Banning mogas at the airport...

[Jay Honeck]

For years, now, I've read that it's illegal for an FBO or airport to
forbid aircraft owners from fueling their own planes. In another
group, I simply parroted that information -- and now one of the group
members wants to know WHICH law expressly prohibits an FBO from
inhibiting an owner's ability to fuel his plane.

Is there such a law? If so, what's it called?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> For years, now, I've read that it's illegal for an FBO or airport to
> forbid aircraft owners from fueling their own planes. In another
> group, I simply parroted that information -- and now one of the group
> members wants to know WHICH law expressly prohibits an FBO from
> inhibiting an owner's ability to fuel his plane.
>
> Is there such a law? If so, what's it called?

I'm not aware of any such law, but at my airport we couldn't refuel
inside the hangar due to insurance requirements. However, it was never
a problem on the ramp.


Matt

[Jim Macklin]

When an airport accepts federal funds, the contract has the
provisions that require fair use. These may be the links
you need.
[PDF] FAA Facts
.... and becomes a legal binding contract between the sponsor
and ... available for public
use on fair and reasonable terms ... not granting an
exclusive right to any ...
www.agl.faa.gov/AGLNews/HowDoesItWork/pdf/AIP.pdf - Text
Version

[PDF] Department of Transportation
.... owned and subject to the revenue-use requirement. The
private operator is providing
these services under some form of contract with the public
owner. These ...
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/federal_register_notices/media/obligation_final99.pdf
- 1999-02-16 - Text Version

[PDF] 1700 - Post Grant Obligations
.... be incurred by contract or by restrictive ...
Prohibition on Exclusive Rights ? Utilization
of ... Compatible Land Use ? Availability of Fair and
Reasonable ...
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/central/aip/sponsor_guide/media/1700.pdf
- 1995-01-01 - Text Version


....

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| For years, now, I've read that it's illegal for an FBO or
airport to
| forbid aircraft owners from fueling their own planes. In
another
| group, I simply parroted that information -- and now one
of the group
| members wants to know WHICH law expressly prohibits an FBO
from
| inhibiting an owner's ability to fuel his plane.
|
| Is there such a law? If so, what's it called?
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[Tom Conner]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> For years, now, I've read that it's illegal for an FBO
> or airport to forbid aircraft owners from fueling their
> own planes. In another group, I simply parroted that
> information -- and now one of the group members wants to
> know WHICH law expressly prohibits an FBO from inhibiting
> an owner's ability to fuel his plane.
>

Its probably not the FBO forbiding it, but the airport owner.

This is rule for our county airports.

"No person may conduct self-fueling activity on the airport without securing
a permit from the Airport Authority."

Read the rules, and the 10 page permit, at
http://www.countyairports.org/documents.htm in the Regulatory section. Let
us know if the Grape would pass muster for self-fueling.

[Jim Macklin]

http://www.faa.gov/arp/aal/Sponsor%20Guide/append4e.doc
f. It will not exercise or grant any right or
privilege which operates to prevent any person, firm, or
corporation operating aircraft on the airport from
performing any services on its own aircraft with its own
employees [including, but not limited to maintenance,
repair, and fueling] that it may choose to perform.


...



23. Exclusive Rights. It will permit no exclusive right
for the use of the airport by any person providing, or
intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public.
For purposes of this paragraph, the providing of the
services at an airport by a single fixed-based operator
shall not be construed as an exclusive right if both of the
following apply:

a.. It would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or
impractical for more than one fixed-based operator to
provide such services, and
b.. If allowing more than one fixed-based operator to
provide such services would require the reduction of space
leased pursuant to an existing agreement between such single
fixed-based operator and such airport.
It further agrees that it will not, either directly or
indirectly, grant or permit any person, firm, or
corporation, the exclusive right at the airport to conduct
any aeronautical activities, including, but not limited to
charter flights, pilot training, aircraft rental and
sightseeing, aerial photography, crop dusting, aerial
advertising and surveying, air carrier operations, aircraft
sales and services, sale of aviation petroleum products
whether or not conducted in conjunction with other
aeronautical activity, repair and maintenance of aircraft,
sale of aircraft parts, and any other activities which
because of their direct relationship to the operation of
aircraft can be regarded as an aeronautical activity, and
that it will terminate any exclusive right to conduct an
aeronautical activity now existing at such an airport before
the grant of any assistance under Title 49, United States
Code.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| For years, now, I've read that it's illegal for an FBO or
airport to
| forbid aircraft owners from fueling their own planes. In
another
| group, I simply parroted that information -- and now one
of the group
| members wants to know WHICH law expressly prohibits an FBO
from
| inhibiting an owner's ability to fuel his plane.
|
| Is there such a law? If so, what's it called?
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[john smith]

> 23. Exclusive Rights. It will permit no exclusive right
> for the use of the airport by any person providing, or
> intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public.
> For purposes of this paragraph, the providing of the
> services at an airport by a single fixed-based operator
> shall not be construed as an exclusive right if both of the
> following apply:

That's the rule Jay is looking for!

