue. It is like the police pulling you over for a license check and asking to see your dashcam footage and GPS logs to verify that you stopped at all stop signs and weren't speeding.

I have no problem with a ramp check asking for license, medical, airworthiness certificate etc., but asking for calculations from your previous flight is without doubt investigating whether you have committed an offence and asking you to volunteer the evidence. It doesn't matter how friendly they are or how much they assure you they are only doing it for education, if CASA won't accept your assurance that you complied with regulations they are operating with an assumption that you did commit an offence.

Even if you haven't committed an offence, the rules and calculations can be technical and you don't want to be arguing them under the wing.

Maybe the FOI has had a long day and makes an error in their mental arithmetic
Maybe you flight planned at 55% power to avoid an extra fuel stop, but the FOI flies the same type and believes you should have used a higher fuel burn
Maybe your new girlfriend lied about their weight
Maybe your EFB software has a bug where it used incorrect winds and you really did land with less than the required amount of fuel

What Strict Liability means is that, like speeding, your only real defense is if they can't prove that it happened. It might be unwise to provide evidence that could prove the offence without taking legal advice first.

[BigPapi]

Early 90's, line training in a Metroliner into Mount Isa . Shutdown, disembark passengers & note an FOI & AWI wandering around the aircraft. FOI then starts to ask questions.

Line trainer (formerly very senior CASA management) pops his head out of the door & instructs both the FOI & AWI to return to the airport gate, come back out & identify themselves correctly as the first step required of a ramp check.

Ramp checkers do as instructed & we receive a pleasant & cursory ramp check.

I've never been ramped, but I've always wondered how a CASA employee would identify themselves effectively to me if I was.

How do they identify themselves? What if you're not satisfied with that identify?

[mcoates]

They have an ASIC with CASA employee written on it and they also have another identification card which is the first thing that they show you with CASA written on it and there photo etc.

If you not satisfied with that identity then you simply call the police and ask them to come and validate the person asking for your details

[zanthrus]

Tell em to fark off. If they continue to harass you call the police.

[Global Aviator]

Tell em to fark off. If they continue to harass you call the police.

Yep like my flight above... flying he police... It really was priceless!!!

[Squawk7700]

95% of Police wouldn’t know what to do when they got there.

[aroa]

Having had experiences with FOI, AWis not identifying themselves.... AFAIK,,, their required protocols.
State their name. Show an ID card. State their business. Ask permission to enter the hangar, office.

Here's an example of how how CAsA persons play 'whos' f***king the cat'
One, Ernest Dalgliesh walks unannounced into a hangar, and called out 'Who owns all this stuff'?...indicating some crated warbird parts, stored for someone else.
Who are you, says I . 'I'm Ernest Dalgliesh' from CAsA. I made some comments about scurrilous behavior of other CAsA persons elsewhere, and suggested that he vacate the premises....with "intemperate language". ie F off.! He took off around the corner, hopped in his car and drove back to Cairns. Two weeks late Colin Clinch, Investigator turns up at home with a Summons for ' Threatening a Commonwealth Officer'. I was away, but he was very rude to my wife. The paperwork was left on the outside table, as she wouldnt open the screen door..
Dalgliesh's statement is a 'fairy story'. One has to cooble up something to make a case.
Come the Court day...who doesnt show? Yep ! Dalgliesh.

Just another example of how CAsA persons can waste everyones time and taxpayer money. With impunity

[machtuk]

I've never understood those that have angst against a ramp check
I've Been ramped several times over 40 years, never had an issue. Even got ramped at LaTontuta once, no big deal if you know what you are doing! if you are a responsible pilot then you have nothing to fear, piss them off straight up and you do so at own risk!

[Car RAMROD]

Surprised nobody has mentioned- see them coming, close doors, beacon on!

[LeadSled]

It's interesting that people are so hung up on Strict Liability but have no problem with the CASA guidance for ramp checks. Strict liability is no big deal and we deal with it every day e.g. traffic laws, but the CASA ramp check guidance that says we need to provide weight and balance, fuel calculations etc. for the previous flight is an issue. It is like the police pulling you over for a license check and asking to see your dashcam footage and GPS logs to verify that you stopped at all stop signs and weren't speeding.

I have no problem with a ramp check asking for license, medical, airworthiness certificate etc., but asking for calculations from your previous flight is without doubt investigating whether you have committed an offence and asking you to volunteer the evidence. It doesn't matter how friendly they are or how much they assure you they are only doing it for education, if CASA won't accept your assurance that you complied with regulations they are operating with an assumption that you did commit an offence.

Even if you haven't committed an offence, the rules and calculations can be technical and you don't want to be arguing them under the wing.

