"Gene Kearns" wrote:
"Storage and transport of aviation fuel, though not procured for
resale, should be subject to reasonable restrictions and minimum
standards for equipment, location and handling practices."

I think the words "reasonable" and "minimum" are pretty important
in
this context. Another interesting concept might be that there is no
mo-gas on the field at any FBO.


I think this is all theoretical. If an airport operator imposes
restrictions under the cover of safety, but which have the practical
which have the practical effect of banning self-fueling, the chances
of FAA doing anything about it, if not outright taking the side of the
apt operator, are about zero.

We can't expect FAA to take up the cause of a few, small airport
tenants but which jeopardizes an FBO, which can jeopardize survival of
the airport, which then jeopardizes taxpayer funds invested in it. As
an officer in our airport association, I've seen written
correspondence from FAA on related grant enforcement matters. The
last letter in direct response our association, in fact, was
surprising curt in tone, saying in effect, reality is what it is.

In another example at a nearby apt, which requires proof of $10
million bond or insurance, unobtainable by banner-tow operators, this
has the net effect of prohibiting banner towing. There, the FAA
politely told our banner guys...too bad. The issue here is that
cities/counties typically self-insure, and responsible public
officials should not expose taxpayers to the liability. $10 mil
liability protection is not unreasonable these days, but the fact that
nobody will write the coverage is not FAA's problem. A similar
argument can be made wrt to fueling safety requirements.

Fred F.