Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

> Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
> against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
> there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
> gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

Sorry I don't, but out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind an
airport banning freelance CFIs? Other than fuel surcharge we do not
really pay any money to the airport when we take a dual, do we? I
don't understand how the airport stands to lose if I tried to take
flying lessons in my own airplane privately with a CFI.

On Dec 1, 10:21 pm, wrote:
> > Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
> > against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
> > there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
> > gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..
>
> Sorry I don't, but out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind an
> airport banning freelance CFIs? Other than fuel surcharge we do not
> really pay any money to the airport when we take a dual, do we? I
> don't understand how the airport stands to lose if I tried to take
> flying lessons in my own airplane privately with a CFI.

They could demand that the instructor must be employed by a bonded and
insured business establishement to avoid lawsuits in case of an
accident. Since many instructors little or no assets, it is possible
that someone could go after the airport for allowing that instructor
to operate there. All of these are stupid reasons, but I can see some
over zealous airport administrator taking such measures.

Ripper wrote:

>
> The airport has to have a functional FBO, at the very least to sell
> fuel.


No they don't. It's called self serv.



>
> Most FBO's are struggling to get by. The FBO earns some part of it's
> income from flying lessons - so theres a reason for the airport to
> support the monopoly FBO.

And that's illegal.


>
> Some airports have tried to ban free lance A&Ps. There's usually an
> excuse, like safety, but it's really the same reason.

Also illegal.

I don't see the connection.. the only reason an airport would have to
ban a freelance CFI would be if they somehow miss out on a cut that
they otherwise get from an FBO employed CFI. Of course there could be
liability or even security reasons although they don't make much sense
to me either.

> The airport has to have a functional FBO, at the very least to sell
> fuel. If there isn't one, keeping an airplane at that airport is MUCH
> harder, and there will be fewer airplanes there. With fewer airplanes
> there's less reason to have an airport, and more reason for the city
> to sell it off to a developer.
>
> Most FBO's are struggling to get by. The FBO earns some part of it's
> income from flying lessons - so theres a reason for the airport to
> support the monopoly FBO.
>
> Some airports have tried to ban free lance A&Ps. There's usually an
> excuse, like safety, but it's really the same reason.

Contact Bill Gunn, a man who teach for the AOPA Instructor Refreshers and
whose job in Texas is to prevent such airport bans. He can supply all the
details of the Federal laws and court cases.
Aviation Education Contact

Texas Division of Aviation

125 E. 11th Street

Austin, TX 78701-2483

512-476-9262

512-479-0294 FAX

Contact: Mr. William Gunn





> wrote in message
...
| Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
| against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
| there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
| gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:47:38 -0800 (PST), Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>On Dec 1, 10:21 pm, wrote:
>> > Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
>> > against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
>> > there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
>> > gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..
>>
>> Sorry I don't, but out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind an
>> airport banning freelance CFIs? Other than fuel surcharge we do not
>> really pay any money to the airport when we take a dual, do we? I
>> don't understand how the airport stands to lose if I tried to take
>> flying lessons in my own airplane privately with a CFI.
>
>They could demand that the instructor must be employed by a bonded and
>insured business establishement to avoid lawsuits in case of an
>accident. Since many instructors little or no assets, it is possible
>that someone could go after the airport for allowing that instructor
>to operate there. All of these are stupid reasons, but I can see some
>over zealous airport administrator taking such measures.
>
>

This seems to be the reasoning behind the proposal.. At this time
there is not an FBO operating on the field. The manager (or the city
through the manger) wants to require that all CFI who teach at the
field hold scheduled office hours and maintain office space. A&P's
are allowed to operate on the field unregulated. It seems to me that
any time one of the dozens of student/instructor combos does a touch
and go at the field, they'd be violatingthe rules set by the manager..

The airport manager cannot require freelance CFI's to maintain office space
and hours and not allow the same for A&P.
There has to be provisions with the airport management for "through the
fence" businesses or their share of the FAA Airport funding is in jeopardy.