[Doug[_1_]]

The right to fuel your own airplane with fuel you brought in from
elsewhere may also be covered by "common law". After all, it is your
property and your airplane. So long as you are not unsafe, it is your
right. Such a law would be akin to a company requiring you to fuel up
your car at the company pumps or you couldn't live in the company
housing or work at the company. Or being required to buy a Chevy if you
worked at Cheverolet. Such laws are not legal.

[BTIZ]

Jay.. it is in the Federal Airport Funding documents.. Sponsor Assurances
you can self service on fuel..
the fueling system must pass Federal and local safety standards which
normally cover.. grounding.. fire extinguishers etc.. no fueling inside
hangers or when thunderstorms are present.. and it can also cover training
requirements of the fuel handlers (you and the mrs) and also EPA
requirements for absorbant material on hand in the event of a spillage..
goverened by the amount of fuel the "grape" can hold.

5 gallon gas cans, approved by DOT or which ever gov't agency, and poured
through a filtering cloth with a fire bottle near by is the minimum to meet
those rules. Your "Grape" would require at least 2 fire bottles, pumps,
approved hoses and emergency shut off capability.

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

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/orders/index.cfm?sect=obligations%22http://www.faa.gov/airpots_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/orders/index.cfm?sect=obligations

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> For years, now, I've read that it's illegal for an FBO or airport to
> forbid aircraft owners from fueling their own planes. In another
> group, I simply parroted that information -- and now one of the group
> members wants to know WHICH law expressly prohibits an FBO from
> inhibiting an owner's ability to fuel his plane.
>
> Is there such a law? If so, what's it called?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Larry Dighera]

On 14 Jul 2006 21:59:48 -0700, "Doug" >
wrote in om>::

>The right to fuel your own airplane with fuel you brought in from
>elsewhere may also be covered by "common law". After all, it is your
>property and your airplane.

True, but you may have signed away that right on your hangar/tiedown
agreement with the airport operator.

>So long as you are not unsafe, it is your right.

Hence the airports licensing requirement, probably mandated by the
airports indemnification policy.

>Such a law would be akin to a company requiring you to fuel up
>your car at the company pumps or you couldn't live in the company
>housing or work at the company. Or being required to buy a Chevy if you
>worked at Cheverolet. Such laws are not legal.

The FAA regulation cited by Macklin seem to cover that potential
issue.

My 2¢

[Jim Macklin]

| True, but you may have signed away that right on your
hangar/tiedown
| agreement with the airport operator.
Such a clause is invalid if the airport has taken federal
money... any person has the right to repair or fuel their
own airplane.



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On 14 Jul 2006 21:59:48 -0700, "Doug"
>
| wrote in
om>::
|
| >The right to fuel your own airplane with fuel you brought
in from
| >elsewhere may also be covered by "common law". After all,
it is your
| >property and your airplane.
|
| True, but you may have signed away that right on your
hangar/tiedown
| agreement with the airport operator.
|
| >So long as you are not unsafe, it is your right.
|
| Hence the airports licensing requirement, probably
mandated by the
| airports indemnification policy.
|
| >Such a law would be akin to a company requiring you to
fuel up
| >your car at the company pumps or you couldn't live in the
company
| >housing or work at the company. Or being required to buy
a Chevy if you
| >worked at Cheverolet. Such laws are not legal.
|
| The FAA regulation cited by Macklin seem to cover that
potential
| issue.
|
| My 2¢

[Jay Honeck]

> That's the rule Jay is looking for!

Indeed it is.

Thanks, Jim and all!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> I'm not aware of any such law, but at my airport we couldn't refuel
> inside the hangar due to insurance requirements. However, it was never
> a problem on the ramp.
>
>
Fueling and defueling operations in hangars are really dangerous. I
personally know of a few airplanes and structrures lost this way.

[Jim Macklin]

One of the instructors who teaches for the AOPA CFI renewal
seminars is named Bill Gunn, his full time job is for the
State of Texas and he speaks about this issue at the
seminars. When he gets complaints about such issues, he
tells the local city councils and airports boards that they
must follow the contract and federal laws.

