At Dear Ol' AVL Airport, Asheville, NC [Archive]

Bob Olds

August 14th 04, 03:30 AM

" jls" > wrote in message >...
> In order to be a flight instructor you need 5,000 feet hangar space, 1,500
> feet office space, plus two airplanes, one of which must be IFR certified.
> This is the official rule, in writing and enforced by the airport authority.
> What this effectively does is exclude any competition for the one flight
> school on the airport.
>
> There is also another loopy rule which excludes A&P's from working on
> aircraft at this airport, unless for the monopoly on the field.
>
> Check to see if there are any conspiracies in restraint of trade or
> competition at your airport. You may have a bizarre rule like this giving
> someone or a company a monopoly on your airport.
>
> These illegal, unAmerican rules founded on greed will shortly be dissolved
> or litigated, you can be sure of it.

************************************************** ******************************

We had the same kind of situation at a county airport in San
Bernardino county, Calif. We did some research and found that if the
airport got any federal funding they could not allow a monopoly on the
airport.The federal funding would stop and refunds were in order.
We flooded the airport commission with our members and others and won
out over the county stooges.
That was about 1980.

Bob Olds

************************************************** ******************************

jls

August 14th 04, 10:59 AM

"Bob Olds" > wrote in message
om...

>
************************************************** **************************
****
>
> We had the same kind of situation at a county airport in San
> Bernardino county, Calif. We did some research and found that if the
> airport got any federal funding they could not allow a monopoly on the
> airport.The federal funding would stop and refunds were in order.
> We flooded the airport commission with our members and others and won
> out over the county stooges.
> That was about 1980.
>
> Bob Olds

Thanks, Bob, for that encouraging report.

GaryP

August 14th 04, 03:22 PM

Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
restrictions their policy might have? If an incident occurs at that airport
or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in todays
litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport operators.
The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has an enormous
premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
actions? Most likely none! So you want to make money at the expense of
others and you call THEM unamerican?
The same goes for A&P's, maintenance shops and fuel concessions. The law-suit
happy world we find ourselves in has made insurance damn near impossible to
afford or even get.
Free lance A&Ps operating on an airport expose the airport operator to
litigation and don't contribute a penny to their insurance. When the
feces hits the fan the free-lancers run for the hills and the fixed
base businesses are stuck holding the bag. ALV's requirement that
a business maintain a reasonable presence on their grounds is not
uncommon nor is the incidence of free lancers who protest about it.

There is no difference to this than an person driving an uninsured car,
getting involved in an accident and then expecting to simply walk away from
their obligation or have the uninsured motorist fund cover their damages.

GaryP

" jls" > wrote in message >...
> In order to be a flight instructor you need 5,000 feet hangar space, 1,500
> feet office space, plus two airplanes, one of which must be IFR certified.
> This is the official rule, in writing and enforced by the airport authority.
> What this effectively does is exclude any competition for the one flight
> school on the airport.
>
> There is also another loopy rule which excludes A&P's from working on
> aircraft at this airport, unless for the monopoly on the field.
>
> Check to see if there are any conspiracies in restraint of trade or
> competition at your airport. You may have a bizarre rule like this giving
> someone or a company a monopoly on your airport.
>
> These illegal, unAmerican rules founded on greed will shortly be dissolved
> or litigated, you can be sure of it.

UltraJohn

August 14th 04, 03:46 PM

It seems to me they could require that anyone doing business on their
airport carry an insurance policy to protect the airport from litigation
which makes more sense than requiring huge buildings and expensive
facilities.
Next thing you know they'll prohibit you from flying there from another
airport and doing a few touch and go's just in case you might have an
accident on their airport!
John

GaryP wrote:

> Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
> restrictions their policy might have? If an incident occurs at that
> airport or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in
> todays litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport
> operators. The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has
> an enormous
> premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
> to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
> actions?

Del Rawlins

August 14th 04, 10:40 PM

On 14 Aug 2004 07:22:48 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:

>Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
>restrictions their policy might have?

Good question, but a better one is who is the airport operator. If
they are a private company and have not accepted public money to
operate their airport, fine. They can exclude anybody they wish.
Otherwise, their insurance concerns are nobody's problem but their
own.

> If an incident occurs at that airport
>or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in todays
>litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport operators.

So what? Anybody can be named in any lawsuit at any time for no
reason at all. The legal system is broken, and we all know that. Why
anybody should be responsible to protect anybody but themselves from
that broken system is beyond me.

>The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has an enormous
>premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
>to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
>actions? Most likely none! So you want to make money at the expense of
>others and you call THEM unamerican?

Because, if it is a public airport then he is not making money at
anybody's expense but his own and the public entity that funds the
airport, no different from the established operator. The established
operator is not involved and the free lance CFI has no obligation to
them whatsoever.

>The same goes for A&P's, maintenance shops and fuel concessions. The law-suit
>happy world we find ourselves in has made insurance damn near impossible to
>afford or even get.
>Free lance A&Ps operating on an airport expose the airport operator to
>litigation and don't contribute a penny to their insurance. When the
>feces hits the fan the free-lancers run for the hills and the fixed
>base businesses are stuck holding the bag.

Guess again, asshole. If an aircraft owner based on the local public
field chooses to hire me as an A&P to work on their airplane, and the
"established operators" start sniffing around and telling me to go
away, I can assure you that running for the hills is the last thing
which will occur. The situation would get very ugly, very quickly.

>ALV's requirement that
>a business maintain a reasonable presence on their grounds is not
>uncommon nor is the incidence of free lancers who protest about it.

It is cronyism, plain and simple. It is nothing more than an
anti-competitive conspiracy by those who feel that the world owes them
a living by virtue of their having been there first.

> There is no difference to this than an person driving an uninsured car,
>getting involved in an accident and then expecting to simply walk away from
>their obligation or have the uninsured motorist fund cover their damages.

There is a huge difference. Under your rules, the driver would also
have to provide liability coverage to other, uninvolved motorists who
happened to be driving on the same road where the wreck occurred.