BT

>>
>
> This seems to be the reasoning behind the proposal.. At this time
> there is not an FBO operating on the field. The manager (or the city
> through the manger) wants to require that all CFI who teach at the
> field hold scheduled office hours and maintain office space. A&P's
> are allowed to operate on the field unregulated. It seems to me that
> any time one of the dozens of student/instructor combos does a touch
> and go at the field, they'd be violatingthe rules set by the manager..

We fought the same battle when the local County Dept of Aviation was trying
to ban "freelance CFIs".. after a few meetings with legal.. this is what
they came up with.
BT
FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS

A person holding a current FAA flight instructor's certificate, who gives
occasional flight instruction and does not advertise or proactively make
available flight instruction and does not advertise or proactively make
available flight instruction to an Aircraft Owner in the Aircraft Owner's
aircraft, shall not be deemed a commercial operator. Additionally in
accordance with County Code as may be amended, the permit requirements of
this section do not apply to the incidental conduct of certain business or
commercial transactions on an irregular and infrequent basis occurring
between persons who are not based at or who are not otherwise operating any
commercial activity from the Airport



> wrote in message
...
> Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
> against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
> there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
> gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

That does not meet the Federal standard and is not enforceable. It is too
restrictive with words added to allow the county to require permits and fees
to operate at the federally funded airport.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFII-ASMELI, A&P
BE400/BE1900-BE300
"BT" > wrote in message
...
| We fought the same battle when the local County Dept of Aviation was
trying
| to ban "freelance CFIs".. after a few meetings with legal.. this is what
| they came up with.
| BT
| FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS
|
| A person holding a current FAA flight instructor's certificate, who gives
| occasional flight instruction and does not advertise or proactively make
| available flight instruction and does not advertise or proactively make
| available flight instruction to an Aircraft Owner in the Aircraft Owner's
| aircraft, shall not be deemed a commercial operator. Additionally in
| accordance with County Code as may be amended, the permit requirements of
| this section do not apply to the incidental conduct of certain business or
| commercial transactions on an irregular and infrequent basis occurring
| between persons who are not based at or who are not otherwise operating
any
| commercial activity from the Airport
|
|
|
| > wrote in message
| ...
| > Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
| > against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
| > there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
| > gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..
|
|

wrote:
>> Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
>> against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
>> there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
>> gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..
>
> Sorry I don't, but out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind an
> airport banning freelance CFIs? Other than fuel surcharge we do not
> really pay any money to the airport when we take a dual, do we? I
> don't understand how the airport stands to lose if I tried to take
> flying lessons in my own airplane privately with a CFI.

The FBO's typically pay rents and percentage of the take.
They want to protect the FBO who is paying versus the freelancers
who don't.

On Dec 2, 9:51 pm, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> That does not meet the Federal standard and is not enforceable. It is too
> restrictive with words added to allow the county to require permits and fees
> to operate at the federally funded airport.
>
Yes, but: How do you get the FAA to enforce their regs?


denny

wrote:
> Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
> against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
> there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
> gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

Has the airport ever taken AIP funds from the FAA?

wrote:
> Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
> against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
> there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
> gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..
I'm not sure I understand the scenario here and could use some backup
information. I'm a long time fan of Gene's, but unless I'm missing
something, free lance CFI's operating off an airport have always as far
as I know been an issue for the FBO both from a business standpoint and
from a potential liability standpoint.
Both of these positions are valid objections. The FBO or the airport
authority or whoever or whatever is responsible to the insurance company
covering liability for the airport not only has an inherent right, but a
responsibility to insure that anyone conducting a business operating
from the property has been duly cleared to do so by the insurance
covering the airport.
I understand these things are quite complicated, but I can definately
see potential issues for a free lance CFI operating commercially from a
field without meeting these conditions.
This having been said, I sincerely hope Gene Whitt can work things out
as he is a fine flight instructor.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Dec 2, 6:25 am, DrRobb > wrote:

> This seems to be the reasoning behind the proposal.. At this time
> there is not an FBO operating on the field. The manager (or the city
> through the manger) wants to require that all CFI who teach at the
> field hold scheduled office hours and maintain office space. A&P's
> are allowed to operate on the field unregulated. It seems to me that
> any time one of the dozens of student/instructor combos does a touch
> and go at the field, they'd be violatingthe rules set by the manager..- Hide quoted text -

The issue is confusing. Mather Airport in Sacramento also has the same
ban. Any CFI doing business there *MUST* have office space there.
There was an FBO from a nearby airport that wanted to purchase tie
down and allow pilots to rent their planes from Mather (on your honor,
no FBO office there). The airport found out about it and removed them.
This FBO is already fully insured, etc so that wasn't the issue. I
think the issue is keeping office space rented so non-aviation
businesses don't try to move in.

