Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

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

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

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

Old 30th Sep 2019, 11:39
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 51
Posts: 1,056
Received 115 Likes on 57 Posts
RAMP checks... Easy or hard? Moving from the Coffs thread..... go ahead lads......

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!
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2019, 21:00
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geostationary Orbit
Posts: 373
Received 57 Likes on 21 Posts
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.
thunderbird five is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2019, 21:20
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Outtahere is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2019, 23:13
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 01:33
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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?
BigPapi is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 03:44
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 342
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
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
mcoates is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 03:58
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: space
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Tell em to fark off. If they continue to harass you call the police.
zanthrus is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 04:36
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 51
Posts: 1,056
Received 115 Likes on 57 Posts
Originally Posted by zanthrus
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!!!
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 05:03
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,861
Received 167 Likes on 94 Posts
95% of Police wouldn’t know what to do when they got there.
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 05:29
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,678
Received 42 Likes on 27 Posts
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
aroa is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 06:18
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
machtuk is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:16
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Surprised nobody has mentioned- see them coming, close doors, beacon on!
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:33
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.
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!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 10:31
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by Car RAMROD
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.
havick is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 10:43
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Up yer nose, again.
Age: 67
Posts: 1,228
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
Peter Fanelli is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 11:19
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by andrewr
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.
PLovett is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 11:50
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 555
Received 79 Likes on 38 Posts
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.









Cloudee is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 20:57
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,274
Received 411 Likes on 203 Posts
Originally Posted by PLovett
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”.)


Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 22:28
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,678
Received 42 Likes on 27 Posts
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,!
aroa is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 22:46
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PLovett
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.

Originally Posted by PLovett
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 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.