Here we go again

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
oups.com...
You also see women walking around nude from
the waste up with their torso airbrushed into a design so that you
don't realize that they're nude initially... That's all fine and dandy
for the younger specimens among them, but when a 60-70+ year old woman
does it, they don't need it airbrushed on them, they need it troweled
on like with stucco... Hey, gravity sucks, ya' know?


Oh, thanks a lot for enlightening us with the latter part of that
image...just before dinner.

Perhaps the AOPA can talk with the City a bit about realistic airport
regulations. And you need to find someone to act as an intermediary
between the two parties....get the FBO cooled down and see what his
viewpoint is. Does it have anything to do with the hangar guys doing
their own maintenance?

You guys forget.. the FBO already has the city managers and the lawyers
ear.. you are way behind the power curve in this. You need to organize into
a pilots committee and then address his issues rather than confront them and
it needed to be done months ago.

The FBO is a business owner and businesses pay taxes... the county or city
do not realize that your purchases from his business is what is paying the
taxes.

Welcome to "city life"

BT

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:17:49 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in ::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:47:29 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
wrote in
::

Boycott the FBO. Buy gas and get maintenance at another field.
Send him an anonymous letter that he's going to be boycotted if
the crap continues.

So you think a campaign of disrespectful intimidation will win the
day? Grow up!

What was suggested is in no way disrespectful or intimidating.

How does what was suggested by Mr. Winslow respect the concerns of the
FBO?

You have a lot to learn about human nature if you actually believe
that threatening the FBO is going to change his mind? It will only
escalate the negative feelings, and galvanize the FBO and others into
feeling justified in taking punitive action against "renegade" pilots.

Did the felling of the WTC towers and threats of future terrorism
cause the US to retreat? Think about it.

More on the order of civil disobedience which is a time honored,
centuries old way of getting a point across.

Without some history of _rational_, face-to-face discourse, the
disobedience you suggest is tantamount to terrorism.

Talk first. Listen to each side of the argument of each issue.
Suggest creative solutions based on mutual compromise. The side who
first resorts to emotional outbursts or forsakes rational thought
loses.

"Roger" wrote in message
...

We are finally reaching the point where pilots are congregating around
a couple areas on the field around and in specific hangars, or several
hangars. Up till a couple years ago the place was dead except on week
ends and after work in warm weather. Now we have a lot of activity
most of the day what with the pilots congregating. They've also
restored a couple planes and purchased another.

These are active pilots who fly a lot. The one couple has flown a new
SR-22 nearly 500 hours since last June when they purchased it new.
The guys in the one hangar are flying at least 30 hours a week (maybe
as much as 50 with three small planes (two tail draggers and a 150)
There are a couple instructors in there as well.
After flying they hang around the hangar, have a couple beers and eat
pop corn.

As one of the Airport advisory members told the city, "this is the
kind of activity we should be encouraging".


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

Sounds like he could learn from my old FBO/Primary CFI.
I listened to him gripe a bit about some of the aforementioned things in the
OP.
I asked what he would do about it, to which he replied "Grin & bear it, I'm
not their parent and they spend money here".

Marty

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 08:27:26 GMT, "Earl Grieda"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .

We have some turf wars going on and it looks like the pilots may be
the losers.



There are 2 sides to every story. Is it possible for the FBO owner to
respond to this post so that reasonable, intelligent questions on this issue
can be presented to both parties by the readers?

I wish it were and I'm sure he, or his family will see or read this,
but he is not noted for open dialog when certain issues or people are
involved.

Me? I've been trying to ride the fence, but you have to remember that
there's splinters in them thar rails.

Without going into detail, which I can't for liability reasons, there
is a history between some of the parties.

Over the past few years we have lost a few airplanes and pilots to
other airports due to the atmosphere. As there has been an increase
in both pilots and airplanes all hangars are still full and that is
the bottom line to which he points.

The City and particularly the Airport Advisory commission is well
aware of the history and has asked for pilot input to the proposed
regulations (and other issues). The unfortunate part is the
involvement of the lawyers who want to fill the regs with all kinds of
CYAs.

Meetings have been scheduled and requests sent to nearly all local
pilots.

There is an ongoing dialog with advisory commission, but you have to
remember they are "advisory" although the city does seem to listen.
Again, they too are aware of the "history" and have been giving input
since day one, even before most of the pilots were aware of the dive
for change.

Most of the proposed regulations appear to make sense at first glance.
Only when you read on and think of the side effects that most do not.
Several of the safety issues do make sense.