-Robert

Looks like a call to the local FSDO, state attorney general and the
AOPA should be able to clear up this issue.

In my opinion, since the airport is recieving federal funds from the
FAA, the airport manager is in violation. The flight instructor only
needs to meet TSA regulations and not violate any FAR's.

On Dec 1, 7:55 pm, wrote:
> Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
> against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
> there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
> gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

Hello everyone on this board. Thanks your support of general aviation.
Here are some details. I am a CFI trying to offer instruction at the
Sand Springs Oklahome William Pogue Municipal Airport. I have been
informed by Ken, the "Airport manager, Attendant" that I may not
provide CFI services. I have contacted the FAA, and a gentleman in
Austin Texas and countless peers who all side with me on the issue.
The airport attendant, Ken has provided me with several pages of
"minimum Standards," which are unreasonable to say the least. The
standards require me to rent space, build a building, a parking lot,
with bathrooms and public phones and classrooms. All of this- save
for handicap access and insurance, two plane and pavement to the
runway!!!... CLEARLY not in a CFI's budget.
I will fight this battle with all of your support and for general
aviation.
If anyone would like to come out for a flying lesson at Sand Springs,
Oklahoma, just bring lunch money and gas money and I'll show you what
I am dealing with. My tel number is 918.271.1099 Best Regards, Homer
Woolslayer, Equinox Instruction
Thank you all !!!

wrote:
> On Dec 1, 7:55 pm, wrote:
>> Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
>> against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
>> there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
>> gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..
>
> Hello everyone on this board. Thanks your support of general aviation.
> Here are some details. I am a CFI trying to offer instruction at the
> Sand Springs Oklahome William Pogue Municipal Airport. I have been
> informed by Ken, the "Airport manager, Attendant" that I may not
> provide CFI services. I have contacted the FAA, and a gentleman in
> Austin Texas and countless peers who all side with me on the issue.
> The airport attendant, Ken has provided me with several pages of
> "minimum Standards," which are unreasonable to say the least. The
> standards require me to rent space, build a building, a parking lot,
> with bathrooms and public phones and classrooms. All of this- save
> for handicap access and insurance, two plane and pavement to the
> runway!!!... CLEARLY not in a CFI's budget.
> I will fight this battle with all of your support and for general
> aviation.
> If anyone would like to come out for a flying lesson at Sand Springs,
> Oklahoma, just bring lunch money and gas money and I'll show you what
> I am dealing with. My tel number is 918.271.1099 Best Regards, Homer
> Woolslayer, Equinox Instruction
> Thank you all !!!


As a long time free lance flight instructor I can sympathize with your
issues, but I also have questions on these issues that might address
potential problems faced by an FBO running an airport being used for
commercial purposes by a flight instructor not directly connected with
that airport as an insured employee.

Can you please post here any and all knowledge you have concerning the
potential liability situation faced by the operator of the airport you
are using to give flight instruction from as that would relate to any
accident you might have while giving dual from this airport?

What is the exact insurance issue relating to your use of the field
there as a commercial operator not directly employed by the operator
running the field?

Also, if there is a flight school operating on the field, knowing that
might be helpful in assessing your situation by others viewing your post.
Thank you

Dudley Henriques

--
Dudley Henriques

wrote:
> On Dec 1, 7:55 pm, wrote:
>> Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
>> against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
>> there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
>> gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..
>
> Hello everyone on this board. Thanks your support of general aviation.
> Here are some details. I am a CFI trying to offer instruction at the
> Sand Springs Oklahome William Pogue Municipal Airport. I have been
> informed by Ken, the "Airport manager, Attendant" that I may not
> provide CFI services. I have contacted the FAA, and a gentleman in
> Austin Texas and countless peers who all side with me on the issue.
> The airport attendant, Ken has provided me with several pages of
> "minimum Standards," which are unreasonable to say the least. The
> standards require me to rent space, build a building, a parking lot,
> with bathrooms and public phones and classrooms. All of this- save
> for handicap access and insurance, two plane and pavement to the
> runway!!!... CLEARLY not in a CFI's budget.
> I will fight this battle with all of your support and for general
> aviation.
> If anyone would like to come out for a flying lesson at Sand Springs,
> Oklahoma, just bring lunch money and gas money and I'll show you what
> I am dealing with. My tel number is 918.271.1099 Best Regards, Homer
> Woolslayer, Equinox Instruction
> Thank you all !!!