Here is a link with each states' agency.
http://www.nasea.org/state1.htm

Pilot: Bill Gunn - Austin, TX
Aircraft: N252MD, RV-4, Red
Home Airport: Georgetown (GTU)

Bill Gunn retired from the US Air Force as an F-4 Weapons
System Officer. Bill worked as a Certified Flight Instructor
and then for American Airlines. After then working in
aviation contract services, Bill took his present job with
the Aviation Branch of Texas Department of Transportation.
He bought his red RV-4 from Mark (#6 in the formation) and
has been flying with Falcon Flight since mid 90s.

He flies the RV to the classes he teaches. Hell of a nice
guy.




--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|> That's the rule Jay is looking for!
|
| Indeed it is.
|
| Thanks, Jim and all!
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not aware of any such law, but at my airport we couldn't refuel
>> inside the hangar due to insurance requirements. However, it was
>> never a problem on the ramp.
>>
>>
> Fueling and defueling operations in hangars are really dangerous. I
> personally know of a few airplanes and structrures lost this way.

So is fueling outside in the rain. I know more airplanes that came to
grief from water in the fuel than from a hangar fire.

I certainly don't advocate fueling in the hangar in general, but it is
is raining or 20 below and snowing, it makes sense.

Matt

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> I certainly don't advocate fueling in the hangar in general, but it is
> is raining or 20 below and snowing, it makes sense.
>
Get an umbrella :-)

Frankly, I'm skeptical. The amount of water introduced in the open
cap is not likely to be substantial. Most water problems come from
ill-fitting fuel caps when exposed to rain for extended periods.

For 25 years I've fueled and parked aircraft outside (no hangar
available) and never had an issue with picking up water that way
(mushroom caps).
..

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> I certainly don't advocate fueling in the hangar in general, but it is
>> is raining or 20 below and snowing, it makes sense.
>>
> Get an umbrella :-)
>
> Frankly, I'm skeptical. The amount of water introduced in the open
> cap is not likely to be substantial. Most water problems come from
> ill-fitting fuel caps when exposed to rain for extended periods.
>
> For 25 years I've fueled and parked aircraft outside (no hangar
> available) and never had an issue with picking up water that way
> (mushroom caps).

And I know a lot of people who have refueled airplanes in their hangars
and have never had a fire. Sounds like worrying about either isn't
justified.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I think the state of California has some strict laws on transporting
> fuel. You can take a couple lawn mower cans for your J-3 but putting a
> tank on the back of your truck probably wouldn't fly.

I bought a 50 gallon tank for the back of my pickup and I believe it
came from CA. It supposedly was approved for gasoline transport. The
local farm stores had tanks also, but they were approved only for
diesel, so I had to order one for gasoline.

Matt

[GeorgeC]

The question that comes to mind is "What do California farmer do?" I can just
see a farmer filling his tractor with a lawn mower can and then drive back to
the house for more gas. Repeat 20 or more times :-)

Is a farmer can have a tank on his truck, why can't an aviator?

On 15 Jul 2006 13:21:55 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>I think the state of California has some strict laws on transporting
>fuel. You can take a couple lawn mower cans for your J-3 but putting a
>tank on the back of your truck probably wouldn't fly.
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>> For years, now, I've read that it's illegal for an FBO or airport to
>> forbid aircraft owners from fueling their own planes. In another
>> group, I simply parroted that information -- and now one of the group
>> members wants to know WHICH law expressly prohibits an FBO from
>> inhibiting an owner's ability to fuel his plane.

GeorgeC

[Dave Stadt]

"GeorgeC" > wrote in message
...
> The question that comes to mind is "What do California farmer do?" I can
> just
> see a farmer filling his tractor with a lawn mower can and then drive back
> to
> the house for more gas. Repeat 20 or more times :-)
>
> Is a farmer can have a tank on his truck, why can't an aviator?

Most farms have stationary tanks that are serviced by fuel distributors.
That's the norm but who knows what goes on in CA.

[zatatime]

On 15 Jul 2006 13:21:55 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>
>I think the state of California has some strict laws on transporting
>fuel. You can take a couple lawn mower cans for your J-3 but putting a
>tank on the back of your truck probably wouldn't fly.


I agree. A pickup truck with a big tank of gas in the back most
definitely won't fly.

z

[Jim Macklin]

Most farms have a large fuel supply and they use smaller
50-200 gallon tanks to fuel the tractors and combines in the
field, you don't drive the tractor 10 miles back to the barn
to get fuel. Also, AG pilots have fuel and chemicals
brought to the remote field when they are using the roads on
the farm as "airports."


