Here we go again

[Roger]

We have some turf wars going on and it looks like the pilots may be
the losers.

First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
present.

We are finally reaching the point where pilots are congregating around
a couple areas on the field around and in specific hangars, or several
hangars. Up till a couple years ago the place was dead except on week
ends and after work in warm weather. Now we have a lot of activity
most of the day what with the pilots congregating. They've also
restored a couple planes and purchased another.

These are active pilots who fly a lot. The one couple has flown a new
SR-22 nearly 500 hours since last June when they purchased it new.
The guys in the one hangar are flying at least 30 hours a week (maybe
as much as 50 with three small planes (two tail draggers and a 150)
There are a couple instructors in there as well.
After flying they hang around the hangar, have a couple beers and eat
pop corn.

As one of the Airport advisory members told the city, "this is the
kind of activity we should be encouraging".

Basically they know every one on the field.
As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..

The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.

He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.

Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
he's feuding with?

There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)

They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.

Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
emergency landings, or real soft field landings.

This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.

There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
operations.

He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
every possible legal alternative.

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

[Earl Grieda]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> We have some turf wars going on and it looks like the pilots may be
> the losers.
>
> First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
> and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
> present.
>
> We are finally reaching the point where pilots are congregating around
> a couple areas on the field around and in specific hangars, or several
> hangars.
..............................snip
>
> The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
> parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
> going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
> over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
> impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.
>
> He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
> regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.
>
......snip

> He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
> of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
> Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
> every possible legal alternative.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

There are 2 sides to every story. Is it possible for the FBO owner to
respond to this post so that reasonable, intelligent questions on this issue
can be presented to both parties by the readers?

Thanks.

[H.P.]

First thing I'd do is I'd jam his unicom... he he he.

Seriously, fine-tooth-comb every thing about the FBO and make it difficult
for him to conduct business. Isn't there a lawyer among you?

Care to give us details for a letter-writing campaign? E-mails, tel no's fax
no's for the city and FBO?



"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> We have some turf wars going on and it looks like the pilots may be
> the losers.
>
> First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
> and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
> present.
>
> We are finally reaching the point where pilots are congregating around
> a couple areas on the field around and in specific hangars, or several
> hangars. Up till a couple years ago the place was dead except on week
> ends and after work in warm weather. Now we have a lot of activity
> most of the day what with the pilots congregating. They've also
> restored a couple planes and purchased another.
>
> These are active pilots who fly a lot. The one couple has flown a new
> SR-22 nearly 500 hours since last June when they purchased it new.
> The guys in the one hangar are flying at least 30 hours a week (maybe
> as much as 50 with three small planes (two tail draggers and a 150)
> There are a couple instructors in there as well.
> After flying they hang around the hangar, have a couple beers and eat
> pop corn.
>
> As one of the Airport advisory members told the city, "this is the
> kind of activity we should be encouraging".
>
> Basically they know every one on the field.
> As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
> recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..
>
> The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
> parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
> going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
> over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
> impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.
>
> He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
> regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.
>
> Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
> he's feuding with?
>
> There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
> them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)
>
> They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
> their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
> alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
> trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
> times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
> Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
> hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.
>
> Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
> kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
> emergency landings, or real soft field landings.
>
> This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
> landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
> unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
> thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
> turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
> would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.
>
> There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
> another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
> operations.
>
> He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
> of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
> Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
> every possible legal alternative.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[OtisWinslow]

Boycott the FBO. Buy gas and get maintenance at another field.
Send him an anonymous letter that he's going to be boycotted if
the crap continues.


"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> We have some turf wars going on and it looks like the pilots may be
> the losers.
>
> First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
> and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
> present.
>
> We are finally reaching the point where pilots are congregating around
> a couple areas on the field around and in specific hangars, or several
> hangars. Up till a couple years ago the place was dead except on week
> ends and after work in warm weather. Now we have a lot of activity
> most of the day what with the pilots congregating. They've also
> restored a couple planes and purchased another.
>
> These are active pilots who fly a lot. The one couple has flown a new
> SR-22 nearly 500 hours since last June when they purchased it new.
> The guys in the one hangar are flying at least 30 hours a week (maybe
> as much as 50 with three small planes (two tail draggers and a 150)
> There are a couple instructors in there as well.
> After flying they hang around the hangar, have a couple beers and eat
> pop corn.
>
> As one of the Airport advisory members told the city, "this is the
> kind of activity we should be encouraging".
>
> Basically they know every one on the field.
> As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
> recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..
>
> The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
> parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
> going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
> over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
> impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.
>
> He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
> regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.
>
> Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
> he's feuding with?
>
> There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
> them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)
>
> They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
> their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
> alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
> trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
> times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
> Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
> hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.
>
> Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
> kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
> emergency landings, or real soft field landings.
>
> This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
> landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
> unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
> thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
> turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
> would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.
>
> There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
> another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
> operations.
>
> He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
> of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
> Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
> every possible legal alternative.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
et...
>
> There are 2 sides to every story.
>

Not necessarily.

