I have just read accounts of yet more ramp checks in France.
Biarritz (well known for this) and Lognes (the only GA-usable Customs airfield near Paris) were mentioned.
The officers were very well briefed on the usual stuff e.g. the aircraft and the pilot need separate radio licenses, the 30-day VOR checks (not needed unless you use VORs for navigation and that was accepted by the policeman), and especially a journey log where somebody mentioned it needs to go 6 months back. They also wanted the C88/IM4 which most pilots won’t have; the solution used to be a Certificate of Free Circulation which has not been possible to get in the UK after about 2005 (I got one just in time).
The FAA shut the Heathrow office years ago and shut the Frankfurt one more recently. So now they have no offices here where FAA inspectors could be based, so I reckon a quiet deal has been done.
It will be interesting on how they will get briefed in April 2016 on the EASA FCL “N-reg attack” i.e. pilots need EASA papers if the “operator” is EU based. On the past record of the DGAC the policemen will be briefed with something likely to be bogus, but you will be in a lousy position to argue the point.
I also wonder if anyone has specific experience of an C88/CofFC inspection. These should have been an issue (to the extent that they can be) for at least 10 years now. Yet, very little has come out first-hand. I know most people don’t want to disclose inspections so if you aren’t happy to post under your nickname, feel free to email me and I will collate it, anonymised as required.
I didn’t think N-reg aircraft required a journey log – at least, when I owned one in the United States, we didn’t keep a journey log (I just logged the date and flight time in a small book we carried for the purpose – no departure/arrival points)
I’m curious to know what details you put in your journey log.
…and also I will be curious to know what their definition of “EU resident” is. In the Isle of Man we have some problems with officialdom not actually knowing our status and the rules, and imposing their own idea instead of reality. There have been one or two Manx passport holders for example deported from eastern European countries for not having a valid passport! (We have our own passports, in case you didn’t know – which say “British Islands – Isle of Man” instead of United Kingdom)
A search here on
journey log
digs out various previous discussions, with good references.
I don’t think there is any specification on what exactly should be in the log.
The one I have is here although I was unable to contact that shop (suspect they don’t deal outside France) so I bought it from the USA; Ebay, IIRC, with a substantial postage charge
Pooleys also do a journey log but my feeling is that one should not carry anything in the plane which has engineers’ signatures or looks like it should have because that opens the door to more questioning (“why is this Annual signed off but this one isn’t” and then you have to explain that the Release To Service is actually a logbook insert which goes into the Airframe Log which is at home, and do that to a French policeman who probably won’t understand 90% of it – like those who asked me at Poitiers last year why I was US-reg; luckily they got bored (one of my many skills 
)) if somebody wants to p1ss you off.
The “EU resident operator” is going to be a nightmare, with everybody in the DGAC doing their own interpretation.
For those who have to stop in France, where is the least likely to get looked at? Some provincial place in the middle of nowhere e.g. Rodez?
Well, that’s good there’s no specification, because up until my last permit revalidation we used a WHSmith Red and Black notebook and just hand wrote in columns. But I got tired of that and laser printed a bunch of A5 sheets with the columns I wanted and stuck it in an A5 ring binder.
The culture of fear is alive and well in Europe. Why don’t you stand up to them a bit more ?
They can only do so much you know. I mean, there is legislation and guidance material in relation to these ‘checks’ which you can download and keep a copy handy in case they start making problems for you. I can post the link if you like.
You, as PIC in the end have every right to terminate the check and request another officer to carry it out as per legal guidelines, which by the way stipulate that it should cause ‘minimal’ disruption both to you and your flight departure / arrival etc.
If you utilise a handling agent at these Airfields then you can always email copies of your docs to them prior to arrival. There really shouldn’t be any issue then as the airfield have all pertinent info and have accepted your flight.
Should you have issues at any particular airfield then start a thread or threads based on your experiences. Many of them rely on GA and to see their Airfields getting a bad name is not likely to do their business any favours.
From what I’ve seen the officers conducting the checks have had limited knowledge of items and flight experience much of the time.
They can only do so much you know. I mean, there is legislation and guidance material in relation to these ‘checks’ which you can download and keep a copy handy in case they start making problems for you. I can post the link if you like.
Anything like that would be really useful.
Why don’t you stand up to them a bit more ?
One has limited options, especially with a policeman who can only just speak English. I think, in any area of life, arguing with a policeman is never a good idea because they know exactly how to handle that.
Should you have issues at any particular airfield then start a thread or threads based on your experiences. Many of them rely on GA and to see their Airfields getting a bad name is not likely to do their business any favours.
That’s a great idea. I suspect some airfields have an informal understanding for “minimal harrassment”. No prize for guessing which one I am thinking of, though I have read of one N-reg inspection even there, and the other day two guys turned up there in a twin turbine heli and, holding an Ipad with some data on it (every time I tried to casually walk past to see it, he walked off) they were obviously waiting for somebody specific, but later they disappeared.
Peter wrote:
The FAA shut the Heathrow office years ago and shut the Frankfurt one more recently. So now they have no offices here where FAA inspectors could be based, so I reckon a quiet deal has been done.
My thought on that is that FAA does not do “quiet deals” with foreign governments. US Federal Government agency culture is quite averse about creating any perception of a treaty outside of the Congressional law, although obviously if the agreement were within an existing treaty it would be justifiable. In this instance, i.e. using foreign police forces as a surrogate to cover federal responsibilities, I find that unlikely.
I’ve never actually seen an FAA ramp check in the US, although I have certainly heard of them. For a while the rumor mill had FAA getting wound up about maintenance of ex-warbirds in Experimental Exhibition airworthiness category. A guy I know got a FSDO call asking to do a “ramp check” of his Yak at his hangar, by appointment. His response was to say they could do a ramp check when he was on public property, at random, otherwise bring a search warrant. I’d assume they were just going through a list of local aircraft, with no reasonable cause, so it didn’t happen as far as I know.
Phobos wrote:
If you utilise a handling agent at these Airfields then you can always email copies of your docs to them prior to arrival. There really shouldn’t be any issue then as the airfield have all pertinent info and have accepted your flight.
I cannot see what relevance there is in sending documents to a handling agent. While it may be good manners, and may make life/work easier upon them, it doesn’t make the aerodrome operator “accept” your flight; neither does it change anything in case of a rampcheck. The police will be checking pilot and aircraft, not the agent.
My thought on that is that FAA does not do “quiet deals” with foreign governments. US Federal Government agency culture is quite averse to creating any perception of a treaty outside of the Congressional law, although obviously if the agreement were within an existing treaty it would be justifiable. In this instance, i.e. using foreign police forces as a surrogate to cover federal responsibilities, I find that unlikely.
A very good point, and I agree.
So, is there some treaty provision for this?
Otherwise, why did they close the Frankfurt office? It was big and reportedly busy.