Have you contacted the AOPA? They may be able to point you to some
assistance. A well written letter from a lawyer to your cities airport
commission that is CC'd to the FAA's AIP and FSDO offices might be enough to
get them to flinch.

wrote:
> Hello everyone on this board. Thanks your support of general aviation.
> Here are some details. I am a CFI trying to offer instruction at the
> Sand Springs Oklahome William Pogue Municipal Airport.

The terms of your offer need to be clarified.

If you are running advertisements to the effect that you or your
"enterprise" is to offer flight instruction to the public, then I can
see why the airport manager would get nervous since the airport is
implied as being party to it.

If you met one or more private individuals owning aircraft that want
your instructional service, then you can have a private agreement, in my
opinion, to provide him/her with instructions as long as FAA 61/91 are
adhered to.

It gets more tricky if you have an aircraft based at that field and you
offer primiary instruction in it to individuals and student pilots,
since it invariably comes to student pilots taking off solo from and
landing at that airport, when you, the instructotor must be availble,
and ther is some risk extant.

> I have been
> informed by Ken, the "Airport manager, Attendant" that I may not
> provide CFI services. I have contacted the FAA, and a gentleman in
> Austin Texas and countless peers who all side with me on the issue.
> The airport attendant, Ken has provided me with several pages of
> "minimum Standards," which are unreasonable to say the least. The
> standards require me to rent space, build a building, a parking lot,
> with bathrooms and public phones and classrooms. All of this- save
> for handicap access and insurance, two plane and pavement to the
> runway!!!... CLEARLY not in a CFI's budget.

This means the manager is offering the opportunity for you to set up a
formal flight school, which could be feasible, or it could be absurd
depending on your intentions and resources.

> I will fight this battle with all of your support and for general
> aviation.
> If anyone would like to come out for a flying lesson at Sand Springs,
> Oklahoma, just bring lunch money and gas money and I'll show you what
> I am dealing with. My tel number is 918.271.1099 Best Regards, Homer
> Woolslayer, Equinox Instruction

Sounds like you have an airplane, and have established an "enterprise".

Perhaps tere is middle ground. But the insurance companies always end
up being the spoilers in such situations since they want to reduce THEIR
risk to zero.

Good luck.

Angelo Campanella

On Dec 7, 10:24 am, Angelo Campanella >
wrote:
> wrote:
> > Hello everyone on this board. Thanks your support of general aviation.
> > Here are some details. I am a CFI trying to offer instruction at the
> > Sand Springs Oklahome William Pogue Municipal Airport.
>
> The terms of your offer need to be clarified.
>
> If you are running advertisements to the effect that you or your
> "enterprise" is to offer flight instruction to the public, then I can
> see why the airport manager would get nervous since the airport is
> implied as being party to it.
>
> If you met one or more private individuals owning aircraft that want
> your instructional service, then you can have a private agreement, in my
> opinion, to provide him/her with instructions as long as FAA 61/91 are
> adhered to.
>
> It gets more tricky if you have an aircraft based at that field and you
> offer primiary instruction in it to individuals and student pilots,
> since it invariably comes to student pilots taking off solo from and
> landing at that airport, when you, the instructotor must be availble,
> and ther is some risk extant.
>
> > I have been
> > informed by Ken, the "Airport manager, Attendant" that I may not
> > provide CFI services. I have contacted the FAA, and a gentleman in
> > Austin Texas and countless peers who all side with me on the issue.
> > The airport attendant, Ken has provided me with several pages of
> > "minimum Standards," which are unreasonable to say the least. The
> > standards require me to rent space, build a building, a parking lot,
> > with bathrooms and public phones and classrooms. All of this- save
> > for handicap access and insurance, two plane and pavement to the
> > runway!!!... CLEARLY not in a CFI's budget.
>
> This means the manager is offering the opportunity for you to set up a
> formal flight school, which could be feasible, or it could be absurd
> depending on your intentions and resources.
>
> > I will fight this battle with all of your support and for general
> > aviation.
> > If anyone would like to come out for a flying lesson at Sand Springs,
> > Oklahoma, just bring lunch money and gas money and I'll show you what
> > I am dealing with. My tel number is 918.271.1099 Best Regards, Homer
> > Woolslayer, Equinox Instruction
>
> Sounds like you have an airplane, and have established an "enterprise".
>
> Perhaps tere is middle ground. But the insurance companies always end
> up being the spoilers in such situations since they want to reduce THEIR
> risk to zero.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Angelo Campanella