[William W. Plummer]

No. Anonymous letters are a coward's way of communicating. Please
talk to him face-to-face and give him your card so he knows who is
speaking to him.


OtisWinslow wrote:
> Boycott the FBO. Buy gas and get maintenance at another field.
> Send him an anonymous letter that he's going to be boycotted if
> the crap continues.
>
>
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>We have some turf wars going on and it looks like the pilots may be
>>the losers.
>>
>>First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
>>and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
>>present.
>>
>>We are finally reaching the point where pilots are congregating around
>>a couple areas on the field around and in specific hangars, or several
>>hangars. Up till a couple years ago the place was dead except on week
>>ends and after work in warm weather. Now we have a lot of activity
>>most of the day what with the pilots congregating. They've also
>>restored a couple planes and purchased another.
>>
>>These are active pilots who fly a lot. The one couple has flown a new
>>SR-22 nearly 500 hours since last June when they purchased it new.
>>The guys in the one hangar are flying at least 30 hours a week (maybe
>>as much as 50 with three small planes (two tail draggers and a 150)
>>There are a couple instructors in there as well.
>>After flying they hang around the hangar, have a couple beers and eat
>>pop corn.
>>
>>As one of the Airport advisory members told the city, "this is the
>>kind of activity we should be encouraging".
>>
>>Basically they know every one on the field.
>>As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
>>recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..
>>
>>The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
>>parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
>>going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
>>over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
>>impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.
>>
>>He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
>>regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.
>>
>>Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
>>he's feuding with?
>>
>>There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
>>them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)
>>
>>They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
>>their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
>>alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
>>trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
>>times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
>>Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
>>hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.
>>
>>Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
>>kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
>>emergency landings, or real soft field landings.
>>
>>This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
>>landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
>>unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
>>thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
>>turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
>>would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.
>>
>>There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
>>another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
>>operations.
>>
>>He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
>>of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
>>Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
>>every possible legal alternative.
>>
>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>

[OtisWinslow]

Sometimes.

In this case I'd call it smart. This FBO is liable to retaliate given the
actions they've taken already. I certainly wouldn't call attention to
myself given his previous behavior. If he had real problems he
was dealing with and was working with the tenants to resolve them
then it would be different.



"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
> No. Anonymous letters are a coward's way of communicating. Please talk
> to him face-to-face and give him your card so he knows who is speaking to
> him.
>
>
> OtisWinslow wrote:
>> Boycott the FBO. Buy gas and get maintenance at another field.
>> Send him an anonymous letter that he's going to be boycotted if
>> the crap continues.
>>
>>
>> "Roger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>We have some turf wars going on and it looks like the pilots may be
>>>the losers.
>>>
>>>First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
>>>and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
>>>present.
>>>
>>>We are finally reaching the point where pilots are congregating around
>>>a couple areas on the field around and in specific hangars, or several
>>>hangars. Up till a couple years ago the place was dead except on week
>>>ends and after work in warm weather. Now we have a lot of activity
>>>most of the day what with the pilots congregating. They've also
>>>restored a couple planes and purchased another.
>>>
>>>These are active pilots who fly a lot. The one couple has flown a new
>>>SR-22 nearly 500 hours since last June when they purchased it new.
>>>The guys in the one hangar are flying at least 30 hours a week (maybe
>>>as much as 50 with three small planes (two tail draggers and a 150)
>>>There are a couple instructors in there as well.
>>>After flying they hang around the hangar, have a couple beers and eat
>>>pop corn.
>>>
>>>As one of the Airport advisory members told the city, "this is the
>>>kind of activity we should be encouraging".
>>>
>>>Basically they know every one on the field.
>>>As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
>>>recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..
>>>
>>>The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
>>>parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
>>>going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
>>>over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
>>>impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.
>>>
>>>He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
>>>regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.
>>>
>>>Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
>>>he's feuding with?
>>>
>>>There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
>>>them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)
>>>
>>>They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
>>>their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
>>>alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
>>>trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
>>>times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
>>>Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
>>>hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.
>>>
>>>Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
>>>kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
>>>emergency landings, or real soft field landings.
>>>
>>>This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
>>>landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
>>>unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
>>>thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
>>>turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
>>>would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.
>>>
>>>There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
>>>another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
>>>operations.
>>>
>>>He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
>>>of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
>>>Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
>>>every possible legal alternative.
>>>
>>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>

[Paul kgyy]

See if you can get some help from AOPA.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 03:26:24 -0400, Roger
> wrote in
>::

>
>We have some turf wars going on and it looks like the pilots may be
>the losers.