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. net...
|
| "GeorgeC" > wrote in message
| ...
| > The question that comes to mind is "What do California
farmer do?" I can
| > just
| > see a farmer filling his tractor with a lawn mower can
and then drive back
| > to
| > the house for more gas. Repeat 20 or more times :-)
| >
| > Is a farmer can have a tank on his truck, why can't an
aviator?
|
| Most farms have stationary tanks that are serviced by fuel
distributors.
| That's the norm but who knows what goes on in CA.
|
|

[Dave Stadt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote
>
>> Most farms have stationary tanks that are serviced by fuel distributors.
>> That's the norm but who knows what goes on in CA.
>
> I don't think that fact would be possible to prove or disprove.

It would be very easy to prove or disprove. Drive around and count farms
with stationary tanks and those without stationary tanks. Farmers don't
have to pay road tax so filling up at the local gas stations us just plain
dumb and bad for business. Most pickups with tanks I see are for
construction companies not farmers. Besides, very few farm implements and
no construction equipment that I know of run on gasoline. Vast majority
run on diesel and that's also easy to prove. You walk up and smell 'em.
I'll bet 99 percent or more of those tanks you see are full of diesel.

> Those that
> have stationary tanks will have a paper trail, although it would be
> difficult to assemble all of it.
>
> Tanks in pickups are sold in big quantities and by many different
> manufacturers. They are filled at local gas stations. No paper trail for
> either of the above.
>
> I think the stationary gas tank is perhaps a regional thing, because here
> in
> the area I live in, only very large farmers have stationary tanks, and
> many
> also have pickup tanks to use while they are away from the central tank
> and
> pump, which during parts of the year is almost every fill up
> --
> Jim in NC.
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:U9jug.77186$ZW3.45396@dukeread04...
> Most farms have a large fuel supply and they use smaller
> 50-200 gallon tanks to fuel the tractors and combines in the
> field, you don't drive the tractor 10 miles back to the barn
> to get fuel. Also, AG pilots have fuel and chemicals
> brought to the remote field when they are using the roads on
> the farm as "airports."

And there ain't a drop of gasoline in any of 'em.

>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . net...
> |
> | "GeorgeC" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > The question that comes to mind is "What do California
> farmer do?" I can
> | > just
> | > see a farmer filling his tractor with a lawn mower can
> and then drive back
> | > to
> | > the house for more gas. Repeat 20 or more times :-)
> | >
> | > Is a farmer can have a tank on his truck, why can't an
> aviator?
> |
> | Most farms have stationary tanks that are serviced by fuel
> distributors.
> | That's the norm but who knows what goes on in CA.
> |
> |
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>
>
>>I think the state of California has some strict laws on transporting
>>fuel. You can take a couple lawn mower cans for your J-3 but putting a
>>tank on the back of your truck probably wouldn't fly.
>
>
> Can you point to the law, or where a person could find it? I could not find
> any law restricting gasoline transport, although I know there must be
> something written.

Here is the company I bought my 50 gallon tank from and they claim
approval for use even in CA.

http://www.transferflow.com/refueling_tanks.html


Matt

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> Most farms have stationary tanks that are serviced by fuel distributors.
> That's the norm but who knows what goes on in CA.

I don't think that fact would be possible to prove or disprove. Those that
have stationary tanks will have a paper trail, although it would be
difficult to assemble all of it.

Tanks in pickups are sold in big quantities and by many different
manufacturers. They are filled at local gas stations. No paper trail for
either of the above.

I think the stationary gas tank is perhaps a regional thing, because here in
the area I live in, only very large farmers have stationary tanks, and many
also have pickup tanks to use while they are away from the central tank and
pump, which during parts of the year is almost every fill up
--
Jim in NC.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

> I think the state of California has some strict laws on transporting
> fuel. You can take a couple lawn mower cans for your J-3 but putting a
> tank on the back of your truck probably wouldn't fly.

Can you point to the law, or where a person could find it? I could not find
any law restricting gasoline transport, although I know there must be
something written.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

They still do use gasoline tractors, but most are now using
#2


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:U9jug.77186$ZW3.45396@dukeread04...
| > Most farms have a large fuel supply and they use smaller
| > 50-200 gallon tanks to fuel the tractors and combines in
the
| > field, you don't drive the tractor 10 miles back to the
barn
| > to get fuel. Also, AG pilots have fuel and chemicals
| > brought to the remote field when they are using the
roads on
| > the farm as "airports."
|
| And there ain't a drop of gasoline in any of 'em.
|
| >
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
| > . net...
| > |
| > | "GeorgeC" > wrote in message
| > | ...
| > | > The question that comes to mind is "What do
California
| > farmer do?" I can
| > | > just
| > | > see a farmer filling his tractor with a lawn mower
can
| > and then drive back
| > | > to
| > | > the house for more gas. Repeat 20 or more times :-)
| > | >
| > | > Is a farmer can have a tank on his truck, why can't
an
| > aviator?
| > |
| > | Most farms have stationary tanks that are serviced by
fuel
| > distributors.
| > | That's the norm but who knows what goes on in CA.
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Ron Mahaffey]