Hello, it is Homer the instructor with the C-150 at Sand Springs,
William Pogue Airport.
The fact is, they have verbally and in writing informed me that to
"operate" I must lease land, build a building, provide restrooms and
public phones, provide for classroom space, provide a minimum of two
planes, one with 4 seats and for IFR, they even provide demensions of
the parking lot I must provide and the taxiway to the runway I must
provide. Make no mistake, and with respect, the "minimum standards"
are not reasonable. In addition there is a considerable amount of
training traffic in and out of the airport, but from the sky and from
the other flight schools around Tulsa. Also remember that many smart
aircraft owners have planes owned by separate corporations for tax and
accounting purposes, and that from time to time, many people have
business at their local airport. What business is it of the City of
sand Springs, if I operate my plane within the rules of the FAA?
Please understand, I am not having drunkin go-cart races between the
empty tiedown spaces. I am administering Dual Flight Instruction!
The FAA FSDO, Bob Newell is very careful when he tells me that the
verbiage in the "Grant Assurance Clause" will have all of the answers
I need. he implied that I do not have a case. The problem is, he
also told me that he could not get me a copy of that document and that
I'd have to get it from Sand Springs. In essence, and according to
Bob Newell at the Oklahoma FSDO, the FAA is telling me that I am on my
own.
I hope that anyone reading this message board understands that this is
not about me. This is about you and your tax dollars being used to
build hundreds of beautiful airports all over the country that you in
fact are not welcome to use.
I have legal representation, and god willing I'll have the finances to
fight this. In the mean time, be careful if you get your plane worked
on, or your flight review performed at Sand Springs, William Pogue
Airport- it might not be legal...hehehehe:)
I wonder if it would be legal to get a blow-up doll, dress it as a
Spartan Student and teach it how to fly for free, all day every day at
the sand Springs William Pogue airport, just a thought...
Regards, Homer Woolslayer
I

> Both of these positions are valid objections. The FBO or the airport
> authority or whoever or whatever is responsible to the insurance company
> covering liability for the airport not only has an inherent right, but a
> responsibility to insure that anyone conducting a business operating
> from the property has been duly cleared to do so by the insurance
> covering the airport.

Doesn't make much sense to me, does this also mean that a CFI
operating out of another airport cannot come to this particular
airport and give instruction in the pattern for example? A CFI could
easily fly into this airport with a student and give dual instruction
from scratch. Would that be banned also? Would this airport also ban a
student from flying solo into this airport for liability reasons? Any
number of unknown people can fly in and taxi around the airport every
day and to pick on flight instruction for "liability reasons" which is
also supposedly the safest form of flying activity is bizarre.

wrote:
>> Both of these positions are valid objections. The FBO or the airport
>> authority or whoever or whatever is responsible to the insurance company
>> covering liability for the airport not only has an inherent right, but a
>> responsibility to insure that anyone conducting a business operating
>> from the property has been duly cleared to do so by the insurance
>> covering the airport.
>
> Doesn't make much sense to me, does this also mean that a CFI
> operating out of another airport cannot come to this particular
> airport and give instruction in the pattern for example? A CFI could
> easily fly into this airport with a student and give dual instruction
> from scratch. Would that be banned also? Would this airport also ban a
> student from flying solo into this airport for liability reasons? Any
> number of unknown people can fly in and taxi around the airport every
> day and to pick on flight instruction for "liability reasons" which is
> also supposedly the safest form of flying activity is bizarre.