Which pilots, all the pilots using the airport or a minority or
majority of them?

>First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
>and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
>present.
>
>We are finally reaching the point where pilots are congregating around
>a couple areas on the field around and in specific hangars, or several
>hangars. Up till a couple years ago the place was dead except on week
>ends and after work in warm weather. Now we have a lot of activity
>most of the day what with the pilots congregating. They've also
>restored a couple planes and purchased another.

So there's an A&E among the pilots?

>These are active pilots who fly a lot. The one couple has flown a new
>SR-22 nearly 500 hours since last June when they purchased it new.

That is a lot. Do they purchase the bulk of the fuel they consume
from the FBO?

>The guys in the one hangar are flying at least 30 hours a week (maybe
>as much as 50 with three small planes (two tail draggers and a 150)

1,500 to 2,600 hours annually is a substantial number hours. How many
pilots are there in that other hanger?

>There are a couple instructors in there as well.

Are they actively instructing on the field? Are they perceived as
siphoning instruction business away from the FBO?

>After flying they hang around the hangar, have a couple beers and eat
>pop corn.

While I have observed such activity occurring at uncontrolled fields
in the past, and the individuals seemed to conduct themselves in a
reasonably mature, orderly and low key manner, it was, in truth,
drinking in public view. That's generally a citable offence.

>As one of the Airport advisory members told the city, "this is the
>kind of activity we should be encouraging".

Were the Airport Advisory members specifically referring to the
consumption of alcoholic beverages on public property, or the rest of
the activities you described above?

>Basically they know every one on the field.
>As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
>recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..

Have you ever observed those pilots challenge anyone on the field?

>The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
>parking on the field around the hangers.

Airports are for airplanes; they are not parking lots. It's difficult
to argue with that. Is it likely, that this is a tangible "offence,"
that the FBO is attempting to use as a lever to bolster his irrational
consternation?

>Actually, he has a feud going with a couple guys in the one hangar
>and classes any one else over there as being with them and against them [sic].

What is the nature of the feud, hostile or friendly? Is the FBO's
gripe limited to the parking issue alone, or ...? Have the "couple of
guys" attempted to sincerely and respectfully reconcile the FBO's
complaints, or do they find it fun to playfully taunt and incite him?
Just because the FBO may be acting irrationally, that doesn't give the
targets of his wrath license to behave similarly or worse. They
should respectfully confront him privately in a reasonable and civil
manner; the solution lies in rational communication.

>The cars do not impede aircraft movements.

Ever? Would a policy of unlimited car parking on the airport movement
areas be an asset to security, safety? Don't parked cars on the
airport pose the same hazard of children darting out from behind them
as they do when parked on the road?

>No one drinks and flys.

I take it you are a member of the drinking pilots group, or how could
by be so sure of that fact?

Despite adhering to the FAA regulation prohibiting flying within 8
hours of consumption of intoxicating spirits, surely you are aware
that there are other issues involved with drinking in public.

>He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
>regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.

We are all fellow pilots. We should conduct ourselves respectfully as
fellows, not adversaries. The FBO and the "offending" pilots should
arrange to have a private meeting to air their differences in a civil
and rational manner. Once specific complaints have been established
by both sides, compromises should be suggested in a spirit of
camaraderie and good will. Sicing the "authorities" on fellow pilots
without attempting to privately resolve the issues is cowardly and
ignoble. We airmen are better than that.

I suspect the FBO has been acting as the on-site airport "authority"
in residence in the past, and now sees that assumed authority
challenged, and may actually view the "offending" pilots as
detrimental to his business for a number of reasons. Whether there
are grounds for that attitude or not is the true question, in my
opinion.

>Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
>he's feuding with?

Are they providing services to aircraft owners on the field? Are they
siphoning mechanic business away from the FBO?

>There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
>them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)

Are the members of that group also flying a lot of hours, parking
their cars around the hangars, drinking on the field, and do they also
possess mechanic and instructor certificates?

>They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
>their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas,

I would think it acceptable to park one's car _in_ his hangar while he
is flying the aircraft he has hangared at the airport. Other than
that, the proposed policy seems oriented to future airport growth.

>No alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
>trucks)

That proposal seems a bit draconian. What if a pilot or one of his
passengers wants to bring some wine to the folks he is visiting for
Thanksgiving? That wouldn't be possible under such an ordinance as
you cite. Prohibiting _open_ _containers_ of alcoholic beverages on
the airport might be more reasonable. Open containers are likely
already prohibited in the cabin of motor vehicles on public
property/roads.

>Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
>times.

I presume that the intent of this proposed policy is to limit the
number of cars that have access to airport movement areas, but it
could also be used to identify "strange" vehicles for security
purposes. How would these permits be allocated, one per hangar? What
are the requirements for acquiring these proposed vehicle permits?