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Barnyard BOb -

August 14th 04, 11:12 PM

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:40:11 GMT,
(Del Rawlins) wrote:

>
>It is cronyism, plain and simple. It is nothing more than an
>anti-competitive conspiracy by those who feel that the world owes them
>a living by virtue of their having been there first.

>Del Rawlins--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Plain and simple???
Not exactly.

I'm older than dirt.
No question I wuz here first.

The problem with being first so
long ago leaves one crony-less.

It ain't easy extorting a paycheck
under these conditions.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

jls

August 15th 04, 12:26 AM

"Del Rawlins" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Aug 2004 07:22:48 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:
>
> >Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
> >restrictions their policy might have?
>
> Good question, but a better one is who is the airport operator. If
> they are a private company and have not accepted public money to
> operate their airport, fine. They can exclude anybody they wish.
> Otherwise, their insurance concerns are nobody's problem but their
> own.
>

Uh, hello, AVL is a public FAA airport. It is Class C airspace. And
what might THIS from the minutes of AVL airport authority mean to you?--->>>
Accepted AIP-25 FAA Grant in the amount of $5,881,370.00.
Heard the marketing and public relations report.
Heard the airport director's report who gave a briefing of the day by day
occurences (sic) at the airport since the terrorist attack of September 11,
2001.
Approved minutes of the August 20, 2001 monthly meeting and closed session.

> > If an incident occurs at that airport
> >or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in todays
> >litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport
operators.
>
> So what? Anybody can be named in any lawsuit at any time for no
> reason at all. The legal system is broken, and we all know that.

You might THINK you know that, but this monopoly issue should have been
litigated long ago, once and for all, while all you shills of corrupt big
business and toadies of the far right show your ignorance.

Why
> anybody should be responsible to protect anybody but themselves from
> that broken system is beyond me.

Here, ol' Dello seems to advocate the law of the jungle.
>
> >The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has an
enormous
> >premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
> >to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
> >actions? Most likely none! So you want to make money at the expense of
> >others and you call THEM unamerican?
>
> Because, if it is a public airport then he is not making money at
> anybody's expense but his own and the public entity that funds the
> airport, no different from the established operator. The established
> operator is not involved and the free lance CFI has no obligation to
> them whatsoever.
>
> >The same goes for A&P's, maintenance shops and fuel concessions. The
law-suit
> >happy world we find ourselves in has made insurance damn near impossible
to
> >afford or even get.
> >Free lance A&Ps operating on an airport expose the airport operator to
> >litigation and don't contribute a penny to their insurance. When the
> >feces hits the fan the free-lancers run for the hills and the fixed
> >base businesses are stuck holding the bag.
>
> Guess again, asshole. If an aircraft owner based on the local public
> field chooses to hire me as an A&P to work on their airplane, and the
> "established operators" start sniffing around and telling me to go
> away, I can assure you that running for the hills is the last thing
> which will occur. The situation would get very ugly, very quickly.

Go, big Dello. Tell 'em, big boy.
>
> >ALV's requirement that
> >a business maintain a reasonable presence on their grounds is not
> >uncommon nor is the incidence of free lancers who protest about it.
>
> It is cronyism, plain and simple. It is nothing more than an
> anti-competitive conspiracy by those who feel that the world owes them
> a living by virtue of their having been there first.
>
> > There is no difference to this than an person driving an uninsured car,
> >getting involved in an accident and then expecting to simply walk away
from
> >their obligation or have the uninsured motorist fund cover their damages.
>
> There is a huge difference. Under your rules, the driver would also
> have to provide liability coverage to other, uninvolved motorists who
> happened to be driving on the same road where the wreck occurred.
>
>
> ================================================== ==
> Del Rawlins--
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

GaryP

August 15th 04, 04:17 AM

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message >...
> Guess again, asshole.

Excuse me! Can't you engage in a discussion without resorting to vulgar
personal attacks. What a class act you are Del.

Morgans

August 15th 04, 05:58 AM

"Del Rawlins" > wrote in message
...
>
> What a brilliant response by the Michael Moore of RAH.
>
> ================================================== ==
> Del Rawlins--
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

My killfile has grown in the last few days. No surprise, considering the
recent influx of loons.
--
Jim in NC

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.736 / Virus Database: 490 - Release Date: 8/10/2004

Del Rawlins

August 15th 04, 06:20 AM

On 14 Aug 2004 20:17:16 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message >...
>> Guess again, asshole.
>
>Excuse me! Can't you engage in a discussion without resorting to vulgar
>personal attacks. What a class act you are Del.

You come on the newsgroup, and make a statement to the effect that
A&Ps and flight instructors who don't operate out of fixed facilities
are a bunch of hazardous freeloaders who shouldn't be allowed on the
airport, and you expect a civil response?

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Del Rawlins

August 15th 04, 06:25 AM

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:12:30 -0500, Barnyard BOb -
> wrote:

>Plain and simple???
>Not exactly.
>
>I'm older than dirt.
>No question I wuz here first.
>
>The problem with being first so
>long ago leaves one crony-less.
>
>It ain't easy extorting a paycheck
>under these conditions.

Hey Bob, when wuz the last time you tried to get anybody thrown off a
public airport for the mere act of exercising their pilot or mechanic
certificates? If you ever have, then my name is Latchless. 8^)

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Del Rawlins

August 15th 04, 06:27 AM

What a brilliant response by the Michael Moore of RAH.

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Roger Halstead

August 15th 04, 08:21 AM

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 05:20:28 GMT,
(Del Rawlins) wrote:

>On 14 Aug 2004 20:17:16 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:
>
(Del Rawlins) wrote in message >...
>>> Guess again, asshole.
>>
>>Excuse me! Can't you engage in a discussion without resorting to vulgar
>>personal attacks. What a class act you are Del.
>
>You come on the newsgroup, and make a statement to the effect that
>A&Ps and flight instructors who don't operate out of fixed facilities
>are a bunch of hazardous freeloaders who shouldn't be allowed on the
>airport, and you expect a civil response?