California has strict road tax laws. All unleaded is sold with road tax
included. The buyer must request a refund quarterly and must provide copies
of certified invoices. In addition in order to request a refund the amount
must be over $600 or no joy. All diesel sold for off highway use is dyed
red and has no road tax. I have known trucks to get caught on a road. The
Highway Patrol will tow it and then require it be drained and filled with
undyed fuel. Plus there is a considerable fine. Don't know many that will
take the risk.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>I think the state of California has some strict laws on transporting
>>>fuel. You can take a couple lawn mower cans for your J-3 but putting a
>>>tank on the back of your truck probably wouldn't fly.
>>
>>
>> Can you point to the law, or where a person could find it? I could not
>> find
>> any law restricting gasoline transport, although I know there must be
>> something written.
>
> Here is the company I bought my 50 gallon tank from and they claim
> approval for use even in CA.
>
> http://www.transferflow.com/refueling_tanks.html
>
>
> Matt

[Jim Macklin]

A lot of small farmers like to use the 1950's Ford and Allis
Chalmers or John Deere tractors because they are cheap and
do the light jobs, such as mowing, or the garden without the
complexity of the new $50,00+ tractors that can't be fixed
outside the factory shop.

You can put a fuel caddy on a trailer or a tank in your
pickup truck without getting involved with EPA fuel storage
licensing issue. Just as long as it is on wheels. But a
mounted tank or buried tank system gets very expensive.

State, federal and sometimes local jurisdictions will have
rules. There are fuel storage rules and fuel dispensing
rules under EPA and fire codes.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Dave Stadt" > wrote
| >
| > It would be very easy to prove or disprove. Drive
around and count farms
| > with stationary tanks and those without stationary
tanks.
|
| Be my guest! <g>
|
| > Farmers don't
| > have to pay road tax so filling up at the local gas
stations us just plain
| > dumb and bad for business. Most pickups with tanks I
see are for
| > construction companies not farmers. Besides, very few
farm implements and
| > no construction equipment that I know of run on
gasoline. Vast majority
| > run on diesel and that's also easy to prove. You walk
up and smell 'em.
| > I'll bet 99 percent or more of those tanks you see are
full of diesel.
|
| You seem to think that all farm operations are100,000 acre
farms, with 10
| full time employees. Around here, the norm is a farmer
that has a day job,
| doing construction, or something that has enough
flexibility to be off when
| he has to be. There are a lot of small tractors out there
(most as old as
| our airplanes) that are still gas powered.Granted, there
are a lot of
| diesels coming into use.
|
| They probably don't use enough fuel to justify a permanant
storage tank, and
| maybe be able to afford it. As far as the road tax goes,
there is an easy
| form to fill in and send in and get every penny of the tax
back.
|
| I really am not making this up. That is the way it is,
around here, and I
| suspect many other places, too.
| --
| Jim in NC
|
|

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote
>
> It would be very easy to prove or disprove. Drive around and count farms
> with stationary tanks and those without stationary tanks.

Be my guest! <g>

> Farmers don't
> have to pay road tax so filling up at the local gas stations us just plain
> dumb and bad for business. Most pickups with tanks I see are for
> construction companies not farmers. Besides, very few farm implements and
> no construction equipment that I know of run on gasoline. Vast majority
> run on diesel and that's also easy to prove. You walk up and smell 'em.
> I'll bet 99 percent or more of those tanks you see are full of diesel.

You seem to think that all farm operations are100,000 acre farms, with 10
full time employees. Around here, the norm is a farmer that has a day job,
doing construction, or something that has enough flexibility to be off when
he has to be. There are a lot of small tractors out there (most as old as
our airplanes) that are still gas powered.Granted, there are a lot of
diesels coming into use.

They probably don't use enough fuel to justify a permanant storage tank, and
maybe be able to afford it. As far as the road tax goes, there is an easy
form to fill in and send in and get every penny of the tax back.