What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
as they operate the airport under present law.
The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
covers these situations.
The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
to do with the issue.

--
Dudley Henriques

Ok, its not logical to me but if that is the way it is then that's
what it is! ;) I can understand private airports not allowing anybody
to operate due to liability reasons but a public airport allowing
unknown strangers to operate freely if they are based elsewhere but at
the same time not allowing the same operations if they originate from
the same airport strikes me as a bit weird.

>
> What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
> of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
> as they operate the airport under present law.
> The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
> originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
> arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
> covers these situations.
> The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
> to do with the issue.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

OK, this hits me a lot like me trying to open a HotDog stand on property not
belonging to me (public or private). The original premise I read as "I have
a plane or two which I want to give instruction in and rent out to a limited
group". This seems like a commercial venture which is usually regulated in
some form by numberous affected parties. Ceaser wants his share.

Also, many airport authorities give one or more FBO franchises with very
strict requirements (like requiring "money losing" flight training, and
marginally cost effective A&P service, all in order to rake in the very
profitable jet fuel sales). I know one FBO that practically gives an A&P
rent free hanger hanger space, just so they can meet the contract minimums
with the State.

Anyway, you need to find a way to stay further under the radar. Don't flaunt
your actions at those people who are trying to operate the same type of
business under the yoke of local ordinances. Especially if your activity may
actually put them out of business.


> wrote in message...
> Ok, its not logical to me but if that is the way it is then that's
> what it is! ;) I can understand private airports not allowing anybody
> to operate due to liability reasons but a public airport allowing
> unknown strangers to operate freely if they are based elsewhere but at
> the same time not allowing the same operations if they originate from
> the same airport strikes me as a bit weird.
>
>>
>> What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
>> of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
>> as they operate the airport under present law.
>> The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
>> originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
>> arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
>> covers these situations.
>> The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
>> to do with the issue.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>

On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> OK, this hits me a lot like me trying to open a HotDog stand on property not
> belonging to me (public or private). The original premise I read as "I have
> a plane or two which I want to give instruction in and rent out to a limited
> group". This seems like a commercial venture which is usually regulated in
> some form by numberous affected parties. Ceaser wants his share.
>
> Also, many airport authorities give one or more FBO franchises with very
> strict requirements (like requiring "money losing" flight training, and
> marginally cost effective A&P service, all in order to rake in the very
> profitable jet fuel sales). I know one FBO that practically gives an A&P
> rent free hanger hanger space, just so they can meet the contract minimums
> with the State.
>
> Anyway, you need to find a way to stay further under the radar. Don't flaunt
> your actions at those people who are trying to operate the same type of
> business under the yoke of local ordinances. Especially if your activity may
> actually put them out of business.
>
>
>
> > wrote in message...
> > Ok, its not logical to me but if that is the way it is then that's
> > what it is! ;) I can understand private airports not allowing anybody
> > to operate due to liability reasons but a public airport allowing
> > unknown strangers to operate freely if they are based elsewhere but at
> > the same time not allowing the same operations if they originate from
> > the same airport strikes me as a bit weird.
>
> >> What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
> >> of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
> >> as they operate the airport under present law.
> >> The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
> >> originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
> >> arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
> >> covers these situations.
> >> The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
> >> to do with the issue.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks. As to the hotdog Stand, I just have a 150 in a tiedown.
There is no other flight instruction offered at the airport!
I am sure bc of this. Really just a plane in a tiedown. It has not
moved other than to fly since I bought it, it was already there.
Defend yourselves on this, it is your airport! Trust me, I am getting
done with aviation. Can you see why?
Homer