I believe all the instructors at the nearest 3 airports are all free
lance.

Mechanics are a bit different. We have an FBO plus a couple free
lance mechanics. They work in your hanger and in general are higher
priced than the FBO, but a bit more specialized.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>
>================================================== ==
>Del Rawlins--
>Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Barnyard BOb -

August 15th 04, 02:37 PM

>Hey Bob, when wuz the last time you tried to get anybody thrown off a
>public airport for the mere act of exercising their pilot or mechanic
>certificates? If you ever have, then my name is Latchless. 8^)
>
>
>Del Rawlins--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Lartchless, er Del...

My RV-3 is based at a PRIVATELY owned aerodrome.
No public funds involved.

Even so.....
Freeloaders and freelancers of all persuasions
are welcomed to ply their trades the best they can.

No restrictions on anyone, to date.....
Not that there haven't been feeble attempts.

A pox upon_assholes_
Yes, ASSHOLES, that would have it otherwise.

Barnyard BOb -

Barnyard BOb -

August 15th 04, 02:58 PM

>
>What a brilliant response by the Michael Moore of RAH.
>
>Del Rawlins--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Michael Moore may not be your cup of tea...
but, IMO, he is brilliant.

Any self made millionaire in the USA is my hero.
Yeah, that includes Bill Gates, too. <g>

BTW...
If G.W. Bush doesn't get re-elected to office what
narrow minded idiot will hold that against Moore?

Barnyard BOb -

jls

August 15th 04, 04:07 PM

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
[..]> I believe all the instructors at the nearest 3 airports are all free
> lance.
>
> Mechanics are a bit different. We have an FBO plus a couple free
> lance mechanics. They work in your hanger and in general are higher
> priced than the FBO, but a bit more specialized.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>

Roger, that means things in your neck of the woods are working well --- the
way the wise authors of the Sherman, Lanham, and Clayton Acts wanted them
to.

GaryP

August 15th 04, 04:19 PM

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message >...

> You come on the newsgroup, and make a statement to the effect that
> A&Ps and flight instructors who don't operate out of fixed facilities
> are a bunch of hazardous freeloaders who shouldn't be allowed on the
> airport, and you expect a civil response?

I entered into this discussion with an alternative point of view
having
watched aviation businesses try to survive in this litigious society.
My assertion, which I believe you did not understand correctly based
on the
above response is this: Fixed operators cannot escape exposure to
litigation
for lawsuits filed in the aftermath of a fatality. When something
happens
the attorneys name everyone in what is called "partitioning of the
blame".
As a result the airport owners insurance policy might have a
requirement
that all operators on the airport be fixed and properly insured for
their
respective activities. An independent CFI or A&P routinely operating
at
an airport without their own insurance are exposing the airport and
fixed
businesses to potential litigation and may be doing so in violation of
the
airport owners insurance coverage requirements. From day to day
without
incident this is not a problem until an accident occurs where there
are
serious injuries. The fixed operators are there, easily identified
and nameable
in a suit while the independents operating out their car can simply
dissapear.
Even if they don't disappear, when the suit is filed you can be the
attorneys
will go after the deepest pockets first. The fixed operators will be
targeted
for a larger share of the blame because they have deeper pockets. The
legal
system is not fair in this regard.
NO WHERE did I say or am I saying NOW that the independent are doing
shoddy
work. NO WHERE did I say or am I saying NOW that they should not
entitled
to operate. What I am saying is their activities, depending on the
insurance
policy requirements of the airport, may be in violation of that
policy.
Indirectly the fixed operators premiums are sholdering the liability
costs of the independent operators. I compared this to car insurance
where in my home state of NJ is
mandatory YET includes a surcharge for "uninsured motorists". In
effect I
pay for folks who don't have insurance. The uninsured driver has a
lower
cost per mile than me. They could be the safest driver on the road
but my
premium is, in effect higher to pay for their coverage. Not a problem
until there is an accident and fatalities or serious injuries and big
monitary lawsuits. How did this come to be, the insurance company is
simply passing
along their settlement costs, partitioned accordingly, in the premiums
to
their policy holders. I'd venture to guess there are similar
surcharges for airport liability policies too, but I don't have first
hand knowledge to say
for sure.

I am an A&P and I work on my own airplane. No one can legally
prevent me
from doing so(as far as the FAA is concerned) because I am
appropriately certificated just as I am certificated to fly my
airplane. Is this a violation of my airports insurance? No, because
I am only working on my own plane and not increasing their exposure
beyond that which I do simply as a pilot operating out of their field.
If I began working on other airplanes for compensation the answer
would be yes, and my airport has strict rules against it without
proper insurance coverage. Subrogation is the key term here. They
want my pockets
to be deep enough in proportion to the liability exposure of my
actions.

I saw first hand how a law suit filed by a relative of a deceased
pilot, who crashed on a too slow - stall spin on takeoff accident,
bankrupted several businesses. Including the avionics shop who simply
did the transponder check over a year before the accident. How the
transponder check contributed to the pilots failure to maintain
airspeed is a mystery to me but that didn't stop
the plaintiff's lawyers from naming him in the suit.
The cost of defending himself literally bankrupted the shop owner
because he
did carry enough insurance. As a result of this experience the only
way I will work one anyone elses airplane is as an employee of a fixed
operation with enough policy coverage to protect me. I could not
afford to purchase enough
insurance, as an individual, for A&P wages to cover the large sums
asked for
in todays courts.

I do not believe I made the uncivilized assertions you acuse me of.
But
this issue sparks emotion and people don't always express themselves
throughly.
Perhaps I've made my point a little clearer, perhaps not.

jls

August 15th 04, 05:19 PM

"GaryP" > wrote in message
om...
> (Del Rawlins) wrote in message
>...
>
> > You come on the newsgroup, and make a statement to the effect that
> > A&Ps and flight instructors who don't operate out of fixed facilities
> > are a bunch of hazardous freeloaders who shouldn't be allowed on the
> > airport, and you expect a civil response?
>
> I entered into this discussion with an alternative point of view
> having
> watched aviation businesses try to survive in this litigious society.
> My assertion, which I believe you did not understand correctly based
> on the
> above response is this: Fixed operators cannot escape exposure to
> litigation
> for lawsuits filed in the aftermath of a fatality. When something
> happens
> the attorneys name everyone in what is called "partitioning of the
> blame".

