revised FAA Order 5190.6B

[cavelamb[_2_]]

This came in by email this evening.
Anybody heard anything about it?
R



Under new FAA rules, general aviation is about to undergo massive changes, none
for the good, apparently.

The FAA Airports Division issued a revised FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance
Manual recently, that, as EAA described it, caught "just about every one off guard."

Not only that it went from 94 to 691 pages of new rules and regulations, and it
makes major changes that will affect several aspects of general aviation. Here
are some of the more controversial ones:

1) No more autofuel may be used in aircraft.
2) Light Sport Aircraft that can be trailered, and owners/operators of
recreational aircraft such as powered parachutes, weight-shift- control and
gyroplanes will be denied access to airports.
3) Permanent or long-term living quarters on airports, part-time or secondary
residences, and developments known as residential hangars, hangar homes,
campgrounds, fly-in communities and airpark developments - even when collocated
with an aviation hangar or aeronautical facility, will not be permitted on
publically funded airports.
4) The new manual failed to clarify the issue of providing reduced fair-market
hangar rent for not-for-profit 501c(3) tax-exempt EAA chapters, whose community
activities provide positive tangible benefits to their airports.

AUTO GAS
The item banning auto gas, EAA said, will affect 100,000+ airplanes that use car
gas in their engines under FAA STC's.

"Autofuel was not recognized as an authorized aviation fuel, nor does it suggest
that airports take actions to install self-service, ethanol-free premium grade
autogas pumps to support the 100,000+ aircraft that use autogas as their
primary, FAA-approved aviation fuel," the EAA noted.

"EAA has successfully worked with the FAA Airports Division for several years in
resolving this issue," the organization said.

TRAILERABLE AIRCRAFT BAN
The banning of trailerable Light Sport Aircraft, powered parachutes,
weight-shift- control and gyroplanes was recognized as an activity not permitted
because of the FAA's through-the- fence (TTF) prohibitions, EAA said.

With the on-going development of special light-sport aircraft as recreational
aircraft, including the roadable aircraft, this issue needed to be resolved, but
wasn't, EAA said. It would seem to mean the new Terrafugia flying car wouldn't
be allowed to drive on the airport and fly off the runway.

AIRPORT PROPERTY
The FAA's regulation saying it considers permanent or long-term living quarters
on airport, part-time or secondary residences, and developments known as
residential hangars, hangar homes, campgrounds, fly-in communities and airpark
developments incompatible - when collocated with an aviation hangar or
aeronautical facility - may be one of the biggest changes of all.

There re dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such fly-in communities around the
country, most associated with publicly funded (meaning FAA money) airports.

The two leading general aviation organizations, EAA and AOPA, are examining the
new manual for areas that need to be improved or clarified, an EAA spokesman said.

"They will then work with the FAA Airports Division to address the problem
areas," the pilots' group said. When we put questions to EAA about their
response to the new regulations, this is the answer we got:
Live-In Airparks

"As for residential airparks and the like, the early answer is: depends.
Residential airparks on private airfields, or public airports that do not
receive FAA funding, are not affected by the policy.

"If it's a local public airport that receives FAA improvement funds, though,
such residential developments would be affected. Whether existing developments
are grandfathered in the policy is still a gray area.

"Many of the current arrangements are also under local jurisdiction and review
whether or not the FAA policy had changed. As it appears now, aircraft
parking/camping at aviation events such as Oshkosh is not covered by the new policy.
Camping

"The term 'campgrounds' indicates a permanently based campground at an airport
instead of a temporary parking situation, which one finds at Oshkosh and other
fly-ins." Permanent campgrounds on airports seemingly are banned.

Asked if there specific concerns, the EAA's public relations said definitely.

"Yes. In addition, one of EAA's biggest objections is that the FAA policy was
issued without public comment, and it did change the long-standing policy of
permitting residential uses after evaluating the use, the economic return to the
airport, and the management of unauthorized airport access/security issues. It
was, in effect, establishing a rule by policy without proper public comment and
input."