I really am not making this up. That is the way it is, around here, and I
suspect many other places, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Dave Stadt]

Around here if you farm less than 500 acres it's a hobby farm.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:xCkug.77193$ZW3.44035@dukeread04...
>A lot of small farmers like to use the 1950's Ford and Allis
> Chalmers or John Deere tractors because they are cheap and
> do the light jobs, such as mowing, or the garden without the
> complexity of the new $50,00+ tractors that can't be fixed
> outside the factory shop.
>
> You can put a fuel caddy on a trailer or a tank in your
> pickup truck without getting involved with EPA fuel storage
> licensing issue. Just as long as it is on wheels. But a
> mounted tank or buried tank system gets very expensive.
>
> State, federal and sometimes local jurisdictions will have
> rules. There are fuel storage rules and fuel dispensing
> rules under EPA and fire codes.
>
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Dave Stadt" > wrote
> | >
> | > It would be very easy to prove or disprove. Drive
> around and count farms
> | > with stationary tanks and those without stationary
> tanks.
> |
> | Be my guest! <g>
> |
> | > Farmers don't
> | > have to pay road tax so filling up at the local gas
> stations us just plain
> | > dumb and bad for business. Most pickups with tanks I
> see are for
> | > construction companies not farmers. Besides, very few
> farm implements and
> | > no construction equipment that I know of run on
> gasoline. Vast majority
> | > run on diesel and that's also easy to prove. You walk
> up and smell 'em.
> | > I'll bet 99 percent or more of those tanks you see are
> full of diesel.
> |
> | You seem to think that all farm operations are100,000 acre
> farms, with 10
> | full time employees. Around here, the norm is a farmer
> that has a day job,
> | doing construction, or something that has enough
> flexibility to be off when
> | he has to be. There are a lot of small tractors out there
> (most as old as
> | our airplanes) that are still gas powered.Granted, there
> are a lot of
> | diesels coming into use.
> |
> | They probably don't use enough fuel to justify a permanant
> storage tank, and
> | maybe be able to afford it. As far as the road tax goes,
> there is an easy
> | form to fill in and send in and get every penny of the tax
> back.
> |
> | I really am not making this up. That is the way it is,
> around here, and I
> | suspect many other places, too.
> | --
> | Jim in NC
> |
> |
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Mahaffey wrote:
> California has strict road tax laws. All unleaded is sold with road tax
> included. The buyer must request a refund quarterly and must provide copies
> of certified invoices. In addition in order to request a refund the amount
> must be over $600 or no joy. All diesel sold for off highway use is dyed
> red and has no road tax. I have known trucks to get caught on a road. The
> Highway Patrol will tow it and then require it be drained and filled with
> undyed fuel. Plus there is a considerable fine. Don't know many that will
> take the risk.
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Morgans wrote:
>>
>>>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think the state of California has some strict laws on transporting
>>>>fuel. You can take a couple lawn mower cans for your J-3 but putting a
>>>>tank on the back of your truck probably wouldn't fly.
>>>
>>>
>>>Can you point to the law, or where a person could find it? I could not
>>>find
>>>any law restricting gasoline transport, although I know there must be
>>>something written.
>>
>>Here is the company I bought my 50 gallon tank from and they claim
>>approval for use even in CA.
>>
>>http://www.transferflow.com/refueling_tanks.html
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>

Which has exactly what to do with my post?

And learn to bottom post like real net users.

Matt

[JJS]

I have one truck mounted fuel tank and one trailer mounted tank. The 110 gallon tank is used for my farm welder /
generator, ATV, and small older gasoline powered tractors. There are a variety of pieces of equipment that still run
on gasoline such as grain auger motors, mist blowers, etc. The size of the farm may be considered a small operation
in one local and huge in another depending on produce or livestock grown. Here a 20,000 acre ranch is large. In
Texas or Wyoming it isn't. Farmers do pay road tax on fuel they use on the road just like you do.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----

[Al[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:jy0ug.71144$ZW3.6708@dukeread04...
>
> | True, but you may have signed away that right on your
> hangar/tiedown
> | agreement with the airport operator.
> Such a clause is invalid if the airport has taken federal
> money... any person has the right to repair or fuel their
> own airplane.
>
>
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> | On 14 Jul 2006 21:59:48 -0700, "Doug"
> >
> | wrote in
> om>::
> |
> | >The right to fuel your own airplane with fuel you brought
> in from
> | >elsewhere may also be covered by "common law". After all,
> it is your
> | >property and your airplane.
> |
> | True, but you may have signed away that right on your
> hangar/tiedown
> | agreement with the airport operator.
> |
> | >So long as you are not unsafe, it is your right.
> |
> | Hence the airports licensing requirement, probably
> mandated by the
> | airports indemnification policy.
> |
> | >Such a law would be akin to a company requiring you to
> fuel up
> | >your car at the company pumps or you couldn't live in the
> company
> | >housing or work at the company. Or being required to buy
> a Chevy if you
> | >worked at Cheverolet. Such laws are not legal.
> |
> | The FAA regulation cited by Macklin seem to cover that
> potential
> | issue.
> |
> | My 2¢
>
>

Thanks for the documents Jim, you are good at this.

