I agree 100% Snoopy and I am shocked by Malibuflyer’s horrific compliance-based outlook on this.
I simply don’t want to live in a world where, should I deviate from the ever-expanding regulations and inference created by governments, I will be automatically detected and sanctioned by technology.
The complexity of the real world is a saving grace. It means that when faced with myriad pointless and petty regulations, I can often ignore them at no risk.
In foreign countries all bets are off – I don’t argue with the authorities out of simple practicality. But should anyone try to ‘ramp check’ me in the UK they will be not only identifying themselves (painfully, at length, with phone calls to CAA HQ to verify) but identifying the exact legislation which entitles them to see my papers, and for what purpose, before I allow them to delay me.
In today’s changing world a healthy disrespect for authority is becoming ever-more important.
In many parts of the world, we’ve just had 2 years of bizarre dystopian authority, it seems some people just cant get enough of it…
Snoopy wrote:
Was your delay primarily caused by the RC or by handling?
I didn’t file the complain because in the end it wasn’t huge delay and I sorted out everything. The delay was primarily caused by RC because the handler was waiting for the agent to get to their office and then came to pick up me at security checkpoint.
According to NCO.GEN.135, with the exception of the certificates of registration and airworthiness, all of the documents that have to be carried may be in an electronic form.
Has anyone been ramp checked with everything else on a tablet? How did the inspectors react?
(Oddly enough NCO.GEN.135 does not mention the ARC at all. Maybe it is seen as part of the CofA?)
all of the documents that have to be carried may be in an electronic form.
I think for an N-reg it is different (original paper may be required) but I am not up to date on it. This writeup by me says originals are required but there may have been a recent change.
If you have filed a FPL, they MUST arrrive in time and proceed with all the ramp check with enough time for you to comply with the EOBT
Somehow I am sure that cannot be right. The 9mm 
carrying police are judge jury and executioner, in practice.
They are definitely entitled to stop you departing before EOBT which otherwise you can do.
Airborne_Again wrote:
According to NCO.GEN.135, with the exception of the certificates of registration and airworthiness, all of the documents that have to be carried may be in an electronic form.
Where in the rule does it say this? I only see “copies” mentioned.
Graham wrote:
I simply don’t want to live in a world where, should I deviate from the ever-expanding regulations and inference created by governments, I will be automatically detected and sanctioned by technology.
It’s our fault as pilots that we are in this situation – we can not blame anybody else for that!
In exactly the mindset you and others described, we accepted rules that make no sense simply because we thought “let the rules be rules we don’t comply anyways and it’s unlikely that somebody catches us”. Airspace infringements are a great example! The rules haven’t changed much – and the complexity of the airspace has also not increased in many parts of Europe. What has changed is that some countries (first and foremost the UK) have started to systematically track compliance to rules that have been around undisputed for decades – and all of the sudden we start to complain.
Therefore, if we think the rules are crazy let’s fight against the rules – and propose better ones. Fighting against enforcement is starting at the wrong end.
Im sorry, but I disagree. Maybe where you are, controlled/restricted/prohibited airspace hasnt got more prolific and complex (but I doubt it). However I would suggest that in most of Europe it has indeed got more prolific and more complex, at the same time, ATC services to GA in Class G have been and are being reduced, plus there is an added dimension that certain controlled airspace is becoming less accessable for VFR GA.
The positive counter-balance to this is GPS and Electronic flight planning. Without either in todays world, the VFR pilot that wants to actually go anywhere other than the very local area, would be seriously screwed.
There have been rumours over many years that some people got busted for “illegal IFR”.
Always very secondhand data…
One was an SR22 on a ferry flight which landed in the UK, probably Wick in Scotland, IFR flight plan, no ADF and no DME (like hundreds of them) so not legal for IFR under the rules at the time. This got posted on a UK site some years ago. Repeated attempts to chase it down via the original source led nowhere – just like this actually – and it was concluded the report was probably bogus.
Another one was a large bust in France where the inspectors reportedly had briefing sheets showing specimen FAA licenses and the INSTRUMENT PILOT highlighted. They were going after N-regs. I don’t know whether this one ever got verified. Maybe 5-10 years ago.
The problem in GA is that a lot of “airport bar proppers” like to feel important by telling these stories. IME, a lot of them are instructors. One was the “fake ATPL” guy mentioned here.
So we need real 1st hand reports.