As far as people walking to the hangars common sense has to be used.
I have some friends who just meet me at the hangar.

Others, I meet at the terminal building. I would never have a first
timer walk to the hangar or even walk across the ramp unescorted.
I don't know of any local pilots who have a different view of that.

As far as the parking in designated areas, there are no places they
could use except out side the fence and that would mean some very long
walks for many of the pilots. With a bad back I need to park next to
the hangar. The cars really aren't in the way for cutting grass as
most of those pilots use their own mowers and cut the grass in that
area. I used to cut it around the whole string of hangars where I had
my plane, but the snow plow has dug so many divots and broken up
enough concrete that you need a brush hog, which is what the airport
uses for grass cutting. Hence it's not the neatest.

Unfortunately the fuel supply for the snow plow is at the end of the
taxiway where I have the Deb and that gets torn up from them turning
around.

The real down side for this is the confrontational attitudes it's
building between the FBO (who also operates the airport for the city
on contract) and pilots.

Another porposition is to eliminate all open flame heaters. That would
eliminate the big catalytic heater I use and salamanders. It'd also
eliminate about half of the engine preheaters.

Me? I want to be able to warm up the hangar when it's below freezing
in there.

As I said earlier, the city and Advisory Council are well aware of the
history and present atmosphere and the drive could very well backfire
for the one behind it. No mater how it comes out there will be no real
winners.

As to one suggestion in another post, a good third of the pilots
already are purchasing gas at other airports, but part of that is
because it's 20 to 40 cents a gallon cheaper. For me, it'd have to
be a lot cheaper than that to save money except for stopping off when
going right by the other airport. OTOH I've always used a Beech
specialist for my maintenance with only little stuff done on airport.

Many of the pilots are taking their planes to other airports, or
getting some one to work on them in their own hangars.
The way the regulation is presently written and the draft as well say
no one may operate a business open to the general public, but it does
not prohibit working on some one's plane in their own hangar. That
may have been the intent, but it's not what the wording says.

Some blame the FBO for the high fuel price, but that is not his fault
as the city put in small tanks, meaning they can only take about a
half truck load and that raises the price considerably. Then as a
business he has taxes and flowage fees the city wouldn't. So for that
a good part of the blame is with the city. Two nearby airports are
city or county owned and operated and have large tanks so they can get
and sell gas cheaper.

Oh! to one other comment. Yes, we have a number of AIs in addition to
mechanics that are renting hangars at the airport. None are running
an active business except one and he's working out of another airport.
OTOH many of them are taking an active hand in restoration and
building projects. These are things the FBO would not have been
involved in anyway. Some help with conditional inspections and for
those who have puchased homebuilts. The FBO will not work on a home
built whether it has a certified engine or not.

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

Thanks.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:10:16 -0400, Roger
wrote in
::

he is not noted for open dialog when certain issues or people are
involved.

If that can be documented (video recorder?), it could be useful for
you.

May I humbly suggest, that if you don't like the current rules and/or
the proposed new additions/changes, write your own as a suggestion to
the airport owners. Complaining is easy. Stating what you want is a
lot more difficult, but considerably more constructive. Those who
enact the rules will have to supply reasons for denying your
proposals, or grant them.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:34:43 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:10:16 -0400, Roger
wrote in
::

he is not noted for open dialog when certain issues or people are
involved.

If that can be documented (video recorder?), it could be useful for
you.

May I humbly suggest, that if you don't like the current rules and/or
the proposed new additions/changes, write your own as a suggestion to
the airport owners.

It's already being done.

Complaining is easy. Stating what you want is a
lot more difficult, but considerably more constructive. Those who
enact the rules will have to supply reasons for denying your
proposals, or grant them.

No they don't.
They can refuse to even consider them.
However, they did ask for input and they are, or will be receiving it
and in a polite and constructive manner.

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

"Roger" wrote in message ...
The unfortunate part is the involvement of the lawyers
who want to fill the regs with all kinds of CYAs.

OK, the first order of business is to shoot all the lawyers... They're not
pilots are they? If so, oh well -- acceptable collateral damages...

Minnesota prohibits open containers in vehicles. As far as leaving an
establishment with an open container, (e.g. cup or can or beer,) many
(most?) municipalities have ordances against public drinking.

Randy

On 6 Apr 2005 04:30:15 -0700, "
wrote:

Minnesota prohibits open containers in vehicles. As far as leaving an

As does Michigan.

establishment with an open container, (e.g. cup or can or beer,) many
(most?) municipalities have ordances against public drinking.

The hangars are not *presently* considered public facilities.

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

Randy