On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:47:38 -0800 (PST), Andrew Sarangan
wrote:

On Dec 1, 10:21 pm, wrote:
Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

Sorry I don't, but out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind an
airport banning freelance CFIs? Other than fuel surcharge we do not
really pay any money to the airport when we take a dual, do we? I
don't understand how the airport stands to lose if I tried to take
flying lessons in my own airplane privately with a CFI.

They could demand that the instructor must be employed by a bonded and
insured business establishement to avoid lawsuits in case of an
accident. Since many instructors little or no assets, it is possible
that someone could go after the airport for allowing that instructor
to operate there. All of these are stupid reasons, but I can see some
over zealous airport administrator taking such measures.



This seems to be the reasoning behind the proposal.. At this time
there is not an FBO operating on the field. The manager (or the city
through the manger) wants to require that all CFI who teach at the
field hold scheduled office hours and maintain office space. A&P's
are allowed to operate on the field unregulated. It seems to me that
any time one of the dozens of student/instructor combos does a touch
and go at the field, they'd be violatingthe rules set by the manager..