Maybe the FOI has had a long day and makes an error in their mental arithmetic
Maybe you flight planned at 55% power to avoid an extra fuel stop, but the FOI flies the same type and believes you should have used a higher fuel burn
Maybe your new girlfriend lied about their weight
Maybe your EFB software has a bug where it used incorrect winds and you really did land with less than the required amount of fuel
What Strict Liability means is that, like speeding, your only real defense is if they can't prove that it happened. It might be unwise to provide evidence that could prove the offence without taking legal advice first.
andrewr,
You are really reminding of "way back when" ---- all flights over 50 nm required an "approved" flight plan.

Had a dispute about fuel at the old Bankstown tower briefing office --- Using book figures for my Chipmunk, DCA man demands I use "RACNSW" figures ---- I refuse and departed. Greeted by DCA man on arrival Tamworth, of course I had legal reserves, they had to back off.

Another time, refiled in the air, with refiled endurance exactly the legal minimum. Tamworth again. On arrival, DCA man demanding to check the fuel ---- and how are you going to do that?? Drain the tanks ----
Izzatso? and who pays?. We settled on DCA would fill the tanks (a big tanks Cessna 205) and, low and behold I had plenty of reserves ---- and full tanks courtesy of the taxpayers. Part compensation because I had to overnight due last light at ASBK.

Much more recent years, one aircraft ramped twice in the one day, in NSW and QLD., CASA made it very plain (plane) they didn't like us much.

Another operator who was on the nose with CASA --- ramped in Cairns, the delay resulted in a B727 load of fish going rotten, have you ever had to dispose of 20 tonnes of rotten fish to all the EPA rules. The cost and the smell was horrendous.

It was established (at great cost) in the AAT that the B727 was "compliant", the AWIs "not airworthy" list was, in simple terms --- 100% wrong.

Right up to the present time, CASA (as it is now -- what comes next, after the present Senate inquiry) has used ramp checks as a weapon, much more so than a real air safety education tool.

For those of you who have never had the experience ---- good on you, let's hope your luck continues, but don't suggest your experience is "typical".

As I sad in a previous post, CASA will not commit to a legally defined list of what has to be complied with on a ramp check ----- not "advisory information", but a legally binding checklist ----

Why?? Because the present situation is too convenient.

Tootle pip!!

[havick]

Surprised nobody has mentioned- see them coming, close doors, beacon on!

have used this method once of twice. Always fun to takeoff over them and land somewhere else on the ramp in the helicopter. Shutdown and scarper to the bar.

[Peter Fanelli]

Had an issue with the mermaids in Adelaide many years ago while flying a Shrike. While I was in the terminal checking in passengers the mermaids decided to help themselves to the plane and my flight bag. I escort my passengers out to the plane and as the first one ducks under the wing to enter the back door out scrambles a mermaid. He pushes out past the passenger who then turns to re-enter the aircraft and smacks his head on the trailing edge of the flap giving himself a major cut just above the eye. So back we all go into the terminal so I can find some medical treatment for the injured passenger. Left about 40 minutes late.

[PLovett]

What Strict Liability means is that, like speeding, your only real defense is if they can't prove that it happened. It might be unwise to provide evidence that could prove the offence without taking legal advice first.

Speeding is an absolute liability offence, not strict liability. There is a massive difference.

I and others have tried explaining the difference before but no-one likes to be disabused of a whinge and it keeps getting trotted out. Incidentally, your explanation of a defence is wrong also.

[Cloudee]

This is what CASA says about Strict liability

Breaches of most of the civil aviation rules are offences of strict liability.

What it means

If you are charged with a strict liability offence, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove intention, knowledge, recklessness or even negligence. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether you meant to break the rules or knew you were doing it.

Why we use it

Strict liability is imposed where the benefit to the community overrides any potential disadvantage to the person charged. In other words, where it’s in the public interest that you know what the rules are and take all reasonable steps to follow them.

That’s why it applies to most road rules, as well as a wide range of other laws involving public health, safety, the environment and financial or corporate regulation. It’s common in aviation too—almost every civil aviation rule in Australia is a strict liability offence.

You are still innocent until proven guilty

If you are charged with a strict liability offence, you aren’t automatically guilty.

It’s not up to you to prove your innocence but up to a prosecutor to prove that you have broken the rules and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can still defend yourself

You can successfully defend yourself against a strict liability offence by showing that you made an honest and reasonable mistake of fact. This means that you knew the rule, assumed you were complying, but relied on fact that was ultimately false.

An example is a pilot who has committed an offence of low flying. If this pilot could show that their altimeter was faulty, but they didn’t know and had no reason to know, that would be a defence to the charge.

Finally, in an emergency, a pilot’s overriding responsibility is for the safety of their flight. It would normally be a defence against breaking any rule, if breaking the rule were necessary in responding to an emergency.

CASA’s just culture

Under our regulatory philosophy, we use a ‘just culture’ approach when applying and enforcing rules.