On Dec 8, 4:32 pm, wrote:
> Ok, its not logical to me but if that is the way it is then that's
> what it is! ;) I can understand private airports not allowing anybody
> to operate due to liability reasons but a public airport allowing
> unknown strangers to operate freely if they are based elsewhere but at
> the same time not allowing the same operations if they originate from
> the same airport strikes me as a bit weird.
>
>
>
>
>
> > What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
> > of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
> > as they operate the airport under present law.
> > The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
> > originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
> > arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
> > covers these situations.
> > The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
> > to do with the issue.
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think you are exactly right.
They are not consistant or reasonable.
If they are not illeagal then washington will be notified and the
rules will be changed.
I guess J. Inhofe can't get his BFR done at the Sand Spring William
Pogue Airport, it would be illeagal!
Good job, guys, defend YOUR rights.
Homer

On Dec 8, 4:32 pm, wrote:
> Ok, its not logical to me but if that is the way it is then that's
> what it is! ;) I can understand private airports not allowing anybody
> to operate due to liability reasons but a public airport allowing
> unknown strangers to operate freely if they are based elsewhere but at
> the same time not allowing the same operations if they originate from
> the same airport strikes me as a bit weird.
>
>
>
>
>
> > What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
> > of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
> > as they operate the airport under present law.
> > The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
> > originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
> > arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
> > covers these situations.
> > The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
> > to do with the issue.
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Very wierd

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
news:snI6j.4828$3s1.2899@trnddc06...
> OK, this hits me a lot like me trying to open a HotDog stand on property
> not belonging to me (public or private). The original premise I read as "I
> have a plane or two which I want to give instruction in and rent out to a
> limited group". This seems like a commercial venture which is usually
> regulated in some form by numberous affected parties. Ceaser wants his
> share.
>
> Also, many airport authorities give one or more FBO franchises with very
> strict requirements (like requiring "money losing" flight training, and
> marginally cost effective A&P service, all in order to rake in the very
> profitable jet fuel sales). I know one FBO that practically gives an A&P
> rent free hanger hanger space, just so they can meet the contract minimums
> with the State.
>
> Anyway, you need to find a way to stay further under the radar. Don't
> flaunt your actions at those people who are trying to operate the same
> type of business under the yoke of local ordinances. Especially if your
> activity may actually put them out of business.
>

Apparently Ceaser doesn't want his share, Ceaser doesn't want it to happen.
This is the third most prominent airport in the Tulsa metro area, and they
haven't offered aircraft rental or flight instruction for something like the
last 20 years now. Further it is maintained my municipal funds, and appears
to have had a LOT of federal money spent on it lately. But apparently anyone
that doesn't OWN an aircraft is not welcome.

It appears Mr. Woolslayer is a local tax paying citizen, who has bought a
150 already hangered or tied down there, and would like to give instruction
originating at the location. Something most small airports would welcome,
and would help promote GA in the Sand Springs area as well. Note that
several area flight schools use the facility every day, but all fly in,
shoot landings for an hour or so, and fly out without stopping. The only
thing they are stopping, is people driving in the front gate to use the
airport for instruction and rental.

But it seems to me a small number of aircraft owners conspire to keep the
facility some kind of private social club for aircraft OWNERS only. It will
be intresting to see what happens. The airport is indeed a local gem.

On Dec 9, 10:15 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
>
> news:snI6j.4828$3s1.2899@trnddc06...
>
>
>
>
>
> > OK, this hits me a lot like me trying to open a HotDog stand on property
> > not belonging to me (public or private). The original premise I read as "I
> > have a plane or two which I want to give instruction in and rent out to a
> > limited group". This seems like a commercial venture which is usually
> > regulated in some form by numberous affected parties. Ceaser wants his
> > share.
>
> > Also, many airport authorities give one or more FBO franchises with very
> > strict requirements (like requiring "money losing" flight training, and
> > marginally cost effective A&P service, all in order to rake in the very
> > profitable jet fuel sales). I know one FBO that practically gives an A&P
> > rent free hanger hanger space, just so they can meet the contract minimums
> > with the State.
>
> > Anyway, you need to find a way to stay further under the radar. Don't
> > flaunt your actions at those people who are trying to operate the same
> > type of business under the yoke of local ordinances. Especially if your
> > activity may actually put them out of business.
>
> Apparently Ceaser doesn't want his share, Ceaser doesn't want it to happen.
> This is the third most prominent airport in the Tulsa metro area, and they
> haven't offered aircraft rental or flight instruction for something like the
> last 20 years now. Further it is maintained my municipal funds, and appears
> to have had a LOT of federal money spent on it lately. But apparently anyone
> that doesn't OWN an aircraft is not welcome.
>
> It appears Mr. Woolslayer is a local tax paying citizen, who has bought a
> 150 already hangered or tied down there, and would like to give instruction
> originating at the location. Something most small airports would welcome,
> and would help promote GA in the Sand Springs area as well. Note that
> several area flight schools use the facility every day, but all fly in,
> shoot landings for an hour or so, and fly out without stopping. The only
> thing they are stopping, is people driving in the front gate to use the
> airport for instruction and rental.
>
> But it seems to me a small number of aircraft owners conspire to keep the
> facility some kind of private social club for aircraft OWNERS only. It will
> be intresting to see what happens. The airport is indeed a local gem.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is light at the end of the tunnel!
We have found lots of material that supports the tax payers and their
right to use the airport.
That's all for now.
Homer