However, he cautioned, "let's not run screaming off the bridge quite yet. This
is why EAA is asking for feedback from pilots and people in through-the- fence
situations, so there is solid background and evidence to present to FAA."

[Brian Whatcott]

Another change that came as a surprise, that came by word of mouth only
(though I have updated my address information within the last three
months on the FAA website) is the change to pilot licenses: paper
certificates are being replaced by (credit-card style) plastic.
It doesn't count that I laminated mine, years ago...

Fortunately, for most pilots, its just a matter of paying $2 and
filling the online form.

But, if you happen to be flying on a license granted on the strength of
your Australian or British licence, then you have a real treat in store.

This may include an appearance at an FSDO to check if you can speak and
write English, a requirement to apply to your original CAA to verify you
really DO have a license, another visit to an FSDO to work the magic
changeover - but your paper certificate expires end March, and
application lead times are at least 90 days, apparently.

So you will need a temporary authorization......

Brian W

cavelamb wrote:
> This came in by email this evening.
> Anybody heard anything about it?
> R
>
>
>
> Under new FAA rules, general aviation is about to undergo massive
> changes, none for the good, apparently.
>
> The FAA Airports Division issued a revised FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport
> Compliance Manual recently, that, as EAA described it, caught "just
> about every one off guard."
>
> Not only that it went from 94 to 691 pages of new rules and regulations,
> and it makes major changes that will affect several aspects of general
> aviation. Here are some of the more controversial ones:
>
> 1) No more autofuel may be used in aircraft.
> 2) Light Sport Aircraft that can be trailered, and owners/operators of
> recreational aircraft such as powered parachutes, weight-shift- control
> and gyroplanes will be denied access to airports.
> 3) Permanent or long-term living quarters on airports, part-time or
> secondary residences, and developments known as residential hangars,
> hangar homes, campgrounds, fly-in communities and airpark developments -
> even when collocated with an aviation hangar or aeronautical facility,
> will not be permitted on publically funded airports.

[Scott[_7_]]

You can recavelamb wrote:
> This came in by email this evening.
> Anybody heard anything about it?
> R
>
>



You can read the entire order at:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/5190_6b.pdf

[Frank[_12_]]

On Jan 10, 9:33*am, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Another change that came as a surprise, that came by word of mouth only
> (though I have updated my address information within the last three
> months on the FAA website) *is the change to pilot licenses: paper
> certificates are being replaced by (credit-card style) plastic.
> It doesn't count that I laminated mine, years ago...
>
> Fortunately, for most pilots, its just a matter of paying $2 and
> filling the online form.
>
> But, if you happen to be flying on a license granted on the strength of
> your Australian or British licence, then you have a real treat in store.
>
> This may include an appearance at an FSDO to check if you can speak and
> write English, a requirement to apply to your original CAA to verify you
> really DO have a license, another visit to an FSDO to work the magic
> changeover - but your paper certificate expires end March, and
> application lead times are at least 90 days, apparently.
>
> So you will need a temporary authorization......
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
> cavelamb wrote:
> > This came in by email this evening.
> > Anybody heard anything about it?
> > R
>
> > Under new FAA rules, general aviation is about to undergo massive
> > changes, none for the good, apparently.
>
> > The FAA Airports Division issued a revised FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport
> > Compliance Manual recently, that, as EAA described it, caught "just
> > about every one off guard."
>
> > Not only that it went from 94 to 691 pages of new rules and regulations,
> > and it makes major changes that will affect several aspects of general
> > aviation. Here are some of the more controversial ones:
>
> > 1) No more autofuel may be used in aircraft.
> > 2) Light Sport Aircraft that can be trailered, and owners/operators of
> > recreational aircraft such as powered parachutes, weight-shift- control
> > and gyroplanes will be denied access to airports.
> > 3) Permanent or long-term living quarters on airports, part-time or
> > secondary residences, and developments known as residential hangars,
> > hangar homes, campgrounds, fly-in communities and airpark developments -
> > even when collocated with an aviation hangar or aeronautical facility,
> > will not be permitted on publically funded airports.

