Surrender Certificate

[C425Driver]

Jedi,

I was told the same thing about surendering your certificate in my Aviation Law class 15 years ago - also taught by a judge. My guess is that this is either urban myth or one inspector on a power trip took someone's license when he shouldn't have. Regardless of how this came about the wording of the regs have been changed to prevent the inspector from taking your certificate from you. Every time that I am ramped I hand the inspector my certificate and it has never been a problem. To be quite honest, I've never had a bad experience with a ramp check.

Your statement about the ASRS report is correct. It saves you from the penalty only, but you can be investigated and the violation still goes on your record. In some cases ASRS can't help you - reckless operations or criminal activities are not protected under the ASRS program. It is a good program and I suggest using it whenever you feel the need (I know a few people who should use it every time they fly!). I haven't heard about the part where the FAA can use the title strip against a pilot. I guess we should choose our words carefully.

Good luck with your class.

C425Driver

 

[goaliemn]

I haven't heard about the part where the FAA can use the title strip against a pilot. I guess we should choose our words carefully.

At one time the FAA could use it against you. I looked into it because of an incident I filed a form about. The rule was changed so they FAA can't use what you put on the strip against you. It was discussed on here awhile back, but I can't find the link.

 

[bobbysamd]

Aviation law instructor quals

What are the judge's quals to be teaching aviation law? Aviation law is esoteric, especially when compared to ordinary civil and criminal law. Does he/she have any administrative law experience or FAA experience? The judge may carry greater credibility than you because he/she is a judge, but may know nothing about aviation law.

May I suggest that he/she and you read Practical Aviation Law by J. Scott Hamiliton. This is a well-known book that is used widely as a text in aviation law classes. In addition, Avweb has put out an excellent series on FAA certificate actions, which is worth reading.

Hope that helps a little. Thanks, as always, to JAFI, for his point of view from his side of the desk. I had always believed in the "urban legend" of not surrendering anything to the fuzz without first setting up a formal appointment and having an aviation attorney present.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

What are the judge's quals to be teaching aviation law? Aviation law is esoteric, especially when compared to ordinary civil and criminal law. Does he/she have any administrative law experience or FAA experience? The judge may carry greater credibility than you because he/she is a judge, but may know nothing about aviation law.

May I suggest that he/she and you read Practical Aviation Law by J. Scott Hamiliton. This is a well-known book that is used widely as a text in aviation law classes. In addtion, Avweb has put out an excellent series on FAA certificate actions, which is worth reading.

He is a pilot and has a law degree (and we don't have a law department), so he gets to teach the undergrads. He may have done some administrative action work, but he hasn't gone into his backround. We are using Aviation and the Law by Laurence E. Gessell (it's a horrible book).

 

[bobbysamd]

Law instructor quals

He is a pilot and has a law degree (and we don't have a law department), so he gets to teach the undergrads. He may have done some administrative action work, but he hasn't gone into his backround . . . .

Being a pilot with a law degree means little for teaching this course. I know at least two pilots who have law degrees; perhaps one would be somewhat qualfied to teach aviation law on the college level. Your instructor probably would be great teaching torts, civil procedure, litigation, etc. Aviation law is much different than those areas.

I realize you cannot change instructors, so try to make the best of it, and obtain the J. Scott Hamilton book. You'll be glad you did.

 

[dhc8fo]

Who says you can't argue with your instructor just because he is a judge? Who cares if he is a judge. He is your instructor first, in this circumstance, and school is where you are supposed to expand your knowledge base through discourse. That is what you are paying him for. I think you should call him on it!


Also, I had a few Feds on my jumpseat when flying 121, and a few ramp checks as well... I always asked for their credientials while they were looking at mine. I never had a problem. Seems silly to think they would walk off with your goods as a surrender when they have just asked to see them. I am sure that wouldn't hold much water.

What school is this anyway????

 

[JAFI]

Who says you can't argue with your instructor just because he is a judge? Who cares if he is a judge. He is your instructor first, in this circumstance, and school is where you are supposed to expand your knowledge base through discourse. That is what you are paying him for. I think you should call him on it!