>I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.

Would you object to parking _within_ your hangar?

>Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
>hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.

That proposed policy is consistent with those in force at larger
airports, and may be prudent in light of current security concerns and
growth you cite. What would be _your_ preference for a policy
governing public access to airport movement areas? Do you feel that
unlimited access for all is appropriate?

>Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
>kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
>emergency landings, or real soft field landings.
>
>This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
>landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
>unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe)

Are those to whom you refer as "help" employed by the municipality
operating the airport or the FBO?

Do such relatively unorthodox landing practices as you describe in
fact place aircraft in closer proximity to people or structures than
landings on runways? If so, does that reduce safety margins?

>Good thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
>turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
>would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.

Would the individual to whom you refer be the FBO?

>There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
>another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
>operations.

It's human nature to oppose change, and that is exacerbate as we age.
I would humbly suggest, that the pilots embrace the fact that changes
will occur, and attempt to steer that change toward policies they can
accept through respectful discussion and creative and constructive
input to those drafting the changes in airport policy.

>He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
>of CYA ignorance

In today's litigious climate in the US and the evolving security
issues, such CYA legislation is rampant. The best way to address
excessive restrictions is with reason. Reasonable arguments have a
chance of success. Emotional arguments only lead to escalation and
hostility.

>and trying to pretend they have a big airport.

As you have stated, the airport activity has grown substantially. It
may not yet be a big airport, but it's beginning to have the same
issues.

>Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
>every possible legal alternative.

That is unfortunate. I can understand how that might be repugnant.
It's far better, in my opinion, if fellow pilots are able to confront
their difference privately amongst themselves, and air their issues
with an eye toward resolution rather than winning and losing.

The FBO's concern may reasonably stem from perceived competition with
the mechanic and flight training services he provides under oversight
and regulation of the FAA, that probably only marginally enable him to
remain in business at all. Emotionally, he may see his historic
"power" and "authority" being eroded by "unregulated" newcomers. If
the pilots are able to (privately) assuage his concerns for the
former, and get him to face the realities of the latter, there is a
possibility all will be able to "just get along."

But finding a rational reason to permit open consumption of
intoxicating liquor on public property is probably not possible.
After all, an airport is not a tavern. The civil authorities have
retained unto themselves the power and responsibility to license
taverns. And given the public perception of airline captains/crew
regularly reporting for duty under-the-influence as is frequently
reported in the news media, pilots publicly consuming intoxicating
spirits on public property is probably doing a disservice to the
reputation of our fellows.

If the pilots are able to establish themselves as an asset to the
airport and the community at large, they will be perceived more
favorably also. Perhaps they could consider organizing constructive
aviation related activities that are of public benefit, such as free
sightseeing flights on Sunday afternoons, pancake breakfasts to lure
the public out, drafting FAA grant proposals for funding needed
airport improvements, creating a fund drive for erecting perimeter
fencing, donating time as a group toward community service activities
like "policing" the airport grounds or even non aviation related
services, or ...

I've played devil's advocate here a bit to prepare you for the
arguments likely to be presented by those opposing the activities you
describe. I hope you find my comments respectful and helpful.

My 2¢

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:47:29 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
> wrote in
>::

>Boycott the FBO. Buy gas and get maintenance at another field.
>Send him an anonymous letter that he's going to be boycotted if
>the crap continues.

So you think a campaign of disrespectful intimidation will win the
day? Grow up!

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:


>
> While I have observed such activity occurring at uncontrolled fields
> in the past, and the individuals seemed to conduct themselves in a
> reasonably mature, orderly and low key manner, it was, in truth,
> drinking in public view. That's generally a citable offence.

Depends on where you live. Here in Montana we can continue drinking our
beer while we drive home.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 09:47:02 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
>>
>> While I have observed such activity occurring at uncontrolled fields
>> in the past, and the individuals seemed to conduct themselves in a
>> reasonably mature, orderly and low key manner, it was, in truth,
>> drinking in public view. That's generally a citable offence.
>
>Depends on where you live. Here in Montana we can continue drinking our
>beer while we drive home.

True; it may be legal specifically in Montana, but not generally in
the other states. Montana is a bit unusual in it's lack of necessity
for laws, probably due to its low population density. It's legal to
land on roads in Montana too, isn't it?

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>>
>>Depends on where you live. Here in Montana we can continue drinking our
>>beer while we drive home.
>
>
> True; it may be legal specifically in Montana, but not generally in
> the other states. Montana is a bit unusual in it's lack of necessity
> for laws, probably due to its low population density. It's legal to
> land on roads in Montana too, isn't it?

Of course. As I recall from growing up Wisconsin had very strict open
container laws. You do not leave a bar with a beer in your hand. In
Minnesota it is legal.