Not to mention the fact that if you have a paper license with the
obsolete 'Aerotow' (and presumably 'Winch') ratings, you can't use the
automated procedure on the website. You must call the FAA Airman
Certificate Office at (866) 878-2498, wait until you get to an actual
human, and have them remove the rating(s) from your record. Then you
can go through the web process, pay your $2.00 via credit card, and
get your plastic certificate.

TA

[Mark]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:33:38 -0600, brian whatcott wrote:

> Another change that came as a surprise,

Nothing suprises me. For instance, While there
were some Minor structural mishaps on several
of the Zodiac light sport planes,
I gotta say the jury is still out for me.
Then I am different than Usenet pilots..I am
a Renaissance Man. I'm still attempting things
people think are impossible. I'm a dichotomy,
shoot em dead brainbell jangler, a soft diamond,
a militaristic saint, and always a very wise fool...
If anything I'm a Zena...
--
Mark inventor/artist/pilot/guitarist/scientist/philosopher/
scratch golfer/cat wrangler and observer of the mundane.
And much much more including wealthy beyond anything you can imagine.
My website http://www.hosanna1.com/

[BT]

Information provided in this posting about changes to 5190.6B are not
entirely correct.

5190.6B does not prohibit the use of auto fuel in aircraft.
5190.6B does not restrict LSA, ultralight or trailerable aircraft to include
gliders from airport access.

Residential airport communities on or abutting public funded airports may
have "through the fence" access issues for security purposes. Also concerns
of public $$ funding "private use" airports raised by the new "redistribute
the wealth" president.

BT

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Another change that came as a surprise, that came by word of mouth only
> (though I have updated my address information within the last three months
> on the FAA website) is the change to pilot licenses: paper certificates
> are being replaced by (credit-card style) plastic.
> It doesn't count that I laminated mine, years ago...
>
> Fortunately, for most pilots, its just a matter of paying $2 and
> filling the online form.
>
> But, if you happen to be flying on a license granted on the strength of
> your Australian or British licence, then you have a real treat in store.
>
> This may include an appearance at an FSDO to check if you can speak and
> write English, a requirement to apply to your original CAA to verify you
> really DO have a license, another visit to an FSDO to work the magic
> changeover - but your paper certificate expires end March, and application
> lead times are at least 90 days, apparently.
>
> So you will need a temporary authorization......
>
> Brian W
>
> cavelamb wrote:
>> This came in by email this evening.
>> Anybody heard anything about it?
>> R
>>
>>
>>
>> Under new FAA rules, general aviation is about to undergo massive
>> changes, none for the good, apparently.
>>
>> The FAA Airports Division issued a revised FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport
>> Compliance Manual recently, that, as EAA described it, caught "just about
>> every one off guard."
>>
>> Not only that it went from 94 to 691 pages of new rules and regulations,
>> and it makes major changes that will affect several aspects of general
>> aviation. Here are some of the more controversial ones:
>>
>> 1) No more autofuel may be used in aircraft.
>> 2) Light Sport Aircraft that can be trailered, and owners/operators of
>> recreational aircraft such as powered parachutes, weight-shift- control
>> and gyroplanes will be denied access to airports.
>> 3) Permanent or long-term living quarters on airports, part-time or
>> secondary residences, and developments known as residential hangars,
>> hangar homes, campgrounds, fly-in communities and airpark developments -
>> even when collocated with an aviation hangar or aeronautical facility,
>> will not be permitted on publically funded airports.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

BT wrote:
> Information provided in this posting about changes to 5190.6B are not
> entirely correct.
>
> 5190.6B does not prohibit the use of auto fuel in aircraft.
> 5190.6B does not restrict LSA, ultralight or trailerable aircraft to include
> gliders from airport access.
>
> Residential airport communities on or abutting public funded airports may
> have "through the fence" access issues for security purposes. Also concerns
> of public $$ funding "private use" airports raised by the new "redistribute
> the wealth" president.
>
> BT
>

I didn't see anything like that either, but after the first three pages my brain
stopped working...

