A friend of mine (US A&P living in Paris) posted this:
Yesterday I organised an Airworthiness Inspection with a Designated Airworthiness Representative, aka DAR.
The DAR showed up with a gentleman who showed me a very shiny brass badge with F A A emblazoned on it. The next 4 hours were the most grueling hours of my entire aviation maintenance experience.
The FAA Inspector was performing an audit on the DAR that I had hired to inspect a Piper Saratoga (junk compared to a Centurion) that was coming off French registry and put on FAA registry.
(DARs came into being in 1983 when the FAA decided to delegate the issuance of airworthiness certificate as well export certificates. There only about 50 DAR in the USA and another 10 or so for the rest of the world.)
The FAA Inspector is based in the Frankfurt Germany office that covers all of Europe, Africa & Middle East. This one had owned a maintenance shop in Portland Oregon for 20 years before joining the FAA. Needless to say, he KNOWS GA !
The aircraft was very neglected despite the JAR 145 shop that had worked on it the past 12 months extorting over $30,000 from the owner.
In the first 2 1/2 hours every single word in every log-book entry, 8130, Form 1, equipment list, POH, radio licence, registration, 8130-6, was scrutinized, examined and questioned. FARs were cited in Part, Sub-part, Appendix & paragraph.
Then they proceeded to inspect the plane. Every single screw, bolt, instrument, avionics, seat-belt, placard, tye-wrap, hose, etc., etc. was inspected, questioned and noted.
Back to the table we went as the list of discrepancies was read out loud, like a judge reading off the long list of charges against a serial killer. After the jury convened, the sentence was delivered: no airworthiness certificate would issued. A single flight ferry permit only may be issued only after producing valid 8130s for the ASI, AI & altimeter.
When the smoke cleared and the wrath of the FAA departed, I was exhausted and $10,000 went up in smoke !
Interesting.
A guy I know got a call a few weeks ago from the local FSDO saying they would like to drop by his hangar for a random "ramp check" on his aircraft. He let the FSDO guy know that since a ramp check is by definition a random check on paperwork, he wouldn't be scheduling it. But if he were to bring a search warrant (which is impossible, because the FSDO aren't police) to search his property he'd be obliged to let him do so. End of story so far.
I'd imagine that the A&P and DAR have an obligation to show their records, but I can't see how the FAA representative could physically inspect the aircraft itself without the owners permission. When the DAR showed up with 'help' , I think one option for the owner would be to cancel the DAR conformity inspection, and 'request' that the audit be performed using somebody else's aircraft.
This kind of aggressive inspection is normal.
I had an FAA inspector watching the DAR (and the IA) when my TB20 went G to N in 2005. They spent 2 days on it.
They found a few small things - a GPS antenna on the composite roof, which was installed by the original dealer with no paperwork. The dealer had not yet gone bust by then and the man was called down to remove the trim. Luckily it was in a "correct" location, where the composite was thinned out.
There are IAs in Europe who have been the target of FAA action. One problem is that the IA is supposed to inspect the plane to quite a deep level before signing it off...
This never happens, it seems, under the UK CAA regime. I suppose if it did they would end up closing down whole companies, because in Europe the approval is given to a company rather than to an individual. And no CAA wants to close down a company which pays them 5 figures a year in fees. Whereas the IA pays nothing to the FAA.
When the DAR showed up with 'help' , I think one option for the owner would be to cancel the DAR conformity inspection, and 'request' that the audit be performed using somebody else's aircraft.
The problem with that is that it's like a red rag to a bull. It's like telling the Inland Revenue they cannot turn you over because they are outside the time limit 
Interesting account, Achim. Even though, to be honest, what he described is not really a typical ramp check.
However, it reinforces my thinking that one should try to avoid (as far as possible) any contact with U.S. authorities or "officers". Even though I often complain about central european authorities and their officers, they do usually apply much more "good sense" than the Americans, which tend to do their job 100% by the letter.
A thesis from my side: whilst N-regs in Europe tend to physically be in a much better condition than in the U.S., I would say many european ones have lots more of formal paperwork glitches like unproperly logged or documented mods, installations, repairs, etc. Would anyone agree?