> wrote in message
...
>
> There is light at the end of the tunnel!
Cool, let's hope it's not another train.

> We have found lots of material that supports the tax payers and their
> right to use the airport.
That's good to hear Homer, I hope it all works out for you. Keep us
informed. Your efforts might be helpful to others that face the same
obstacle.

"Maxwell" wrote...
>
> > wrote ...
>> There is light at the end of the tunnel!
>
> Cool, let's hope it's not another train.
>
>> We have found lots of material that supports the tax payers and
>> their right to use the airport.
>
> That's good to hear Homer, I hope it all works out for you. Keep us
> informed. Your efforts might be helpful to others that face the same
> obstacle.

Ditto. But,... "right to use" often precludes commercial ventures. Read
the details carefully on what the Local Authority considers a Business and a
Personal transaction. An attorney will gleefully take your money and explain
the finer details.
While you are fighting the good fight, consider forming and incorporating a
social flying club with easy in/out membership. Then lease the club your
plane and let members use you as CFI. This usually slips passed Local
Authorities as a non-commercial venture (especially if you get the IRS 501c7
letter), and may be far more palatable to the Owner Only Nazis who seem to
run the field.

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:57:24 -0800 (PST), wrote:
<snip>
>empty tiedown spaces. I am administering Dual Flight Instruction!
>The FAA FSDO, Bob Newell is very careful when he tells me that the
>verbiage in the "Grant Assurance Clause" will have all of the answers
>I need. he implied that I do not have a case. The problem is, he

"I think" he's probably referring to the airport requiring the same
for all. Ours did the same, but eventually the requirements for a
business being applied to an individual were counter productive. They
did pass some rules requiring registration of those doing maintenance
(through the fence) and some fees . So far they haven't enforced such.

As for fees and registration, the airport's insurance policy may
require it and liability insurance.

>also told me that he could not get me a copy of that document and that

They are about as easy to get as the daily newspaper...OK, almost.
Call the AOPA (which has been suggested several times) and ask for
"FAA Order 5190.6A, Airport Compliance handbook, Grant Assurances, and
Airport Improvement Trust Fund" These three booklets should have the
information you need and they are free. I'm looking at a set and it
only took a phone call to the AOPA get them.
The AOPA can give you more, good and up-to-date information in one
phone call than you'll get on here in a month.

>I'd have to get it from Sand Springs. In essence, and according to
>Bob Newell at the Oklahoma FSDO, the FAA is telling me that I am on my
>own.
>I hope that anyone reading this message board understands that this is
>not about me. This is about you and your tax dollars being used to
>build hundreds of beautiful airports all over the country that you in
>fact are not welcome to use.
>I have legal representation, and god willing I'll have the finances to
>fight this. In the mean time, be careful if you get your plane worked
>on, or your flight review performed at Sand Springs, William Pogue
>Airport- it might not be legal...hehehehe:)
>I wonder if it would be legal to get a blow-up doll, dress it as a
>Spartan Student and teach it how to fly for free, all day every day at
>the sand Springs William Pogue airport, just a thought...
>Regards, Homer Woolslayer
>I

Good Luck,

Roger (K8RI)

Don't worry about the airport manager unless you see a pile of
sandbags with a 50 cal. sticking out or anti aircraft battery. LOL