[Scott[_7_]]

cavelamb wrote:

>
> after the first three pages
> my brain
> stopped working...

Only 690-some to go ;)

[BT]

5190.6B does say that the airport managers do not have to supply auto fuel,
but they cannot stop an individual or a company from self fueling.. as long
as the standard accepted safety practices for the handling of fuel are in
place.

Hint.. don't push your airplane back into the hanger (T-Hanger) if you are
waiting on the fuel truck.
No fueling inside... leave it out.. then push it back with a full heavy fuel
load... you are ok in most instances under "shade hangers" because they are
open air with no sides.

And for those trailerable aircraft?
5190.6B does encourage the airport manager to charge for "airport use" the
same as he would charge someone a daily parking fee.
BT

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
...
> BT wrote:
>> Information provided in this posting about changes to 5190.6B are not
>> entirely correct.
>>
>> 5190.6B does not prohibit the use of auto fuel in aircraft.
>> 5190.6B does not restrict LSA, ultralight or trailerable aircraft to
>> include gliders from airport access.
>>
>> Residential airport communities on or abutting public funded airports may
>> have "through the fence" access issues for security purposes. Also
>> concerns of public $$ funding "private use" airports raised by the new
>> "redistribute the wealth" president.
>>
>> BT
>>
>
> I didn't see anything like that either, but after the first three pages my
> brain
> stopped working...

[Bug Dout]

cavelamb > writes:

> This came in by email this evening.
> Anybody heard anything about it?

Sounds like an alphabet aviation group trying to scare its members for
more dollars. The federal bogeyman has replaced the commies under the
bed and the monsters in the closet.
--
I could dance with you till the cows come home, on second thought I'll
dance with the cows till you come home.
Groucho Marx

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Bug Dout > wrote:

> cavelamb > writes:
>
> > This came in by email this evening.
> > Anybody heard anything about it?
>
> Sounds like an alphabet aviation group trying to scare its members for
> more dollars. The federal bogeyman has replaced the commies under the
> bed and the monsters in the closet.

The threat on through-the-fence operations is quite serious! The new reg
attempts to do away with taxiway access from off-airport property
residences and businesses. There are some airports that have adjacent
hangar homes or businesses that have airport access and are in danger of
having their access denied.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Tri-Pacer[_4_]]

"
>
> The threat on through-the-fence operations is quite serious! The new reg
> attempts to do away with taxiway access from off-airport property
> residences and businesses. There are some airports that have adjacent
> hangar homes or businesses that have airport access and are in danger of
> having their access denied.
>
>

When shopping for an airpark home we looked at Independence Oregon which is
a county owned airport with homes adjacent to the airport.

I'm real glad we wound up on a private airpark and don't have to worry about
a gate being shut and locked.

Paul
N1431A
2AZ1
www.indianhillsairpark.com

[Scott[_7_]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Bug Dout > wrote:
>
>> cavelamb > writes:
>>
>>> This came in by email this evening.
>>> Anybody heard anything about it?
>> Sounds like an alphabet aviation group trying to scare its members for
>> more dollars. The federal bogeyman has replaced the commies under the
>> bed and the monsters in the closet.
>
> The threat on through-the-fence operations is quite serious! The new reg
> attempts to do away with taxiway access from off-airport property
> residences and businesses. There are some airports that have adjacent
> hangar homes or businesses that have airport access and are in danger of
> having their access denied.
>

I concur...I read that section very close.

Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
"inconsistent" use of land on airport property...