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:
> >Depends on where you live. Here in Montana we can continue drinking our
> >beer while we drive home.
>
> True; it may be legal specifically in Montana, but not generally in
> the other states.

It's legal in Alabama, too. Is there a pattern here?
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:26:25 -0500, "Dan Luke" > wrote
in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" wrote:
>> >Depends on where you live. Here in Montana we can continue drinking our
>> >beer while we drive home.
>>
>> True; it may be legal specifically in Montana, but not generally in
>> the other states.
>
>It's legal in Alabama, too. Is there a pattern here?

I don't see one.

Perhaps it would be more useful to know what the laws are in Michigan,
as that appears to be where Mr. Halstead, the OP, is located.

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 03:26:24 -0400, Roger
> wrote:

>Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
>kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
>emergency landings, or real soft field landings.

Geeze, isn' the FBO in the business of promoting aviation? After all,
isn't that how he makes money?

Our airport recently got a new manager and came to speak at the
monthly EAA meeting. He's a high time big iron driver and could not
possibly want to promote aviation more. He wants to build more
hangars, opened up a portion of the grass to taildraggers for them to
land on. Did this for BOTH runways. Asked about having an air show,
and on and on and on.

He'd fall silent for a moment and then say: "What else? What am I
missing? What more can be done to promote aviation here?"

By the end of the meeting, almost all the EAA'rs had volunteered to
walk the grass runways to remove debris and stones. We'll line up and
walk each runway as a group.

Corky Scott

[Grumman-581]

In Louisiana, they have drive-thru daiquiri shops... Of course, they
give you the plain white styrofoam cup with a straw in it, but half of
the paper wrapper is left on the top of the straw, thus it's
technically a "closed" container... Pine trees and curvy roads act as
natural selection to those who aren't skilled enough to drink and drive
at the same time...

[Slick]

Preemption is key sometimes. Yes, it sounds like you have a quiet little
airport, but what happens when people bring their friends, and their friends
with their friends. I say this mainly regarding to the parking issue. It
sounds like a great idea to park by your hangar, or even put your vehicle
into your hangar while you're gone. If that hasn't been suggested, maybe it
should be and the FBO would be OK with it. The escorting of the passengers
is fine as well, an FBO near here just started doing this and they offer for
the pilot to taxi to the ramp to pick them up or a courtesy van will drive
the passengers out. If either of those two options are available then no big
deal.

Friends an passengers are there for fun, and in order to have fun you must
be safe. I can definitely see a problem with passengers walking to a hangar
along a taxi-way, since people who don't fly often are too distracted with
the amazement of those that are flying to realize what could be happening
around them . That's one reason why I always meet my passengers in the
parking area so that I know they are safe when I walk them to where ever we
go.
"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> We have some turf wars going on and it looks like the pilots may be
> the losers.
>
> First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
> and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
> present.
>
> We are finally reaching the point where pilots are congregating around
> a couple areas on the field around and in specific hangars, or several
> hangars. Up till a couple years ago the place was dead except on week
> ends and after work in warm weather. Now we have a lot of activity
> most of the day what with the pilots congregating. They've also
> restored a couple planes and purchased another.
>
> These are active pilots who fly a lot. The one couple has flown a new
> SR-22 nearly 500 hours since last June when they purchased it new.
> The guys in the one hangar are flying at least 30 hours a week (maybe
> as much as 50 with three small planes (two tail draggers and a 150)
> There are a couple instructors in there as well.
> After flying they hang around the hangar, have a couple beers and eat
> pop corn.
>
> As one of the Airport advisory members told the city, "this is the
> kind of activity we should be encouraging".
>
> Basically they know every one on the field.
> As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
> recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..
>
> The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
> parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
> going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
> over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
> impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.
>
> He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
> regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.
>
> Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
> he's feuding with?
>
> There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
> them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)
>
> They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
> their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
> alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
> trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
> times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
> Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
> hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.
>
> Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
> kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
> emergency landings, or real soft field landings.
>
> This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
> landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
> unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
> thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
> turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
> would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.
>
> There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
> another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
> operations.
>
> He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
> of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
> Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
> every possible legal alternative.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>There are 2 sides to every story.
>>
>
>
> Not necessarily.
>
>

Right, if only one person is involved there is only one side ... unless
the person has multiple personalities. :-)


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right, if only one person is involved there is only one side ... unless
> the person has multiple personalities. :-)
>

There can be two people involved and still be only one side.

[George Patterson]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> Geeze, isn' the FBO in the business of promoting aviation? After all,
> isn't that how he makes money?