In law it is called joint and several liability.

The attorneys usually join the parties who share in the negligence, if there
is more than one. Those who don't share in the blame are usually dismissed
from the lawsuit by the judge before it ever goes to a jury, or runs up a
big attorney fee. Thus, if I were representing the avionics repairman and
his work on the transponder had nothing to do with the accident, I would
file motion and affidavit for summary judgment and get him out of the
lawsuit.

I hear stories of so-and-so being bankrupted by lawsuit, I usually check the
story out for accuracy. So who is the avionics guy, and let's just see if
he is no longer in business. If he's smart he would have been operating
under the prophylactic shield of a business corporation, protecting him and
his family from financial ruin.

Otherwise, your response is mostly a reasonable one, although it is
unreasonable to assert in a blanket statement that an independent A&P
working for himself subjects an unrelated FBO on his airport, or the public
airport operating under the rules of sovereign immunity, to liability.
Negligence lawsuits are predicated on reason, not hysteria or just grabbing
up the nearest deep pockets and turning them upside down and shaking the
money out of them.

Of course there is a rich complexity of issues here which your vulgar
adversary is unable to comprehend. You should perhaps forgive our
shallow-pated friend for getting flustered and fumbling during a time in
which he was required to do a little thinking and instead blurted out the AH
word.

Del Rawlins

August 16th 04, 12:52 AM

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 08:58:46 -0500, Barnyard BOb -
> wrote:

>BTW...
>If G.W. Bush doesn't get re-elected to office what
>narrow minded idiot will hold that against Moore?

Nah, as disgusting as Moore may be, he is just a symptom of the bigger
problem. That is, that the left actually tolerates and supports him,
despite the fact that he spins things as far out of context as is
necessary to make them fit his position. It is counterproductive to
both sides because a lot of the real, bad things that the current
administration is doing (all of the restrictions on civil liberties)
are ignored in all the hype over Moore's lies. As long as these
problems remain out of the public light, whoever wins the election in
November, be it Kerry or Bush, will get a free pass to continue
trampling individual rights.

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Del Rawlins

August 16th 04, 01:40 AM

On 15 Aug 2004 08:19:12 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message >...
>
>> You come on the newsgroup, and make a statement to the effect that
>> A&Ps and flight instructors who don't operate out of fixed facilities
>> are a bunch of hazardous freeloaders who shouldn't be allowed on the
>> airport, and you expect a civil response?
>
> I entered into this discussion with an alternative point of view
>having watched aviation businesses try to survive in this litigious society.
>My assertion, which I believe you did not understand correctly based
>on the above response is this: Fixed operators cannot escape exposure to
>litigation for lawsuits filed in the aftermath of a fatality. When something
>happens the attorneys name everyone in what is called "partitioning of the
>blame".

Even if an independent A&P or CFI carries a big liability policy, I'm
still not sure how that is supposed to help an uninvolved party who
happens to operate at the same airport. Their insurance company
certainly isn't going to agree to that. To turn the situation around,
if there is an accident caused by shoddy maintenance at the FBO, but
my signature happens to be in the logbook for unrelated work, and I am
then named in the resulting lawsuit, are they then expected to
indemnify me? I really doubt that is going to be the case and I will
be on my own. What you seem to be advocating is a situation where
everybody who works on an airfield be required to carry insurance that
covers everyone else working there. Not going to happen.

>As a result the airport owners insurance policy might have a
>requirement that all operators on the airport be fixed and properly insured for
>their respective activities. An independent CFI or A&P routinely operating
>at an airport without their own insurance are exposing the airport and
>fixed businesses to potential litigation and may be doing so in violation of
>the airport owners insurance coverage requirements.

The operating authority of a public airport doesn't get to pick and
choose who can engage in business activities there.

>From day to day
>without incident this is not a problem until an accident occurs where there
>are serious injuries. The fixed operators are there, easily identified
>and nameable in a suit while the independents operating out their car can simply
>dissapear.

Please tell me how I am supposed to "disappear" if there is an
accident involving an airplane I have worked on. I am required to
hold an FAA certificate, and if I move I am required to inform the
FAA, who keeps a record of where I live. If I do not keep the
government apprised of my current location my certificate is not
valid. If somebody wants to find me so they can sue me, it won't be
all that difficult to accomplish.

>Even if they don't disappear, when the suit is filed you can be the
>attorneys will go after the deepest pockets first. The fixed operators will be
>targeted for a larger share of the blame because they have deeper pockets. The
>legal system is not fair in this regard.

So because the legal system is unfair, you think everybody should be
required to have the same deep pockets before being allowed to enter
business? I don't like the system any more than you do, but that
doesn't mean I should have to provide coverage for people I am not
even involved with.

>NO WHERE did I say or am I saying NOW that the independent are doing
>shoddy work. NO WHERE did I say or am I saying NOW that they should not
>entitled to operate. What I am saying is their activities, depending on the
>insurance policy requirements of the airport, may be in violation of that
>policy.

And if their activities are taking place at a public airport which
accepts federal funding, that policy is illegal.

>Indirectly the fixed operators premiums are sholdering the liability
>costs of the independent operators.

No, they are shouldering the additional liability cost of a broken
legal system (and no, I don't claim to have an answer to fix it
either) which encourages lawsuits against uninvolved parties. Just
like everybody else in the country.

>I compared this to car insurance
>where in my home state of NJ is mandatory YET includes a surcharge
>for "uninsured motorists". In effect I pay for folks who don't have
>insurance. The uninsured driver has a lower cost per mile than me.
>They could be the safest driver on the road but my premium is, in effect
>higher to pay for their coverage.