Scott

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Tri-Pacer" > wrote:

> "
> >
> > The threat on through-the-fence operations is quite serious! The new reg
> > attempts to do away with taxiway access from off-airport property
> > residences and businesses. There are some airports that have adjacent
> > hangar homes or businesses that have airport access and are in danger of
> > having their access denied.
> >
> >
>
> When shopping for an airpark home we looked at Independence Oregon which is
> a county owned airport with homes adjacent to the airport.
>
> I'm real glad we wound up on a private airpark and don't have to worry about
> a gate being shut and locked.
>
> Paul
> N1431A
> 2AZ1
> www.indianhillsairpark.com

I concur. Eleven years ago, I retired and wanted to move to an airpark
with a hangar home. I bought the books and found it easy to separate the
wheat from the chaff.

One requirement was that the homeowners' Assn. own the airport. We
settled on Spruce Creek and have never been sorry.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[bildan]

> Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
> through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
> "inconsistent" use of land on airport property...
>
> Scott

Now THAT is good news. My local GA airport has a 5 year waiting list
for $500/Mo T-hangars. 75% of them are full of old cars and boats.
If the hangar lessee's are forced to clear out their junk, it means
more room for airplanes - possibly at a lower price.

[Dana M. Hague[_2_]]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:19:14 -0600, cavelamb >
wrote:

>BT wrote:
>> Information provided in this posting about changes to 5190.6B are not
>> entirely correct.
>>
>> 5190.6B does not prohibit the use of auto fuel in aircraft.
>> 5190.6B does not restrict LSA, ultralight or trailerable aircraft to include
>> gliders from airport access.

>I didn't see anything like that either, but after the first three pages my brain
>stopped working...

That's wha "search" is for...


--
Every election, Mickey Mouse looks better and better as President.

[Peter Dohm]

"bildan" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
>> through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
>> "inconsistent" use of land on airport property...
>>
>> Scott
>
> Now THAT is good news. My local GA airport has a 5 year waiting list
> for $500/Mo T-hangars. 75% of them are full of old cars and boats.
> If the hangar lessee's are forced to clear out their junk, it means
> more room for airplanes - possibly at a lower price.

This is a real ongoing debate, and on the surface it's easy to be on both
sides of it.

However, the current and growing interpretation seems to be that you can not
have other personal property, in addition to your aircraft, in your
hangar--and that is just plain unreasonable!

Therefore, I have to come down on the side opposing this rule--as well as
opposing the denials of TTF access.

Peter

[Bug Dout]

Scott > writes:

> Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I
> breezed through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
> "inconsistent" use of land on airport property...

If the non-airplane junk means an airplane cannot be hangared,
great. I'm fed up with the classic cars, boats, and businesses being run
from airport hangars.
--
Today it is fashionable to talk about the poor. Unfortunately, it is
not fashionable to talk with them.
~ Mother Teresa

[rich[_2_]]

Strange that it targets trailerable LSA aircraft. I can only wonder
where they are coming from with this rule. What about trailerable
non-LSA's? Such as the folding wing Thorp T-18, or Midget Mustang II?
Did they escape the wrath of this new rule? It seems they are going
after anyone that figures out a way not to have to
pay-through-the-nose to some airport. I've been thinking of building
or buying a folding wing Midget Mustang II for just that purpose, to
get out of never ending hanger rent, plus it would be nice to have my
plane at home. It would make just about any location an "airpark". In
cities where hangers are unobtainable, due to long waiting lists, and
some places where even tie down space is not available, a trailerable
aircraft would be great. The feds must have some type of security
angle worrying about this issue. Plus, they must be trying to protect
the income flow of FBO's, who I'm sure have been lobbying for some of
these new rules behind the scenes quietly. I'm sure most if not all of
these new rules are the result of lobbying that has been done behind
the scenes by those seeking to increase their income at all of our
expenses. I'm not surprised they issued the new rule with no comment
period, they knew they were up to no good and figured the only way
they could pass this nonsense is without a comment period.
The one thing I support is getting the use of hangers for storing
items that aren't aircraft. It's one thing to have a couch, workbench
and other support items for an aircraft inside a hanger. But in cities
with where hanger space is very limited, and where there are hangers
filled with non aircraft items. That I hope they stop.