We won’t punish you for actions, omissions or decisions that correspond with your experience, qualifications and training. However, we won’t tolerate gross negligence, recklessness or wilful violations.

In practice, this means that if you break a rule it’s unlikely you’ll be referred for criminal prosecution.

[Lead Balloon]

Speeding is an absolute liability offence, not strict liability. There is a massive difference.

I and others have tried explaining the difference before but no-one likes to be disabused of a whinge and it keeps getting trotted out. Incidentally, your explanation of a defence is wrong also.Speeding is not an “absolute liability” offence.

If someone is holding a gun to your head and ordering you to speed, that’s a defence.

If the vehicle has a latent design defect that results in sudden and uncontrollable acceleration past the speed limit, that’s a defence.

Then there’s honest and reasonable mistake of fact.

There are no defences to an “absolute liability” offence. Or maybe we have different concepts of “absolute liability” versus “strict liability”?

I think AndrewR makes a legitimate point about ramp checks being quasi-investigations into the past. A police officer can’t ask for evidence that I complied with all laws when I drove from A to B. (Well, I suppose s/he can, but my response would be: “Good morning officer. My name is X and I live at Y. Here is my driver’s licence”.)

[aroa]

Andrews mentions retrospective info asked for. This in my opinion is unlawful. The ramp check is supposed to be to just check you are up to date with current docs etc...not what you may have done yesterday.

With strict liability, if you forget to fill in a line in yr log book....no intention of leaving it blank...tough .....xx penalty points,!
Most of this sort of non safety stuff does not conform to the Govt definition of what constitutes a crime.
But the CAsA Soviet has its own ,rools,!

[andrewr]

Speeding is an absolute liability offence, not strict liability. There is a massive difference.

All the references I can find say that road rules are strict liability. But either way, my point stands that strict liability in the regulations is not more onerous than the road rules.

Incidentally, your explanation of a defence is wrong also.

OK. But would it be fair to say it is much easier to defend if CASA don't have the evidence that an offence occurred, rather than relying on one of the other strict liability defences?

[andrewr]

I think AndrewR makes a legitimate point about ramp checks being quasi-investigations into the past.

Rick Durden made this point an article on Avweb about ramp checks in the USA. I have no idea whether there are equivalent principles in Australian law.

https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/legal-issues-for-pilots/

The moment an inspector asks you about something that happened in the past, even one second ago, its no longer just a ramp check, its an investigation. The FAA is supposed to tell you when its doing an investigation, but sometimes an inspector slips up. You do not have to answer investigation questions. If you are asked about something in the past, my suggestion is that you politely say that it sounds like this is becoming an investigation and that you will speak to your attorney before you answer any further questions. That is your right and inspectors are used to such an answer.

I have my doubts that CASA inspectors would be as accepting of this answer.

[Stickshift3000]

If you are asked about something in the past, my suggestion is that you politely say that it sounds like this is becoming an investigation and that you will speak to your attorney before you answer any further questions.

That is exactly what I would be doing.

[Sunfish]

AndrewR you have put your finger on the point that was eluding me for years. Something didn’t feel right about ramp checks but I couldn’t work out what it was. The inquiry about past activity is definitely an investigation, potentially leading to criminal charges and a felony conviction, therefore you have a right to remain silent and perhaps more importantly, the courts are not allowed to make any inference of guilt from your silence.

Furthermore, comparisons of CASA operations with Police methods and investigations don’t pass the smell test. The Police are governed by stringent standards of behavior backed up by a fearful internal investigatory watchdog that scrutinizes everything they do. Not so CASA.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Just adding to Lead Balloon's post a few above, in both criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences of an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of that person.

In tort, it is the imposition of liability on a someone without a finding of fault - the claimant does not have to prove fault but need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible.

The defendant however, can raise a defense of absence of fault.

Strict liability differs to absolute liability..... an actus reus (or physical act of the crime) may be excused from strict liability if due diligence is proved.

Absolute liability, requires only an actus reus or physical act..

Strict liability is also found in criminal law, though it may not always be called that.....it can apply to traffic offences. In a speeding case for example, whether the defendant knew that the speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant; it only need be proven that the defendant was driving the vehicle in excess of the speed limit.

[aroa]

Sunny nails it. The 'Airstapo' / CasA Polis have NO INDEPENDENT WATCHDOG with teeth to pull them into line and take any action for penalties as required. Just what the criminals in the CAsA employ enjoy .
Any INTERNAL watchdog , certainly doesnt pass the stench test, inside jobs can be and are corrupted by 'colleagues' managers and the upper echelon.
While the ICC does his best within a disgustingly puny budget (for obvious reasons ) he can be/ has been sidelined by those above and investigations directed elsewhere for the desired result.