I also carry the uninsured motorist coverage on my policy. It isn't a
requirement in my state (last I checked) but it does protect me in
case an uninsured driver runs into me, financially at least. The
reason the cost per mile is lower is because most drivers carry
insurance, so the odds of being hit by an uninsured driver is lower
than that of getting into a collision with an insured driver.

Unfortunately you are making an apples and oranges comparison because
if an uninsured driver plows into me, then they were most certainly
involved in the accident. If I screw up and return an airplane to
service after doing improper maintenance, the local FBO is not
involved. If the lawyer for the greiving widow chooses to name them
in the suit I don't have any control over that and I don't owe them
anything.

<snipped more of the same>

>I do not believe I made the uncivilized assertions you acuse me of.
>But this issue sparks emotion and people don't always express themselves
>throughly. Perhaps I've made my point a little clearer, perhaps not.

No, you made yourself perfectly clear the first time. I would like to
see your reaction when your airport decides that even working on your
own airplane is too much exposure for them, and that all maintenance
must be done by the FBO. Will you roll over and take it, or will your
response be closer to mine?

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Blueskies

August 16th 04, 03:19 AM

"Del Rawlins" > wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 08:58:46 -0500, Barnyard BOb -
> > wrote:
>
> >BTW...
> >If G.W. Bush doesn't get re-elected to office what
> >narrow minded idiot will hold that against Moore?
>
> Nah, as disgusting as Moore may be, he is just a symptom of the bigger
> problem. That is, that the left actually tolerates and supports him,
> despite the fact that he spins things as far out of context as is
> necessary to make them fit his position. It is counterproductive to
> both sides because a lot of the real, bad things that the current
> administration is doing (all of the restrictions on civil liberties)
> are ignored in all the hype over Moore's lies. As long as these
> problems remain out of the public light, whoever wins the election in
> November, be it Kerry or Bush, will get a free pass to continue
> trampling individual rights.
>
>
> ================================================== ==
> Del Rawlins--
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

I saw on a bumper sticker:

"Under the Republicans, man exploits man. Under the Democrats it is just the opposite."
--
Dan D.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html

..

[email protected]

August 16th 04, 12:37 PM

Del Rawlins > wrote:
: >As a result the airport owners insurance policy might have a
: >requirement that all operators on the airport be fixed and properly insured for
: >their respective activities. An independent CFI or A&P routinely operating
: >at an airport without their own insurance are exposing the airport and
: >fixed businesses to potential litigation and may be doing so in violation of
: >the airport owners insurance coverage requirements.

: The operating authority of a public airport doesn't get to pick and
: choose who can engage in business activities there.

I've got a friend with a similar situation here. He's a CFI and bought a
plane to do primary training. A local FBO/airport manager insists on a policy
intending to attract a "large flight school." In addition to requiring large
insurance requirements, any flight school must have at least two primary trainers and
a twin. That smacks of capricious allowances and discrimination against the little
guy. Obviously, there is no way for a one-man-band CFI to adhere to these policies.

So, is there any reference to cite that says that this is B.S? I would think
that if I were a CFI training out of my plane at a public airport, not only could I do
it uninhibited by insurance requirements if I so choose, but I could even provide
ground school in the public terminal area! Where are the official
regulations/policies governing this? Does a public airport have the right to deny
services to individuals at will (e.g. "Your freelance flight training business annoys
me... you cannot park your plane here anymore.")

-Cory

jls

August 16th 04, 01:15 PM

> wrote in message
...
> Del Rawlins > wrote:
> : >As a result the airport owners insurance policy might have a
> : >requirement that all operators on the airport be fixed and properly
insured for
> : >their respective activities. An independent CFI or A&P routinely
operating
> : >at an airport without their own insurance are exposing the airport and
> : >fixed businesses to potential litigation and may be doing so in
violation of
> : >the airport owners insurance coverage requirements.
>
> : The operating authority of a public airport doesn't get to pick and
> : choose who can engage in business activities there.
>
> I've got a friend with a similar situation here. He's a CFI and bought a
> plane to do primary training. A local FBO/airport manager insists on a
policy
> intending to attract a "large flight school." In addition to requiring
large
> insurance requirements, any flight school must have at least two primary
trainers and
> a twin. That smacks of capricious allowances and discrimination against
the little
> guy. Obviously, there is no way for a one-man-band CFI to adhere to these
policies.
>
> So, is there any reference to cite that says that this is B.S? I would
think
> that if I were a CFI training out of my plane at a public airport, not
only could I do
> it uninhibited by insurance requirements if I so choose, but I could even
provide
> ground school in the public terminal area! Where are the official
> regulations/policies governing this? Does a public airport have the right
to deny
> services to individuals at will (e.g. "Your freelance flight training
business annoys
> me... you cannot park your plane here anymore.")
>
> -Cory
>

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9200/9262.wpd.
This case will get you started, as well as FAA rules, Clayton Act, Sherman
Act, and Lanham Act. This case is about merger but expresses govt
sentiment on the value to the public of competition at airports.
There are probably cases directly on point but I haven't done much research
yet. I'll furnish new info as I find it.

Russell Kent

August 16th 04, 06:53 PM

"GaryP" > wrote:
> As a result the airport owners insurance policy might have a
> requirement that all operators on the airport be fixed and
> properly insured for their respective activities.

As has been previously stated, airfields that accept public funds (i.e. DOT
funds) are obliged to permit certain activities without hinderance. In a
case where the federal regulations were in conflict with a private contract
(i.e. the insurance policy), guess which side holds.

> An independent CFI or A&P routinely operating at an airport
> without their own insurance are exposing the airport and
> fixed businesses to potential litigation

Hey, a school bus of kindergartners driving along the road outside the
perimeter of the airfield are likely exposing the airport and fixed
businesses to potential litigation. Don't like it? Don't do business
there.

> and may be doing so in violation of the airport owners insurance coverage
requirements.