On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:02:08 -0600, cavelamb >
wrote:

>This came in by email this evening.
>Anybody heard anything about it?
>R
>
>
>
>Under new FAA rules, general aviation is about to undergo massive changes, none
>for the good, apparently.
>
>The FAA Airports Division issued a revised FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance
>Manual recently, that, as EAA described it, caught "just about every one off guard."
>
>Not only that it went from 94 to 691 pages of new rules and regulations, and it
>makes major changes that will affect several aspects of general aviation. Here
>are some of the more controversial ones:
>
>1) No more autofuel may be used in aircraft.
>2) Light Sport Aircraft that can be trailered, and owners/operators of
>recreational aircraft such as powered parachutes, weight-shift- control and
>gyroplanes will be denied access to airports.
>3) Permanent or long-term living quarters on airports, part-time or secondary
>residences, and developments known as residential hangars, hangar homes,
>campgrounds, fly-in communities and airpark developments - even when collocated
>with an aviation hangar or aeronautical facility, will not be permitted on
>publically funded airports.
>4) The new manual failed to clarify the issue of providing reduced fair-market
>hangar rent for not-for-profit 501c(3) tax-exempt EAA chapters, whose community
>activities provide positive tangible benefits to their airports.
>
>AUTO GAS
>The item banning auto gas, EAA said, will affect 100,000+ airplanes that use car
>gas in their engines under FAA STC's.
>
>"Autofuel was not recognized as an authorized aviation fuel, nor does it suggest
>that airports take actions to install self-service, ethanol-free premium grade
>autogas pumps to support the 100,000+ aircraft that use autogas as their
>primary, FAA-approved aviation fuel," the EAA noted.
>
>"EAA has successfully worked with the FAA Airports Division for several years in
>resolving this issue," the organization said.
>
>TRAILERABLE AIRCRAFT BAN
>The banning of trailerable Light Sport Aircraft, powered parachutes,
>weight-shift- control and gyroplanes was recognized as an activity not permitted
>because of the FAA's through-the- fence (TTF) prohibitions, EAA said.
>
>With the on-going development of special light-sport aircraft as recreational
>aircraft, including the roadable aircraft, this issue needed to be resolved, but
>wasn't, EAA said. It would seem to mean the new Terrafugia flying car wouldn't
>be allowed to drive on the airport and fly off the runway.
>
>AIRPORT PROPERTY
>The FAA's regulation saying it considers permanent or long-term living quarters
>on airport, part-time or secondary residences, and developments known as
>residential hangars, hangar homes, campgrounds, fly-in communities and airpark
>developments incompatible - when collocated with an aviation hangar or
>aeronautical facility - may be one of the biggest changes of all.
>
>There re dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such fly-in communities around the
>country, most associated with publicly funded (meaning FAA money) airports.
>
>The two leading general aviation organizations, EAA and AOPA, are examining the
>new manual for areas that need to be improved or clarified, an EAA spokesman said.
>
>"They will then work with the FAA Airports Division to address the problem
>areas," the pilots' group said. When we put questions to EAA about their
>response to the new regulations, this is the answer we got:
>Live-In Airparks
>
>"As for residential airparks and the like, the early answer is: depends.
>Residential airparks on private airfields, or public airports that do not
>receive FAA funding, are not affected by the policy.
>
>"If it's a local public airport that receives FAA improvement funds, though,
>such residential developments would be affected. Whether existing developments
>are grandfathered in the policy is still a gray area.
>
>"Many of the current arrangements are also under local jurisdiction and review
>whether or not the FAA policy had changed. As it appears now, aircraft
>parking/camping at aviation events such as Oshkosh is not covered by the new policy.
>Camping
>
>"The term 'campgrounds' indicates a permanently based campground at an airport
>instead of a temporary parking situation, which one finds at Oshkosh and other
>fly-ins." Permanent campgrounds on airports seemingly are banned.
>
>Asked if there specific concerns, the EAA's public relations said definitely.
>
>"Yes. In addition, one of EAA's biggest objections is that the FAA policy was
>issued without public comment, and it did change the long-standing policy of
>permitting residential uses after evaluating the use, the economic return to the
>airport, and the management of unauthorized airport access/security issues. It
>was, in effect, establishing a rule by policy without proper public comment and
>input."
>
>However, he cautioned, "let's not run screaming off the bridge quite yet. This
>is why EAA is asking for feedback from pilots and people in through-the- fence
>situations, so there is solid background and evidence to present to FAA."