Its like Police investigating Police..it just doesnt cut the mustard for due process and any natural justice.
Another couple of phrases in the CAsA Code of (mis)Conduct that nobody takes any notice of. Any old BS will do.!

[Nipper]

Before telling the FOI/AWI to F@ck off, you might want to read CAR 302 and 305, both strict liability offences.
As for calling the police, the local cop would be pointed to those Regs by the FOI and he would go fair enough and leave. Commonwealth law trumps State Law.
If you think being ramped by CASA is a pain, wait until you get a SAFA check overseas. SAFA is being adopted by a lot of countries including Australia, and the domestic version is SANA.

[Lead Balloon]

Neither of those Regs requires the answering of an FOI’s/AWI’s questions.

Neither of those Regs prohibits someone saying to an FOI or AWI: “F*ck off”.

But I think you are correct on the State cop point.

[thunderbird five]

Show me "ramp check" in the regulations. "Ramp" would even get you half a point.

[Vag277]

Civil Aviation Act 1988 Section 9.1(f)

[andrewr]

The previous answer listing CAR 302 and CAR 305 seems most likely. But I don't know where the rest of the stuff listed in the ramp check guidance comes from.

[Dexta]

With regards to CAR 305, basically it is saying "Access to any place, AND, in particular: An aerodrome (Not an ALA) AND an authorised activity is occurring (Flying School, Maintenance etc) AND access to any aircraft (at a reasonable time) to inspect that aircraft. All the AND's in there logically means that all of those conditions must be met to allow the access, i.e it MUST be an aerodrome (Certified, Registered or RPT or Charter at least once a week), it MUST have either a LAME, GA School or other CASA Approved activity before they can walk in and inspect an aircraft at a reasonable time. This is how I read it but it's quite possible that lawyer logic is different...

[Sunfish]

I don’t read it your way at all. Any aircraft any where any time in general.

[harrryw]

It looks to me that as you have the right to refuse consent for an inspection. This would make CASA get a warrant which it can do by telephone. So unless you consent they must leave the premises until they have a warrant.

[Lead Balloon]

There is no need for an authorised person to obtain consent under CAR 305. However, access must be “for the purpose of carrying out any powers and functions vested in him or her in pursuance of these Regulations” i.e. the authorised person must have some power or function other than that of access under 305 in order to be entitled to access under the 305 and, if the authorised person is asked for ID but does not produce it, the right of access is terminated.

I don’t think your interpretation is correct, Dexta.

An inspector (which is not the same as an authorised person) is required to obtain consent to enter premises, which consent may be refused. That’s in section 32ACB of the Civil Aviation Act.

Are private pilots and their private aircraft on private property part of the “aviation industry”, Vag?

[Car RAMROD]

Many years ago now, inspectors were being flown around a certain GA-heavy region with lots of airstrips on islands in a fairly compact area, in a heli and a fixed wing aircraft, and local legend has it these chariots been directed by the inspectors not to make radio calls, somewhat of a covert operation.

Well, we figured it out relatively quickly. One of the local flyers may or may not have “shadowed” one of these aircraft, may or may not have made transmissions on their behalf with the words “carrying .... inspectors for ramp checks.”
Everyone ended up keeping each other up to date on their whereabouts.

The inspectors were not appreciative of that.

They were fun times!

[Global Aviator]

That brings me to memories of inspectors hiring and flying a B58 around the North.

For some reason the call sign jumps at me as VH ICB.

May not have been that one but I do remember when they hired said aircraft that the bush telegraph was in full swing, despite their attempts to keep quiet where they were going.

Now ‘‘twas a long time ago and I could be very wrong!

:)

[Sunfish]

So we have “nothing to fear” from CASA inspectors? Then why the fuss about their operations?

[Squawk7700]

Then why the fuss about their operations?

That was back in the “good old days” when everything was better, but yet the CASA guys were really aggressive and they also allegedly hated pilots.

Hmmmm... were they really actually the good old days that LS and his mates say they were?

[Car RAMROD]

So we have “nothing to fear” from CASA inspectors? Then why the fuss about their operations?



I’ve never been fearful. Lost count how many ramps I’ve had, even FOIs coming along and assessing me on checkrides etc.

Like i said in the Coffs thread, a long time ago an AWI went and told my boss the plane was busted to save me having to cop the boss’s wrath because the plane was grounded- he knew what was coming my way if it was me telling the boss it was grounded!

Yes I’ve had some inspectors that have probably been “over zealous” but if you don’t be a prick to them, they generally won’t be a prick to you. Like any other interaction with humans basically. And when you know your right, can back it up, and doing things correctly etc, you’ve got nothing to worry about.

[Checklist Charlie]

Do warning RT alerts still refer to the Ramp Inspectors as "Mermaids"?

CC