Again, if the airfield has accepted public funds, the federal regulations
trump ALL clauses of the insurance policy. Don't like it? Then the
airfield shouldn't have accepted the public funds, and there are procedures
for the airfield to repay the funds and escape the federal regulations.

> Even if they [independent operators without a fixed presence]
> don't disappear, when the suit is filed you can be the attorneys
> will go after the deepest pockets first. The fixed operators
> will be targeted for a larger share of the blame because they
> have deeper pockets.

Are you saying that requiring independent operators to carry "big target"
insurance (i.e. high limit) is a way of addressing this perceive injustice?

> The legal system is not fair in this regard.

Cite, please.

> NO WHERE did I say or am I saying NOW that the independent
> are doing shoddy work. NO WHERE did I say or am I saying
> NOW that they should not entitled to operate. What I am saying
> is their activities, depending on the insurance policy requirements
> of the airport, may be in violation of that policy.

Too bad for the airport operator. They should have gotten a better
insurance agent.

> Indirectly the fixed operators premiums are sholdering the liability
> costs of the independent operators.

Cite, please.

> I compared this to car insurance where in my home state of NJ is
> mandatory YET includes a surcharge for "uninsured motorists".

And in all of the policies I have seen (here in TX where auto liability
insurance is likewise mandatory) the uninsured motorist coverage is
declinable.

> In effect I pay for folks who don't have insurance.

No one is holding a gun to your head: decline the coverage. Of course, if
you are involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist who is at fault,
be prepared to eat the loss.

> The uninsured driver has a lower cost per mile than me.

Uh, no. They theoretically have one less fixed overhead cost, which *might*
translate to a lower overall fixed overhead cost, which, when amortized
across their annual driving costs, *might* translate to a lower amortized
cost per mile than you. One citation for driving without proof of insurance
could easily cause their amortized cost per mile to be more than you,
however.

And BTW, if you think that they're getting such a good deal, cancel your own
insurance.

> They could be the safest driver on the road but my premium is,
> in effect higher to pay for their coverage.

Again, UM coverage is probably declinable in NJ.

> Not a problem until there is an accident and fatalities
> or serious injuries and big monitary lawsuits. How
> did this come to be, the insurance company is simply
> passing along their settlement costs, partitioned
> accordingly, in the premiums to their policy holders.

Uh, HELLO! That's what insurance is! In fact, there's an entire field
called "actuarial science" devoted to figuring out how to partition the
costs so that the insurance companies can offer a price-competitve product
and still stay in business.

> I'd venture to guess there are similar
> surcharges for airport liability policies too, but I don't have first
> hand knowledge to say
> for sure.
>
> I am an A&P and I work on my own airplane. No one can legally
> prevent me from doing so(as far as the FAA is concerned) because
> I am appropriately certificated just as I am certificated to fly my
> airplane. Is this a violation of my airports insurance? No, because
> I am only working on my own plane and not increasing their exposure
> beyond that which I do simply as a pilot operating out of their field.

Not true. By your (earlier) logic, unless you carry the same type of
liability coverage that the fixed A&P operators at the airfield carry, then
parties to a lawsuit involving your aircraft would come after the airport as
the "deep pocket". Since I assume you carry less insurance than the fixed
businesses do, you therefore pose a greater risk to the airport.

> If I began working on other airplanes for compensation the answer
> would be yes, and my airport has strict rules against it without
> proper insurance coverage. Subrogation is the key term here. They
> want my pockets
> to be deep enough in proportion to the liability exposure of my
> actions.

What they want isn't a factor (except in the cases where the independent
operators choose not to fight). If the airport accepted public funds, they
are obliged to follow the federal regulations that are attached to those
funds, regardless of the insurance policy's clauses.

> I saw first hand how a law suit filed by a relative of a deceased
> pilot, who crashed on a too slow - stall spin on takeoff accident,
> bankrupted several businesses. Including the avionics shop who simply
> did the transponder check over a year before the accident. How the
> transponder check contributed to the pilots failure to maintain
> airspeed is a mystery to me but that didn't stop
> the plaintiff's lawyers from naming him in the suit.
> The cost of defending himself literally bankrupted the shop owner
> because he did carry enough insurance.

That story does not make sense to me. Cite, please, so I can read the court
documents.

Russell Kent

Big John

August 20th 04, 09:20 PM

Ultrajohn

Not unusual. Been there and had it happen. Wouldn't even let the FBO
on field shoot landings (except final after a mission).

Said it bothered the Corporate Jets :o(

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````````````````````````````

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:46:09 GMT, UltraJohn > wrote:

>It seems to me they could require that anyone doing business on their
>airport carry an insurance policy to protect the airport from litigation
>which makes more sense than requiring huge buildings and expensive
>facilities.
>Next thing you know they'll prohibit you from flying there from another
>airport and doing a few touch and go's just in case you might have an
>accident on their airport!
>John
>
>
>GaryP wrote:
>
>> Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
>> restrictions their policy might have? If an incident occurs at that
>> airport or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in
>> todays litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport
>> operators. The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has
>> an enormous
>> premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
>> to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
>> actions?

Dave Hyde

August 21st 04, 02:48 AM

Big John wrote...

> Wouldn't even let the FBO on field shoot landings...

Bet that would take a lot of power to taxi <g>.

Dave 'two-blocked' Hyde

Daniel

September 6th 04, 03:47 AM

Barnyard BOb wrote ...

> Michael Moore may not be your cup of tea...
> but, IMO, he is brilliant.

Yeah, right in the same league as Leni Riefenstahl.

Daniel

jls

September 6th 04, 02:00 PM

"Daniel" > wrote in message
om...
> Barnyard BOb wrote ...
>
>
> > Michael Moore may not be your cup of tea...
> > but, IMO, he is brilliant.
>
>
> Yeah, right in the same league as Leni Riefenstahl.
>
>
> Daniel

Nawp, Leni operated in an atmosphere of oppression, jackboots, and summary
executions. Michael exists in an atmosphere of raucous free speech and a
constitution with a vibrant First Amendment. You can still see and hear
counterpoints in the USA, well, most of the time.