Can they charge a "fuel flowage fee" on your own gas?

Al G

[Newps]

Al wrote:


>
> Can they charge a "fuel flowage fee" on your own gas?

Yes, this is quite common. Around here 5¢ a gallon is the norm.

[Jim Macklin]

I doubt that they can tax you on product you already own.
But there are 50 states and 50 sets of laws.

Both the AOPA and the EAA have people who handle such
matters. The EAA is particularly interested because they
have the STC for mogas.

www.aopa.org www.eaa.org


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


"Al" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:jy0ug.71144$ZW3.6708@dukeread04...
| >
| > | True, but you may have signed away that right on your
| > hangar/tiedown
| > | agreement with the airport operator.
| > Such a clause is invalid if the airport has taken
federal
| > money... any person has the right to repair or fuel
their
| > own airplane.
| >
| >
| >
| > "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | On 14 Jul 2006 21:59:48 -0700, "Doug"
| > >
| > | wrote in
| > om>::
| > |
| > | >The right to fuel your own airplane with fuel you
brought
| > in from
| > | >elsewhere may also be covered by "common law". After
all,
| > it is your
| > | >property and your airplane.
| > |
| > | True, but you may have signed away that right on your
| > hangar/tiedown
| > | agreement with the airport operator.
| > |
| > | >So long as you are not unsafe, it is your right.
| > |
| > | Hence the airports licensing requirement, probably
| > mandated by the
| > | airports indemnification policy.
| > |
| > | >Such a law would be akin to a company requiring you
to
| > fuel up
| > | >your car at the company pumps or you couldn't live in
the
| > company
| > | >housing or work at the company. Or being required to
buy
| > a Chevy if you
| > | >worked at Cheverolet. Such laws are not legal.
| > |
| > | The FAA regulation cited by Macklin seem to cover that
| > potential
| > | issue.
| > |
| > | My 2¢
| >
| >
|
| Thanks for the documents Jim, you are good at this.
|
| Can they charge a "fuel flowage fee" on your own gas?
|
| Al G
|
|

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> I doubt that they can tax you on product you already own.
> But there are 50 states and 50 sets of laws.

A flow tax is very common. There are many times more than 50 sets of
laws. This is a local matter.

[Jim Macklin]

There are Federal, state, county, township and city laws,
and then there are boards and commissions that has
regulations, so maybe there are 50,000 plus possible
combinations of laws, piled layer upon layer.
The state law must allow "home rule and taxing powers" to
the government subdivisions. Then the appropriate agency
must propose and vote on the new tax. It must be done
follow the administrative procedures laws of the state and
the subdivision. And then in order to challenge the tax, a
person who has paid the tax must file a law suit in the
proper court seeking an injunction. Then you may or may not
have a hearing.

But if you don't complain the tax becomes accepted and any
late complaints will likely be ruled moot.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > I doubt that they can tax you on product you already
own.
| > But there are 50 states and 50 sets of laws.
|
| A flow tax is very common. There are many times more than
50 sets of
| laws. This is a local matter.

[Kyler Laird]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

>| And there ain't a drop of gasoline in any of 'em.

>They still do use gasoline tractors, but most are now using
>#2

We have two (underground tank) gasoline pumps on our farms. It doesn't
take many tractors to make it a necessity. (We have four International
560 tractors that we use for various odd jobs.)

--kyler

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

>
> But if you don't complain the tax becomes accepted and any
> late complaints will likely be ruled moot.

A flow tax is generally not contested as almost always the money is used
at that airport for improvements. Rarely does the money end up in some
city's general fund.

[Roger (K8RI)[_1_]]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:55:26 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Dave Stadt" > wrote
>
>> Most farms have stationary tanks that are serviced by fuel distributors.
>> That's the norm but who knows what goes on in CA.
>
>I don't think that fact would be possible to prove or disprove. Those that
>have stationary tanks will have a paper trail, although it would be
>difficult to assemble all of it.

I can speak with some knowledge at least for Central Michigan. Most
farms have one or more large underground tanks from the "old days" and
the more modern are above ground. It's a much simpler instalation and
no EPA problems. OTOH most of us do not like the idea of the above
ground tanks, with the exception that they save a lot of money over an
in ground installation.

The big problem with above ground tanks is visibility. You darn near
need a "junk yard dog" tied to each of the 4 main supports when the
price of gas goes up.