I agree that school is to expand knowledge; however you can ask an instructor (or a Judge) to provide a reference or an explanation but not "call him on it". IMHO getting into a pissing contest with a College Instructor or a Judge (sitting or otherwise) will not work in your favor most of the time. Professional courtesy is normally called for and proper. If you wish: "You can get more bees with honey than vinegar..."


I tried to get a reference for you from the Cornell Law web site, but it seems to be down. So I'll be quoting with out reference for now (I really hate doing so). In the case of a representative of Law Enforcement or from the FAA Administrator under the US Code, Code of Federal Regulations 44701 or 44702 (again I will have to find the correct reference) can examine your Airman certificate upon request. Examine means handle, touch, copy, etc. but it will be returned to you. The code also says that the certificate is yours until it is surrendered or revoked. There is a specific process for both surrender and revocation.



Bobby, I do enjoy academic discussions. I think it benefits all involved. You can always learn something sometimes when you least expect it.




JAFI

EDIT --- I was wrong, the reference is in Part 61 not 44701 0r 44702:

61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.



(l) Inspection of certificate. Each person who holds an airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license required by this part must present it and their photo identification as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for inspection upon a request from:

(1) The Administrator;

(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;

(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or

(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.

------------------------------------------

So many regulations, Too little time......

 

[midlifeflyer]

In addition, Avweb has put out an excellent series on FAA certificate actions, which is worth reading.

It is. I especially like the practical advice about how to interview a lawyer and the "duct tape" defense.

Come to think of it, those two items tell us how Aviation Law is =not= very different from other areas.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

Being a pilot with a law degree means little for teaching this course. I know at least two pilots who have law degrees; perhaps one would be somewhat qualfied to teach aviation law on the college level. Your instructor probably would be great teaching torts, civil procedure, litigation, etc. Aviation law is much different than those areas.

It's better than what we had set up before the the judge became a professor. They had one of the non-lawyer professors teaching the class. It is hard to draw an aviation specialty professor to teach a one night a week class (we do ship some specialty people in, but mostly those people went through our program and want to give back).

 

[lawfly]

Good comments collectively on the NASA reports. If the FAA is aware of the filing (e.g., airman tells FAA before retaining counsel) the FAA complaint on its face might even concede the NASA filing, but the action could still proceed, even with a penalty waiver, and, if the FAA was successful, there would still be a violation history. Still better to file. As noted by other posters, there are some exceptions to NASA penalty waiver, but it is quite inclusive. Good comments re: ID strip (even if there have been changes/rulings on this): no description which in any way incriminates. The relevance of the strip in the enforcement action is to prove the timely filing and that the filing is for the incident(s) alleged (date and time of incident shows that, without need for incriminating title/description).
As for the Ramp Check question, the plain language of the FAR is persuasive. There are underlying due process considerations, as well. The closest thing which comes to mind is the "emergency" enforcement action, which arguably still provides for a modicum of due process. Simply walking up to an airman on a ramp, as part of a "ramp check", and physically yanking or taking possession (versus "inspection") of his ticket (and equating that with "surrender", in your description) violates even minimal due process, by comparison. And "surrender" is specifically spoken to in the FARs.
As this is at least nominally an Aviation Law class, suggest you consult FARs (one has been posted) and you might want to look at the emergency enforcement process, and the NASA reporting program. The reporting form, if you don't have one, is available at the AOPA and, I think, FAA websites. This is not really a matter of "credibility"; that has more to do with testimony.
I disagree that "Aviation Law" is separate from tort, civil procedure, evidence, litigation, administrative law, etc. Actually, some of the most cited appellate opinions in substantive tort law and in evidence are aviation cases. That was certainly true in the 80s and 90s. Other cases have come along since then but still some widely cited aviation cases, especially federal. But, yes, it is different in that it is a "specialized" mix of those areas. (In fact, due process, which I mentioned earlier, is a constitutional concept.) There are "aviation lawyers" who have litigated aviation tort cases but have never handled an enforcement action, and the other way around. There are "aviation attorneys" who are non-pilots. (I personally think advanced pilot/flight instructor credentials are an enhancement.) Sorry to be rambling here. The other posts were informative. Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.