Some people want to prevent anyone else from making any money off of it. Sounds
like what's going on here.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Right, if only one person is involved there is only one side ... unless
>>the person has multiple personalities. :-)
>>
>
>
> There can be two people involved and still be only one side.
>
>

I'm sure this is theoretically possible, but ask any police officer who
has interviewed multiple witnesses to anything and never do they have
the same perspective (side).

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm sure this is theoretically possible,

Now you're catchin' on.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I'm sure this is theoretically possible,
>
>
> Now you're catchin' on.
>
>

And I thought you were. I live in the real world, not the theoretical
"Alice in Wonderland" world. In the real world with real people, there
will always be as many sides to a story as there are people involved ...
and sometimes more!


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> And I thought you were. I live in the real world, not the theoretical
> "Alice in Wonderland" world. In the real world with real people, there
> will always be as many sides to a story as there are people involved ...
> and sometimes more!
>

Make up your mind.

[Larry Dighera]

On 4 Apr 2005 12:51:19 -0700, "Grumman-581" >
wrote in . com>::

>Pine trees and curvy roads act as
>natural selection to those who aren't skilled enough to drink and drive
>at the same time...

How effective is that for shielding the uninebriated from the daiquiri
guzzlers?

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:47:29 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Boycott the FBO. Buy gas and get maintenance at another field.
> >Send him an anonymous letter that he's going to be boycotted if
> >the crap continues.
>
> So you think a campaign of disrespectful intimidation will win the
> day? Grow up!

What was suggested is in no way disrespectful or intimidating. More on the
order of civil disobedience which is a time honored, centuries old way of
getting a point across.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:17:49 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:47:29 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>> >Boycott the FBO. Buy gas and get maintenance at another field.
>> >Send him an anonymous letter that he's going to be boycotted if
>> >the crap continues.
>>
>> So you think a campaign of disrespectful intimidation will win the
>> day? Grow up!
>
>What was suggested is in no way disrespectful or intimidating.

How does what was suggested by Mr. Winslow respect the concerns of the
FBO?

You have a lot to learn about human nature if you actually believe
that threatening the FBO is going to change his mind? It will only
escalate the negative feelings, and galvanize the FBO and others into
feeling justified in taking punitive action against "renegade" pilots.

Did the felling of the WTC towers and threats of future terrorism
cause the US to retreat? Think about it.

>More on the order of civil disobedience which is a time honored,
>centuries old way of getting a point across.

Without some history of _rational_, face-to-face discourse, the
disobedience you suggest is tantamount to terrorism.

Talk first. Listen to each side of the argument of each issue.
Suggest creative solutions based on mutual compromise. The side who
first resorts to emotional outbursts or forsakes rational thought
loses.

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:17:49 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote in >::
>
> >
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:47:29 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
> >> > wrote in
> >> >::
> >>
> >> >Boycott the FBO. Buy gas and get maintenance at another field.
> >> >Send him an anonymous letter that he's going to be boycotted if
> >> >the crap continues.
> >>
> >> So you think a campaign of disrespectful intimidation will win the
> >> day? Grow up!
> >
> >What was suggested is in no way disrespectful or intimidating.
>
> How does what was suggested by Mr. Winslow respect the concerns of the
> FBO?
>
> You have a lot to learn about human nature if you actually believe
> that threatening the FBO is going to change his mind? It will only
> escalate the negative feelings, and galvanize the FBO and others into
> feeling justified in taking punitive action against "renegade" pilots.
>
> Did the felling of the WTC towers and threats of future terrorism
> cause the US to retreat? Think about it.
>
> >More on the order of civil disobedience which is a time honored,
> >centuries old way of getting a point across.
>
> Without some history of _rational_, face-to-face discourse, the
> disobedience you suggest is tantamount to terrorism.
>
> Talk first. Listen to each side of the argument of each issue.
> Suggest creative solutions based on mutual compromise. The side who
> first resorts to emotional outbursts or forsakes rational thought
> loses.

Not buying gas at an FBO is terrorism? Yea right.

[Grumman-581]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> How effective is that for shielding the uninebriated
> from the daiquiri guzzlers?

Uninebriated? In Louisiana? YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING !!!

Maybe it's kind of like with aircraft -- "Big Swamp, Small Car" -- type
of scenario... <grin>

Truthfully, I'm speaking about southern Louisiana, around New
Orleans... Northern Louisiana is *completely* different... Frankly,
it's rather boring up there... All in all, New Orleans is a strange
culture... You have a heavy Catholic influence on one side and the
Mardi Gras / French Quarter attitude on the other side... Of course,
you see the cases where young women are willing to trade views of their
flesh for cheap beads... You also see women walking around nude from
the waste up with their torso airbrushed into a design so that you
don't realize that they're nude initially... That's all fine and dandy
for the younger specimens among them, but when a 60-70+ year old woman
does it, they don't need it airbrushed on them, they need it troweled
on like with stucco... Hey, gravity sucks, ya' know?

