DHS targets GA again

[wingnut]

Anybody seen this? The FAR's don't require pilots to keep 337's or maint logs on board. Does this superceded the FAR's?

http://www.us-aviator.com/EmailArticle. ... 44dbd0bf57

[GAHorn]

The 337 mentioned is any that pertain to fuselage/cockpit mounted fuel tanks. In the case of C-170's...the Javelin tank would apply. This is not a new rule and has been required by FAA and US Customs for decades.

The biggest error I see in the report is the comment advising Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) that pilots must have in their possession (or in the aircraft) their pilot logs...which is untrue of course. The rule they quote in support of that statement is out-of-context, and fails to mention that pilots must "make available" their logs...but are allowed up to ten (10) days to comply.

It's unfortunate that interagency communications make such errors, but at least they also point out that NONE of the requirments mentioned are criminal....and therefore in themselves are NOT ARRESTABLE offenses. They are civil actions.

[wingnut]

Well, it says that if you don't have the logs, that is grounds for 'reasonable detention' until the documents can be inspected. What is 'reasonable detention'? Do they escort you to your house or hangar to view your logs. And has the FAA allowed detention for decades? What happens if you encounter an arsehole? Just curious.

[jrenwick]

This hasn't shown up on the AOPA web site yet, as far as I've looked, but I'd expect them to be talking to DHS about it if they know. DHS makes regulations that affect pilots and flight instructors, but they seem to be off on their own sometimes, and not really plugged in to the FAA' s network. I'm referring to the requirements for instructors to receive recurrent Security Awareness Training, verify the citizenship of students, and keep records of all that. The rules on that are very confusing at first glance. The FAA doesn't tell us about them; I only knew about them from AOPA, and from an FAA Wings seminar for CFIs where a TSA representative tried to explain them to us.

[Fearless Tower]

The 337 mentioned is any that pertain to fuselage/cockpit mounted fuel tanks. In the case of C-170's...the Javelin tank would apply. This is not a new rule and has been required by FAA and US Customs for decades.

Actually the first part does mention 337s in general - item 6:

6.) The aircraft registration and airworthiness certificate and FORM 337 (authorized modifications to the aircraft) must be in the aircraft.

While it later goes into more detail about the ferry tank fuel modifications, it is easy to see how some over zealous LEO could read the list and expect you to produce a 337 in general.

[blueldr]

This is the kind of bull---- that keeps me from crying a lot now that I've had to give up flying.
My condolences to all he rest of you.

[GAHorn]

This is the kind of bull---- that keeps me from crying a lot now that I've had to give up flying.
My condolences to all he rest of you.

YOUR retirement is probably the only reason they have the bells to mess
With us! They wodn't DARE otherwise!

[Blue4]

It might be important to note the difference between 14 CFR -- commonly known as the FARs -- and 49 CFR. 14 CFR is what the FAA enforces. A violation of 49 CFR concerns the DHS / TSA. The two don't mix very well. As pilots, we are caught in between by needing to please two different agencies.

I was first introduced to this issue when I became a CFI. CFIs are required to receive annual training from the TSA as a "flight school" in order to give flight instruction--well, actually, its written that they must receive the training regardless of activity. The FAA doesn't care. Most student pilots, under 49 CFR, are required to present proof of citizenship in the form of a birth certificate or passport, and CFIs are obligated to make an endorsement stating that they've conducted the check. (Foreign students are a whole different ball of wax.) When you send this student to test with an inspector or designated examiner, they will not check for the endorsement. Its not under their purview.

I find the memo linked above to be frighteningly inaccurate. There are clear misunderstandings and misapplication of both sections of administrative law. I remember not too long ago when the TSA was advising to check individuals who might have firearms in an aircraft. While mere possession of firearm in New York City might be illegal, in places where it IS legal it would be just as acceptable to have it in an aircraft. I wonder how a federal agent might react if they knew you were carrying your legal firearm in your aircraft. I think they would likely unjustly detain you. I have a problem with that.

The bottom line is that the TSA / DHS is continuing to make their power grab. They will continue to push GA overseas to the best of their ability. GA is not a threat; they need to lay off.

[GAHorn]

It's sometimes difficult to seperate fact from opinion in these matters. Now that each is aware of this matter...the correct action good people will take....is to contact their U.S. Congressman and Senator,.... and in polite terms, point out this difference to them, and ask them to inquire into it for the purpose of encouraging DHS to better familiarize themselves with FARs they adopt for their own purposes. Be succinct, be specific, and summarize the problem early in the letter, and let the elected official quickly grasp why the DHS rule cannot be reasonably met.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

As I see the problem, in particular, DHS/TSA agents may not comprehend that pilot logbooks and aircraft maintenance records are NOT required to be carried onboard the aircraft, yet the instructions to the agents implies they are required, and are also to be presented "upon request'....with the term "reasonable detention" not clearly defined.

In any case, should any of us be "detained"... be polite to the agent, because they are likely trying to simply "do their job" as they understand it, and your attitude will doubtless go a long way towards satisfying their curiosity about your intentions and purpose in operating an airplane....which is the real purpose of any inspection. They do not intend to enforce FAA maintenance rules or pilot-experience FARs...they merely want to determine whether or not YOU are the person you claim to be, YOU are the aircraft owner, and YOU are not a public risk. If you act belligerent because you disrespect their purpose... or because you believe them to be ignorant.... you will likely soon find out who is truly ignorant of the potential outcome of the inspection. (LIke my Daddy said...if the officer asks you to lay face down in the dirt...say "Yessir" and do it...we can pursue civil actions later.)

[jrenwick]

Or ask AOPA if they're on it. They may be able to get access to the actual documents. I don't like that the date of that FAX is unknown -- we don't know if it's been superceded, or even its authenticity, for that matter. Let's do some research on it before starting a writing campaign.