[rich[_2_]]

I've been reading the new order, and in some ways it's not so bad. I
did pick up on the fact the FAA is protecting the right of an aircraft
owner to self-fuel and do his own maintenance. It also says an
aircraft that is stored off-airport, be it in adjacent land or where
ever, gets caught by that same through the fence quagmire. They feel
it's a security issue. But if the person pays a tied down fee, then
it's not so bad. I could live with that, tie down fees are usually a
lot less than hanger rents. What I'm seeing as detrimental more than
anything, started before this new order came out, and that is the
rampant spreading of "ramp fees" all over the country. Florida has a
high number of airports doing this, but now I see it spreading to more
out of the way airports. Eventully, just about anywhere we fly, once
we exit the runway, here comes someone with their hand out asking for
money. That makes me not want to fly anywhere but my own airport.
I check Airnav and call ahead anywhere I go nowdays, so I'm not
unpleasantly surprised. One of the wost small airports is Naples, FL.
Major ripoff.

[Scott[_7_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "bildan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
>>> through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
>>> "inconsistent" use of land on airport property...
>>>
>>> Scott
>> Now THAT is good news. My local GA airport has a 5 year waiting list
>> for $500/Mo T-hangars. 75% of them are full of old cars and boats.
>> If the hangar lessee's are forced to clear out their junk, it means
>> more room for airplanes - possibly at a lower price.
>
> This is a real ongoing debate, and on the surface it's easy to be on both
> sides of it.
>
> However, the current and growing interpretation seems to be that you can not
> have other personal property, in addition to your aircraft, in your
> hangar--and that is just plain unreasonable!
>
> Therefore, I have to come down on the side opposing this rule--as well as
> opposing the denials of TTF access.
>
> Peter
>
>
However, in my case as a renter, it would be good for me. The hangar
owner stores 5 to 6 cars during the winter along with my Corben and his
206. There have been times I have gone out during the winter on a nice
day to fly (yes, open cockpit) and I cannot get my plane out because he
has moved my plane and wrestled all the cars in there. Yes, I know,
it's his hangar, but I get burned paying $145/month and then can't
always use my plane when I want...

[Jim Logajan]

Scott > wrote:
> However, in my case as a renter, it would be good for me. The hangar
> owner stores 5 to 6 cars during the winter along with my Corben and
> his 206. There have been times I have gone out during the winter on a
> nice day to fly (yes, open cockpit) and I cannot get my plane out
> because he has moved my plane and wrestled all the cars in there.
> Yes, I know, it's his hangar, but I get burned paying $145/month and
> then can't always use my plane when I want...

I'll take it as a given that your complaint is valid, but even then I'm not
sure why such contractual conflicts have to literally become a federal
issue for you to get them resolved.

[Scott[_7_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
>> However, in my case as a renter, it would be good for me. The hangar
>> owner stores 5 to 6 cars during the winter along with my Corben and
>> his 206. There have been times I have gone out during the winter on a
>> nice day to fly (yes, open cockpit) and I cannot get my plane out
>> because he has moved my plane and wrestled all the cars in there.
>> Yes, I know, it's his hangar, but I get burned paying $145/month and
>> then can't always use my plane when I want...
>
> I'll take it as a given that your complaint is valid, but even then I'm not
> sure why such contractual conflicts have to literally become a federal
> issue for you to get them resolved.