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You also see women walking around nude from
> the waste up with their torso airbrushed into a design so that you
> don't realize that they're nude initially... That's all fine and dandy
> for the younger specimens among them, but when a 60-70+ year old woman
> does it, they don't need it airbrushed on them, they need it troweled
> on like with stucco... Hey, gravity sucks, ya' know?
>

Oh, thanks a lot for enlightening us with the latter part of that
image...just before dinner.

[Bob Fry]

Perhaps the AOPA can talk with the City a bit about realistic airport
regulations. And you need to find someone to act as an intermediary
between the two parties....get the FBO cooled down and see what his
viewpoint is. Does it have anything to do with the hangar guys doing
their own maintenance?

[BTIZ]

You guys forget.. the FBO already has the city managers and the lawyers
ear.. you are way behind the power curve in this. You need to organize into
a pilots committee and then address his issues rather than confront them and
it needed to be done months ago.

The FBO is a business owner and businesses pay taxes... the county or city
do not realize that your purchases from his business is what is paying the
taxes.

Welcome to "city life"

BT

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:17:49 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:47:29 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
>>> > wrote in
>>> >::
>>>
>>> >Boycott the FBO. Buy gas and get maintenance at another field.
>>> >Send him an anonymous letter that he's going to be boycotted if
>>> >the crap continues.
>>>
>>> So you think a campaign of disrespectful intimidation will win the
>>> day? Grow up!
>>
>>What was suggested is in no way disrespectful or intimidating.
>
> How does what was suggested by Mr. Winslow respect the concerns of the
> FBO?
>
> You have a lot to learn about human nature if you actually believe
> that threatening the FBO is going to change his mind? It will only
> escalate the negative feelings, and galvanize the FBO and others into
> feeling justified in taking punitive action against "renegade" pilots.
>
> Did the felling of the WTC towers and threats of future terrorism
> cause the US to retreat? Think about it.
>
>>More on the order of civil disobedience which is a time honored,
>>centuries old way of getting a point across.
>
> Without some history of _rational_, face-to-face discourse, the
> disobedience you suggest is tantamount to terrorism.
>
> Talk first. Listen to each side of the argument of each issue.
> Suggest creative solutions based on mutual compromise. The side who
> first resorts to emotional outbursts or forsakes rational thought
> loses.
>
>
>

[Marty]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> We are finally reaching the point where pilots are congregating around
> a couple areas on the field around and in specific hangars, or several
> hangars. Up till a couple years ago the place was dead except on week
> ends and after work in warm weather. Now we have a lot of activity
> most of the day what with the pilots congregating. They've also
> restored a couple planes and purchased another.
>
> These are active pilots who fly a lot. The one couple has flown a new
> SR-22 nearly 500 hours since last June when they purchased it new.
> The guys in the one hangar are flying at least 30 hours a week (maybe
> as much as 50 with three small planes (two tail draggers and a 150)
> There are a couple instructors in there as well.
> After flying they hang around the hangar, have a couple beers and eat
> pop corn.
>
> As one of the Airport advisory members told the city, "this is the
> kind of activity we should be encouraging".
>
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Sounds like he could learn from my old FBO/Primary CFI.
I listened to him gripe a bit about some of the aforementioned things in the
OP.
I asked what he would do about it, to which he replied "Grin & bear it, I'm
not their parent and they spend money here".

Marty

[Roger]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 08:27:26 GMT, "Earl Grieda"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> We have some turf wars going on and it looks like the pilots may be
>> the losers.
>>

>
>There are 2 sides to every story. Is it possible for the FBO owner to
>respond to this post so that reasonable, intelligent questions on this issue
>can be presented to both parties by the readers?

I wish it were and I'm sure he, or his family will see or read this,
but he is not noted for open dialog when certain issues or people are
involved.

Me? I've been trying to ride the fence, but you have to remember that
there's splinters in them thar rails.

Without going into detail, which I can't for liability reasons, there
is a history between some of the parties.

Over the past few years we have lost a few airplanes and pilots to
other airports due to the atmosphere. As there has been an increase
in both pilots and airplanes all hangars are still full and that is
the bottom line to which he points.

The City and particularly the Airport Advisory commission is well
aware of the history and has asked for pilot input to the proposed
regulations (and other issues). The unfortunate part is the
involvement of the lawyers who want to fill the regs with all kinds of
CYAs.

Meetings have been scheduled and requests sent to nearly all local
pilots.

There is an ongoing dialog with advisory commission, but you have to
remember they are "advisory" although the city does seem to listen.
Again, they too are aware of the "history" and have been giving input
since day one, even before most of the pilots were aware of the dive
for change.

Most of the proposed regulations appear to make sense at first glance.
Only when you read on and think of the side effects that most do not.
Several of the safety issues do make sense.