Because of my criticism of a few creeps at AVL airport, at least one shady
riefenstahl-era figure tried to get me thrown off usenet, and one of them
tried to get me taken off a private list, but it didn't work.

Now, back to driving that perfectly formed rivet with that deftly held gun
and bucking bar. And, btw, is there a whispering campaign on your airport
about the high failure rate and high cost of Slick magneto coils? I had
one fail on a mag with just 100 hours on it, and the replacement cost is
almost $200. A friend said he had a similar problem but both his Slicks
failed at the coils within weeks of one another. Mag coils are already a p
in the a because sometimes they will check good when they are bad and you
have to rule out all the other causes of the miss before pulling a mag.
Like switching the upper plugs for the lower ones, for example. pinthea.

And you know those silly cast aluminum wedges they want $10 apiece for ---
the ones which hold the coil in place? Well, at least one of them will
break when you are using a puller on it. You should thank Bendix for still
being in business and furnishing parts, at least for furnishing a coil at a
reasonable price. If Slick had a monopoly a coil would be 500 bucks.

Where does Slick get its coils ------ Pakistan? Indonesia?

Howsomever. Rejoice. You'll get to fly again as soon as this wind and
moisture from Frances are passed away. The agony WILL abate.
:)

Cy Galley

September 7th 04, 02:25 AM

I replaced my Bendixs with Slicks when the AD on the coil and rotating
magnet was over $550 plus installation for just one mag. Got BOTH new
Slicks and new harness for less than that.

" jls" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Daniel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Barnyard BOb wrote ...
> >
> >
> > > Michael Moore may not be your cup of tea...
> > > but, IMO, he is brilliant.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, right in the same league as Leni Riefenstahl.
> >
> >
> > Daniel
>
> Nawp, Leni operated in an atmosphere of oppression, jackboots, and summary
> executions. Michael exists in an atmosphere of raucous free speech and a
> constitution with a vibrant First Amendment. You can still see and hear
> counterpoints in the USA, well, most of the time.
>
> Because of my criticism of a few creeps at AVL airport, at least one shady
> riefenstahl-era figure tried to get me thrown off usenet, and one of them
> tried to get me taken off a private list, but it didn't work.
>
> Now, back to driving that perfectly formed rivet with that deftly held gun
> and bucking bar. And, btw, is there a whispering campaign on your
airport
> about the high failure rate and high cost of Slick magneto coils? I had
> one fail on a mag with just 100 hours on it, and the replacement cost is
> almost $200. A friend said he had a similar problem but both his Slicks
> failed at the coils within weeks of one another. Mag coils are already a
p
> in the a because sometimes they will check good when they are bad and you
> have to rule out all the other causes of the miss before pulling a mag.
> Like switching the upper plugs for the lower ones, for example.
pinthea.
>
> And you know those silly cast aluminum wedges they want $10 apiece for ---
> the ones which hold the coil in place? Well, at least one of them will
> break when you are using a puller on it. You should thank Bendix for
still
> being in business and furnishing parts, at least for furnishing a coil at
a
> reasonable price. If Slick had a monopoly a coil would be 500 bucks.
>
> Where does Slick get its coils ------ Pakistan? Indonesia?
>
> Howsomever. Rejoice. You'll get to fly again as soon as this wind and
> moisture from Frances are passed away. The agony WILL abate.
> :)
>
>

Corky Scott

September 7th 04, 05:54 PM

On 5 Sep 2004 19:47:50 -0700, (Daniel)
wrote:

>> Michael Moore may not be your cup of tea...
>> but, IMO, he is brilliant.
>
>
>Yeah, right in the same league as Leni Riefenstahl.
>
>
>Daniel

Not exactly Daniel. Leni Riefenstahl's most famous movies glorified
the burgeoning Nazi's and the expansion of the military in Germany.
Her films were intended as propaganda for the Nazi's, she was
literally asked to do the film by the Nazi party.

Call me sceptical, but I seriously doubt the Bush administration asked
Michael Moore to film Fahrenheit 9/11.

Corky Scott

Kent Ashton

April 25th 05, 02:26 AM

Take at look at
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=252824&docketid=15995

This was a Part 16 complaint filed by an aircraft rental company that
merely wanted to keep one airplane on a Chesapeake, VA airport in order to
rent it. The airport demanded that the rental company have a full office at
the airport (the company's office was at another airport).
The rental company complained to the FAA and the FAA held that the
rental company didn't have to have a full blown FBO operation in order to
rent aircraft at the airport. Sounds like it would apply to the situation
at Ashville. If you want to know more about filing a Part 16 complaint,
give me a buzz.

However the FAA has consistently held that mechanics who work on a
federally-assisted airfield can be required to pay fees to the airport for
doing such work. They don't have to work for the current FBO, however, they
can work for themselves but they may be required to meet minimum standards.

I wouldn't bother with arguing the Commerce Clause with the FAA. They
don't care about interstate commerce. Stick to FAA precedents and advisory
circulars which discuss these sorts of situations
--Kent Ashton

> From: " jls" >
> Subject: At Dear Ol' AVL Airport, Asheville, NC
>
> In order to be a flight instructor you need 5,000 feet hangar space, 1,500
> feet office space, plus two airplanes, one of which must be IFR certified.
> This is the official rule, in writing and enforced by the airport authority.
> What this effectively does is exclude any competition for the one flight
> school on the airport.
>
> There is also another loopy rule which excludes A&P's from working on
> aircraft at this airport, unless for the monopoly on the field.