My point of view would be to never, ever buy an aircraft that isn't already on N-register.
Even though, to be honest, what he described is not really a typical ramp check.
What's described by the OP is not a ramp check at all, its an audit of a self-employed designee's (the DAR's) compliance with requirements by a Federal employee who is presumably responsible for overseeing DARs. The work performed for the audit was a conformity inspection required for an FAA Airworthiness Certificate, which is a lot of what DARs do for a living. The aircraft and its owner were unwittingly involved in something they had not signed up for.
A ramp check is when the FAA randomly inspects the pilot's and aircraft's paperwork in a public place.
A thesis from my side: whilst N-regs in Europe tend to physically be in a much better condition than in the U.S., I would say many european ones have lots more of formal paperwork glitches like unproperly logged or documented mods, installations, repairs, etc. Would anyone agree?
Its self evident to me that a complex approval process leads to more undocumented work being done.
Any regulated process is better when its extremely simple and subject to less judgement. I think that is basically the recipe for sound government.
I would say many european ones have lots more of formal paperwork glitches like unproperly logged or documented mods, installations, repairs, etc. Would anyone agree?
Hard to get hard evidence but I would expect EASA-regs to have a lot more work done off the books, due to almost anything significant being a Major mod (€ 4 figures going to an EASA 21 company, directly or via the purchase of a paperwork package from one) whereas on an N-reg a lot of such stuff is categorically a Minor mod, and Major mods are easily done via a 337 backed up by an STC which doesn't need FAA approval.
What is hard on a Europe based N-reg is doing Major mods as Field Approvals i.e. not having an airframe-specific STC and thus needing an FSDO to pre-approve the proposed work. I have done two of those myself, with the help of very kind people in the USA presenting the stuff to an FSDO out there. But I have no plans to do any more. These are easy to do in the USA but not here, due to the FSDO situation. On an EASA-reg you can do any Major mod, in principle, simply by throwing an unlimited amount of money at an EASA 21 company. I know a man who spent c. €10k getting approval for a composite oxygen cylinder (a fitted cylinder, done to save some weight) when on an N-reg it would have been relatively trivial.
My point of view would be to never, ever buy an aircraft that isn't already on N-register.
I get your drift, but I did exactly that. In retrospect it was daft, since I could have bought the plane with an N on it straight out of the factory (it was built for a US customer)! But I was just a product of the UK flight training sausage machine where obviously nobody was going to volunteer the information about why most of the decent planes parked over here have an N on the side 
I also had a letter from the DGAC confirming the plane conformed to FAA requirements when built, which for some reason was hugely relevant to the FAA, and avoided an Export CofA.
I wouldn't do it with an old dog, due to the can of worms it could open up.
However, it reinforces my thinking that one should try to avoid (as far as possible) any contact with U.S. authorities or "officers". Even though I often complain about central european authorities and their officers, they do usually apply much more "good sense" than the Americans, which tend to do their job 100% by the letter.
Think the opposite is true except for the IRS, but the taxman is always a hassle.
Personally I find the widespread adult illiteracy (UK and USA) to be one of the biggest struggles in life.
I think a lot of people who in decades past would have ended up doing manual work (much of which is now gone) have been thrust into IT-supported customer-facing jobs, and they can't cope.
But they need to keep their job, to pay the mortgage, food, etc.
They then hide behind the regs as they are written and make life difficult for everybody.
A thesis from my side: whilst N-regs in Europe tend to physically be in a much better condition than in the U.S., I would say many european ones have lots more of formal paperwork glitches like unproperly logged or documented mods, installations, repairs, etc. Would anyone agree?
Notsure. My Comanche was twice audited by the FAA while it was in for annual. It fail the second time because the I.A wrote that "AD XXXXX Para.YYYY was complited" while they had to write that "AD XXXXX Para. YYYY Clause ZZZZ was complited".
When I was told that the aircraft was audited and passed I knewthat i cansleep in peace.
Ben
Was the audit done at a company which is an FAA Part 145 Repair Station?
Otherwise, how did the FAA know you were having an Annual done there?