Oh...I'm not saying that that the Feds need to or necessarily should
"resolve" conflicts like mine (which really is minor and after this
happened to me once, I let the owner know that I do fly in the winter...
he assumed I didn't since it is an open cockpit plane). I "think" where
the issue stems from is that some folks (like my hangar owner) lets
non-aviaiton folks store their cars in his hangar and they come out and
move their cars in and out and have to drive down the taxiway to get to
our row of hangars. The Feds probably get uptight about security
(which, again, isn't the only way this issue gets their undies in a
bunch, I'm sure.) We do not (yet, and hopefully NEVER) have a "real"
fence around the airport...just a barb-wire fence and a non-locked
cattle gate across the driveway....

Scott

[bildan]

On Jan 14, 8:30*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "bildan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >> Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
> >> through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
> >> "inconsistent" use of land on airport property...
>
> >> Scott
>
> > Now THAT is good news. *My local GA airport has a 5 year waiting list
> > for $500/Mo T-hangars. *75% of them are full of old cars and boats.
> > If the hangar lessee's are forced to clear out their junk, it means
> > more room for airplanes - possibly at a lower price.
>
> This is a real ongoing debate, and on the surface it's easy to be on both
> sides of it.
>
> However, the current and growing interpretation seems to be that you can not
> have other personal property, in addition to your aircraft, in your
> hangar--and that is just plain unreasonable!
>
> Therefore, I have to come down on the side opposing this rule--as well as
> opposing the denials of TTF access.
>
> Peter

May of the hangars are leased by people who hate airplanes and would
like the airport closed so they wouldn't have to deal with security
hassles - if they can keep their cheap storage space for old cars.
Meanwhile, hundreds of airplanes sit out in the weather

No doubt an "airplanes only" rule would inconvenience some but the
majority of airplanes owners would benefit from the sudden
availability of hangars.

Maybe a compromise is any hangar containing an airplane could also
house "parts and equipment necessary for it's maintenance".

BTW, I used to know an FBO who had an interesting spin on hangar
rent. The amount of rent you paid depended on how much you flew -
frequent fliers paid much less than those who never flew their
airplanes. The rent to hangar non-flying airplanes escalated until
the "hangar queens" were driven off. His fuel sales were very good
and his service shop was always busy.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
bildan > wrote:

> On Jan 14, 8:30*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > "bildan" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
> > >> through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
> > >> "inconsistent" use of land on airport property...
> >
> > >> Scott
> >
> > > Now THAT is good news. *My local GA airport has a 5 year waiting list
> > > for $500/Mo T-hangars. *75% of them are full of old cars and boats.
> > > If the hangar lessee's are forced to clear out their junk, it means
> > > more room for airplanes - possibly at a lower price.
> >
> > This is a real ongoing debate, and on the surface it's easy to be on both
> > sides of it.
> >
> > However, the current and growing interpretation seems to be that you can not
> > have other personal property, in addition to your aircraft, in your
> > hangar--and that is just plain unreasonable!
> >
> > Therefore, I have to come down on the side opposing this rule--as well as
> > opposing the denials of TTF access.
> >
> > Peter
>
> May of the hangars are leased by people who hate airplanes and would
> like the airport closed so they wouldn't have to deal with security
> hassles - if they can keep their cheap storage space for old cars.
> Meanwhile, hundreds of airplanes sit out in the weather
>
> No doubt an "airplanes only" rule would inconvenience some but the
> majority of airplanes owners would benefit from the sudden
> availability of hangars.
>
> Maybe a compromise is any hangar containing an airplane could also
> house "parts and equipment necessary for it's maintenance".
>
> BTW, I used to know an FBO who had an interesting spin on hangar
> rent. The amount of rent you paid depended on how much you flew -
> frequent fliers paid much less than those who never flew their
> airplanes. The rent to hangar non-flying airplanes escalated until
> the "hangar queens" were driven off. His fuel sales were very good
> and his service shop was always busy.

That is a bummer for somebody restoring a plane!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.