Loophole in the AIP grants????

[Skylune]

Thanx to Cal Pilot website for article on Oceanside Airport.

Very interesting take on FAA grants, from Oceanside Pub Works Director.
Bears some investigating.... From the article:

" Public Works Director Peter Weiss sees a potential loophole in that
policy. Weiss said the federal agency can't force the city to keep
operating an airport that loses $50,000 to $60,000 a year. "

[[email protected]]

Skylune, find another cause get on your soapbox and rant about. This
one's played out.

[Skylune]

by " > Mar 28, 2006 at 08:12 AM


Skylune, find another cause get on your soapbox and rant about. This
one's played out
<<

That reminds me of the line in Crocodile Dundee II, where the pretty girl
says to Dundee: "This is not a game!"

To which he replies: "It is to me."

[Denny]

Everyone sing along <you know the tune>

Troll, troll, troll your boat
Gently up the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
etc...

[[email protected]]

"That's not a knife... <brandishes 12" Bowie> Now THAT'S a knife..."

[Skylune]

by " > Mar 28, 2006 at 10:29 AM


"That's not a knife... <brandishes 12" Bowie> Now THAT'S a knife..."

<<

;-)

That was a good line from the first one. Filmed right under 1 Centre
Street, in downtown Manhattan. I used to work in the building above....

[Skylune]

Yes indeedy: There are many conditions that airport sponsors are required
to satisfy to continue receiving the grants.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airport_sponsor_assurances.pdf

Push back against the FAA/airport cabal, or pressuring the airport to
spend $$$ in the event grant conditions are not being met, can be a tool
in some cases.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> Yes indeedy: There are many conditions that airport sponsors are required
> to satisfy to continue receiving the grants.
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/air
> port_sponsor_assurances.pdf
>
> Push back against the FAA/airport cabal, or pressuring the airport to
> spend $$$ in the event grant conditions are not being met, can be a tool
> in some cases.


Now "Skylune" is starting to sound like Bill MulCahy.
"FAA/airport cabal", indeed!

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> Now "Skylune" is starting to sound like Bill MulCahy.
> "FAA/airport cabal", indeed!

don't insult the long island looney bird

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Skylune]

by Orval Fairbairn > Mar 29, 2006 at 09:39 PM



Now "Skylune" is starting to sound like Bill MulCahy.
"FAA/airport cabal", indeed!

<<

MulCahy has his own style, but I agree with Bill that the FAA/airport
alliance is an unholy cabal.

A large part of the FAA bureaucracy exists to approve and administer
grants, which requires the employment of numerous personnel. Like other
bureaucracies, it seeks to protect and enlarge itself, with no
consideration to anything outside of its own mission: to expand aviation.
It is at odds with other bureaucracies, most notably the new OHS. EPA has
been largely de-fanged, but there are some tensions there too.

And there are intergovernmental tensions, often between FAA and localities
victimized by this nefarious agency.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> by Orval Fairbairn > Mar 29, 2006 at 09:39 PM
>
>
>
> Now "Skylune" is starting to sound like Bill MulCahy.
> "FAA/airport cabal", indeed!
>
> <<
>
> MulCahy has his own style, but I agree with Bill that the FAA/airport
> alliance is an unholy cabal.
>
> A large part of the FAA bureaucracy exists to approve and administer
> grants, which requires the employment of numerous personnel. Like other
> bureaucracies, it seeks to protect and enlarge itself, with no
> consideration to anything outside of its own mission: to expand aviation.
> It is at odds with other bureaucracies, most notably the new OHS. EPA has
> been largely de-fanged, but there are some tensions there too.
>
> And there are intergovernmental tensions, often between FAA and localities
> victimized by this nefarious agency.
>

I think that it is the other way around -- just look at Chicago, with
Meigs. The funds granted to airports are collected from the airspace
users -- not from General Funds. As such, those sponsors who accept
these funds are under obligation to use them for aviation use, only --
NOT to fund some real estate speculative venture for themselves.

Far too many cities are trying to weasel around the terms of the Grant
Deeds and place unreasonable restrictions (or even to close) airports
which have received funds.

[Jose]

> I think that it is the other way around -- just look at Chicago, with
> Meigs. The funds granted to airports are collected from the airspace
> users -- not from General Funds. As such, those sponsors who accept
> these funds are under obligation to use them for aviation use, only --
> NOT to fund some real estate speculative venture for themselves.

I wonder if a class action suit would work against Chicago and Meigs.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Skylune wrote:
> Like other
>bureaucracies, it seeks to protect and enlarge itself, with no
>consideration to anything outside of its own mission: to expand aviation.

We are losing airports in the US almost weekly, so if the FAA considers
expansion of aviation its only mission, it is failing.

The bureaucracy is growing though, and the rule books get thicker. The
GA community seems to be shrinking, because flying seems to be more
about knowing all the rules than it is about the airplane.