That's in there too, but the applicable part is the part that says:

"An aircraft owner, who is entitled to use the landing area of an airport, may tie down,
adjust, repair, refuel, clean, and otherwise service his/her own aircraft, provided the
service is performed by the aircraft owner or his/her employees with resources supplied by
the aircraft owner...."

There's some wishy-washy language about "reasonable rules and standards," about
fueling/maintenance/etc, but they can't prevent you from doing it (if there's a nickel of
federal funding in it). So, they might be able to say, "You have to provide adequate
grounding and fire suppression to refuel, and use DOT-approved containers," but they can't
stop you. The grounding and fire extinguisher is just plain a good idea, anyway.
Grounding isn't optional!

-Cory



TaxSrv wrote:
: There's no FAR per se, but Advisory Circular 150/5190-5. However, it
: says:

: "An airport owner is under no obligation to permit aircraft owners to
: introduce on the airport equipment, personnel or practices which would
: be unsafe, unsightly, detrimental to the public welfare,..."

: This sounds doubtful FAA would do anything, and when FAA ever does
: something to enforce grant assurances, it has to do with protecting
: against waste the money which taxpayers have invested in the airport,
: not the convenience of one or a few airport tenants. You would need to
: consult the FAA office which manages the grants for the airport, which
: usually is not associated with the FSDO.

: There's another growing reality, in that while they'll argue safety,
: monopoly is really at its root. But if there's only one FBO on the
: field, both FAA and the City may feel that survival of the airport
: (and therefore protection of taxpayer investment) could depend upon
: survival of the FBO. Or if there's two FBO's and one fails, then a
: monopoly remains. Our City has to periodically threaten our one FBO
: with lawsuit over routine business matters but not push too hard.
: When the County considered taking over, which would send City fathers
: into orgasm, the first thing they did was put out RFP's for an FBO.
: The only qualified applicant was the present guy; it's still a City
: airport. Welcome to general aviation in the new millennium.

: Fred F.

: "Ben Smith" wrote:
: ...
: I've heard it mentioned here that an airport that receives federal
: funds
: cannot make rules like this, and must designate an area on the
: airport for
: self fueling. Of course, they can require a paid 'self fueling'
: permit, and
: charge a flowage fee. But that's a fair compromise, IMO.
:
: Does anyone have a specific FAR reference that I can print out and
: provide
: to a board member? TIA


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************