Kent Ashton

April 25th 05, 02:39 AM

I can tell you from experience that the FAA doesn't give a s___ about
anything but its own rules and regulations. If you can get the Airport
Compliance Branch to enforce them, you've done a good days work. If someone
starts talking about anti-trust to the FAA, they will just say they have no
jurisdiction over anti-trust questions.
--Kent

> From: " jls" >
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9200/9262.wpd.
> This case will get you started, as well as FAA rules, Clayton Act, Sherman
> Act, and Lanham Act. This case is about merger but expresses govt
> sentiment on the value to the public of competition at airports.
> There are probably cases directly on point but I haven't done much research
> yet. I'll furnish new info as I find it.
>
>

[email protected]

April 26th 05, 04:43 AM

Kent Ashton wrote:
> Take at look at
>
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=252824&docketid=15995
>
> This was a Part 16 complaint filed by an aircraft rental company
that
> merely wanted to keep one airplane on a Chesapeake, VA airport in
order to
> rent it. The airport demanded that the rental company have a full
office at
> the airport (the company's office was at another airport).
> The rental company complained to the FAA and the FAA held that
the
> rental company didn't have to have a full blown FBO operation in
order to
> rent aircraft at the airport. Sounds like it would apply to the
situation
> at Ashville. If you want to know more about filing a Part 16
complaint,
> give me a buzz.
>
> However the FAA has consistently held that mechanics who work on a
> federally-assisted airfield can be required to pay fees to the
airport for
> doing such work. They don't have to work for the current FBO,
however, they
> can work for themselves but they may be required to meet minimum
standards.
>
> I wouldn't bother with arguing the Commerce Clause with the FAA.
They
> don't care about interstate commerce. Stick to FAA precedents and
advisory
> circulars which discuss these sorts of situations
> --Kent Ashton
>

Thanks for your kind advice and I'll pass it along. It may be that the
airport authority are seeing the light and at least part of the problem
seems to be informally resolved.

One wonders about this calculating Million Air bunch who lease and
operate public airports about the country as if they were their
exclusive properties. It was discussed at our weekend breakfast of
builders that a group of RV'ers proposed a fly-in to Asheville's
airport to see the mountains, visit a while, and walk across the street
to lunch at an eatery where the food is known to be tasty. When the
proposal was made to the Million Air bunch, the RV'ers were tersely
informed they would be charged a $20 per airplane landing fee. That
was the end of that grand idea. So much for the friendly skies of
Western North Carolina. The RV'ers would have been welcome at KFQD,
where we have a neat little 57 Alpha Cafe which serves scratch-built
Mexican food and a friendly atmosphere. Why, we even have turboprops,
a Lear, and a couple of Citations there.

Morgans

April 30th 05, 04:01 AM

"Kent Ashton" > wrote in message
...
> The State of North Carolina is totally unconcerned with the interests of
> recreational aviators at public airports. NCDOT sends a delegation to
> Oshkosh and Sun n Fun every year saying, "come to our state, great place
to
> fly". Sure, a nice place to visit. But apply to build a hangar at a
public
> airport, or work on a homebuit at a public airport, and you might as well
be
> talking to yourself
> --Kent
> Evicted from Concord Regional Airport six years ago and still fighting
with
> NCDOT
>
I'll have to second that. Our local EAA chapter has been trying to
negotiate building an assembly hangar/ meeting place at Hickory regional for
years.
--
Jim in NC

Kent Ashton

April 30th 05, 04:18 AM

The State of North Carolina is totally unconcerned with the interests of
recreational aviators at public airports. NCDOT sends a delegation to
Oshkosh and Sun n Fun every year saying, "come to our state, great place to
fly". Sure, a nice place to visit. But apply to build a hangar at a public
airport, or work on a homebuit at a public airport, and you might as well be
talking to yourself
--Kent
Evicted from Concord Regional Airport six years ago and still fighting with
NCDOT

> From:

>
> One wonders about this calculating Million Air bunch who lease and
> operate public airports about the country as if they were their
> exclusive properties. It was discussed at our weekend breakfast of
> builders that a group of RV'ers proposed a fly-in to Asheville's
> airport to see the mountains, visit a while, and walk across the street
> to lunch at an eatery where the food is known to be tasty. When the
> proposal was made to the Million Air bunch, the RV'ers were tersely
> informed they would be charged a $20 per airplane landing fee. That
> was the end of that grand idea. So much for the friendly skies of
> Western North Carolina. The RV'ers would have been welcome at KFQD,
> where we have a neat little 57 Alpha Cafe which serves scratch-built
> Mexican food and a friendly atmosphere. Why, we even have turboprops,
> a Lear, and a couple of Citations there.
>

Kent Ashton

April 30th 05, 11:09 PM

there's a sort of procedure you have to follow: Get a copy of the approved
Airport Layout Plan. This is the plan the City must file, and keep current
with the F.A.A.; the City will have a copy. Identify a parcel of land on
the ALP designated for hangars. Then make a formal proposal to the city.
If the city refuses, you have grounds to file a part 16 complaint. I can
cite you a recent case where the FAA determined that a city could not refuse
to enter into a land lease with a qualified aeronautical user.

Also take a look at State law--NCGS 63-53(3) and (5)--which guarantees that
if the municipal owner leases "space, area, improvements, or property" to
private parties, then other private parties are entitled to the "rightful,
equal and uniform use" of such facilities, i.e., you're entitled to also
lease space.

Trouble is, a lot of EAA chapters talk but never commit. Gotta commit to
something. I hear you guys got a million bucks in the bank!
--Kent

> From: "Morgans" >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:01:47 -0400
> Subject: Re: At Dear Ol' AVL Airport, Asheville, NC
>
>
> "Kent Ashton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The State of North Carolina is totally unconcerned with the interests of
>> recreational aviators at public airports. NCDOT sends a delegation to
>> Oshkosh and Sun n Fun every year saying, "come to our state, great place
> to
>> fly". Sure, a nice place to visit. But apply to build a hangar at a
> public
>> airport, or work on a homebuit at a public airport, and you might as well
> be
>> talking to yourself
>> --Kent
>> Evicted from Concord Regional Airport six years ago and still fighting
> with
>> NCDOT
>>
> I'll have to second that. Our local EAA chapter has been trying to
> negotiate building an assembly hangar/ meeting place at Hickory regional for
> years.
> --
> Jim in NC
>