As far as people walking to the hangars common sense has to be used.
I have some friends who just meet me at the hangar.

Others, I meet at the terminal building. I would never have a first
timer walk to the hangar or even walk across the ramp unescorted.
I don't know of any local pilots who have a different view of that.

As far as the parking in designated areas, there are no places they
could use except out side the fence and that would mean some very long
walks for many of the pilots. With a bad back I need to park next to
the hangar. The cars really aren't in the way for cutting grass as
most of those pilots use their own mowers and cut the grass in that
area. I used to cut it around the whole string of hangars where I had
my plane, but the snow plow has dug so many divots and broken up
enough concrete that you need a brush hog, which is what the airport
uses for grass cutting. Hence it's not the neatest.

Unfortunately the fuel supply for the snow plow is at the end of the
taxiway where I have the Deb and that gets torn up from them turning
around.

The real down side for this is the confrontational attitudes it's
building between the FBO (who also operates the airport for the city
on contract) and pilots.

Another porposition is to eliminate all open flame heaters. That would
eliminate the big catalytic heater I use and salamanders. It'd also
eliminate about half of the engine preheaters.

Me? I want to be able to warm up the hangar when it's below freezing
in there.

As I said earlier, the city and Advisory Council are well aware of the
history and present atmosphere and the drive could very well backfire
for the one behind it. No mater how it comes out there will be no real
winners.

As to one suggestion in another post, a good third of the pilots
already are purchasing gas at other airports, but part of that is
because it's 20 to 40 cents a gallon cheaper. For me, it'd have to
be a lot cheaper than that to save money except for stopping off when
going right by the other airport. OTOH I've always used a Beech
specialist for my maintenance with only little stuff done on airport.

Many of the pilots are taking their planes to other airports, or
getting some one to work on them in their own hangars.
The way the regulation is presently written and the draft as well say
no one may operate a business open to the general public, but it does
not prohibit working on some one's plane in their own hangar. That
may have been the intent, but it's not what the wording says.

Some blame the FBO for the high fuel price, but that is not his fault
as the city put in small tanks, meaning they can only take about a
half truck load and that raises the price considerably. Then as a
business he has taxes and flowage fees the city wouldn't. So for that
a good part of the blame is with the city. Two nearby airports are
city or county owned and operated and have large tanks so they can get
and sell gas cheaper.

Oh! to one other comment. Yes, we have a number of AIs in addition to
mechanics that are renting hangars at the airport. None are running
an active business except one and he's working out of another airport.
OTOH many of them are taking an active hand in restoration and
building projects. These are things the FBO would not have been
involved in anyway. Some help with conditional inspections and for
those who have puchased homebuilts. The FBO will not work on a home
built whether it has a certified engine or not.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:10:16 -0400, Roger
> wrote in
>::

>he is not noted for open dialog when certain issues or people are
>involved.

If that can be documented (video recorder?), it could be useful for
you.

May I humbly suggest, that if you don't like the current rules and/or
the proposed new additions/changes, write your own as a suggestion to
the airport owners. Complaining is easy. Stating what you want is a
lot more difficult, but considerably more constructive. Those who
enact the rules will have to supply reasons for denying your
proposals, or grant them.

[Roger]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:34:43 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:10:16 -0400, Roger
> wrote in
>::
>
>>he is not noted for open dialog when certain issues or people are
>>involved.
>
>If that can be documented (video recorder?), it could be useful for
>you.
>
>May I humbly suggest, that if you don't like the current rules and/or
>the proposed new additions/changes, write your own as a suggestion to
>the airport owners.

It's already being done.

>Complaining is easy. Stating what you want is a
>lot more difficult, but considerably more constructive. Those who
>enact the rules will have to supply reasons for denying your
>proposals, or grant them.

No they don't.
They can refuse to even consider them.
However, they did ask for input and they are, or will be receiving it
and in a polite and constructive manner.

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

[Grumman-581]

"Roger" wrote in message ...
> The unfortunate part is the involvement of the lawyers
> who want to fill the regs with all kinds of CYAs.

OK, the first order of business is to shoot all the lawyers... They're not
pilots are they? If so, oh well -- acceptable collateral damages...

[[email protected]]

Minnesota prohibits open containers in vehicles. As far as leaving an
establishment with an open container, (e.g. cup or can or beer,) many
(most?) municipalities have ordances against public drinking.

Randy

[Roger]

On 6 Apr 2005 04:30:15 -0700, "
> wrote:

>Minnesota prohibits open containers in vehicles. As far as leaving an

As does Michigan.

>establishment with an open container, (e.g. cup or can or beer,) many
>(most?) municipalities have ordances against public drinking.

The hangars are not *presently* considered public facilities.

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