We had additional underground tanks conveniently next to the end of
the apron in front of the garage. (bulk is cheaper)
>
>Tanks in pickups are sold in big quantities and by many different
>manufacturers. They are filled at local gas stations. No paper trail for
>either of the above.

I doubt you will find many farmers filling those big tanks at the
local gas station. Not when they can save $50 to $100 or more by
purchasing in bulk to fill the main tanks.

>
>I think the stationary gas tank is perhaps a regional thing, because here in
>the area I live in, only very large farmers have stationary tanks, and many
>also have pickup tanks to use while they are away from the central tank and
>pump, which during parts of the year is almost every fill up

That is hard to imagine what with farmers being a some what frugal
lot. Those big stationary tanks save them a lot of money. Just don't
buy when gas is at a high. Then there is the paper work to get the
road tax refunded in many states.

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

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote

> We have two (underground tank) gasoline pumps on our farms. It doesn't
> take many tractors to make it a necessity. (We have four International
> 560 tractors that we use for various odd jobs.)

Do you have to do all of the fancy groundwater sampling that commercial gas
stations have to do?
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

Any tax that is not legally justified and properly enacted
should be protested on "principle." The airport use taxes
collected on airline passengers was intended to be spent on
ATC, runways, ramps and other infrastructure. A lot of it
was spent on new airline terminals, including nice statues
and art work.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| >
| > But if you don't complain the tax becomes accepted and
any
| > late complaints will likely be ruled moot.
|
| A flow tax is generally not contested as almost always the
money is used
| at that airport for improvements. Rarely does the money
end up in some
| city's general fund.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The airport use taxes
> collected on airline passengers was intended to be spent on
> ATC, runways, ramps and other infrastructure. A lot of it
> was spent on new airline terminals, including nice statues
> and art work.

I think that counts as "other infrastructure", especially for airline
passengers.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

A new terminal building, yes, baggage handlers, yes. But
pictures on the wall, no. Especially because they bought
high dollar stuff. BTW, the airport ATL.


'
"Jose" > wrote in message
...
|> The airport use taxes
| > collected on airline passengers was intended to be spent
on
| > ATC, runways, ramps and other infrastructure. A lot of
it
| > was spent on new airline terminals, including nice
statues
| > and art work.
|
| I think that counts as "other infrastructure", especially
for airline
| passengers.
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> A new terminal building, yes, baggage handlers, yes. But
> pictures on the wall, no. Especially because they bought
> high dollar stuff. BTW, the airport ATL.

I don't think I agree with you that nice pictures to make an airline
terminal attractive do not qualify as "other infrastructure". I may
have allocated the money differently (and I may not have), but it is
being spent on what it was intended for.

Would you feel the same way if that same amount of extra money were
spent on the architecture?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

If it is appearance, let the city or the airline pay for it
without federal TAX dollars.



"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
|> A new terminal building, yes, baggage handlers, yes. But
| > pictures on the wall, no. Especially because they
bought
| > high dollar stuff. BTW, the airport ATL.
|
| I don't think I agree with you that nice pictures to make
an airline
| terminal attractive do not qualify as "other
infrastructure". I may
| have allocated the money differently (and I may not have),
but it is
| being spent on what it was intended for.
|
| Would you feel the same way if that same amount of extra
money were
| spent on the architecture?
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> If it is appearance, let the city or the airline pay for it
> without federal TAX dollars.

Do you feel the same about architecture? Would the best use of the
funds be to make all terminals look like bare cinderblock houses?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

I have a soft spot for architects, my father was a
structural engineer and registered architect. But I also
have a soft spot for Quonset huts on airports. If you want
bling, you pay for it.



"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
|> If it is appearance, let the city or the airline pay for
it
| > without federal TAX dollars.
|
| Do you feel the same about architecture? Would the best
use of the
| funds be to make all terminals look like bare cinderblock
houses?
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Kyler Laird]

"Morgans" > writes:

>> We have two (underground tank) gasoline pumps on our farms.

>Do you have to do all of the fancy groundwater sampling that commercial gas
>stations have to do?

I hope not. (We haven't.) It would be worthwhile though.

Above ground tanks seem to be more common now. I've even seen some
ringed with containment barriers.

Farmers get away with a lot, often through "grandfather clauses." (One
of our underground tanks *was* installed by my grandfather.) It's a
mighty lobby, very resistant to...oh, I won't shoot myself in that foot
right now.

--kyler

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote
>
> Above ground tanks seem to be more common now. I've even seen some
> ringed with containment barriers.

That is a requirement now, for above ground tanks. I think it has to hold
1/2 the contents.
--
Jim in NC