Can the airport ban bicycles?

But it sounds like it is the municipality protecting the federal funding,
right? If the funding was provided with stipulations that the funds be used
for only aviation related activities, then that is being passed on to the
leasors as a restriction.

The problem is with the stipulations of the funding. As one of the "We the
people" I don't mind subsidizing airports and hangars as long as they are
used for aviation related purposes. I also don't mind someone storing their
boat or other non-aviation related stuff in the hangar - as long as it is
also used as a hangar.

But, if someone wants to use the hangar that was built with aviation
subsidies that I provided as merely a storage shed, I gotta a problem with
dat. There are lots of public storage facilities that they can use (and
probably pay more per square foot).

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a CYA move on the owner's part to
restrict any other "vehicles" being "parked" there and the hangar
becoming a "garage" for insurance purposes.

The "owners" are "We the People" -- it's a municipal airport hangar.

I believe the original intent of the clause(s) was to prevent the use
of hangars as non-aircraft storage units. The current commission,
however, is taking a very rigid reading of the lease, and has
announced a ban on ANYTHING not directly related to aviation --
including bicycles, of all things.

Our airport support group, "Friends of Iowa City Airport", is
absolutely abuzz with comments and crossfire, from commissioners and
tenants. It's actually kind of fun, but the ramifications are too
serious to really enjoy it.

Honestly, just when you thought you had seen everything...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Aug 28, 2:43 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
related to aviation.)

Is this legal?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

My airport is specifically renting space in the winter to RV's, boats,
cars, etc. due to low occupancy... Yes, the airport has state and
federal grant money - put in a spanking new ILS a year ago...

denny

Viperdoc wrote:

I use my bike a lot for transportation around the airport. My suggestion
would be to keep bikes and use them. Sometimes the adage about "it is better
to ask for forgiveness than permission" works.

I use my bicycles for serious transportation, including commuting.

Many places post "no bicycles" signs for liability reasons. The usual
reason is that you are violating the rule, should you get in an accident
on their property. The rule is usually only enforced when some kid
starts X-games style rail grinding, or jumping with his BMX, or someone
locks a bike stupidly, like to a fire escape railing, in a damaging
manner, or blocking an emergency exit.

The local strip malls that contain my local grocery store, Staples, Home
Depot, etc... as well as my airport, all have "No Bicycles" posted. I
respectfully lock up by bikes, and ride carefully and not on the
sidewalks, and have never been questioned.

Maxwell wrote:

It's certainly legal, but the question is, what is their intent? Do they
really resent your leaving a car or bicycle behind while you go flying, or
are they just trying to keep the their hangers from becoming clutter barns?

Storing bicycle(s), especially folding, that actually travel in the
plane may be allowed, if requested in a business-like manner.

Some hangars really do become a mess, so I can see a point.

Perhaps you could work to have the wording changed to something like:
"Items not related to aviation or airport activity"?

Folders are aviation related, and a get around or to the field bicycle
is related to airport activity. Other bikes are simply stored
household items.

Jay Honeck writes:

No, they specifically okay that practice in the lease. But bikes,
cars, motorcycles, and anything "non-aeronautical" is banned
(according to their reading of the rules) at all other times -- even
if there is ample room around the aircraft.

In my opinion, this is a gross mis-reading of the FARs, which were put
in place to make sure that airport hangars were not used as cheap
storage units for boats and other non-aircraft.

If they own the land, they can impose lots of additional restrictions well
above and beyond anything in the FARs.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

The airport commission is using this as justification for the ban,
since allowing the hangars to be used to "store" stuff would be a
"change or alteration in the facilities" and put our FAA grant money
at stake.

It's all BS, if you ask me. I think it's a gross mis-reading of the
rule.

Jay, have your A&P place a green tag on the bicycle, indicating it needs
repair, or a red tag, indicating it is unable to be made airworthy. Use this
tag as evidence that it is, in fact, an airplane part, in compliance with
the regulations.

On Aug 28, 4:12 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a CYA move on the owner's part to
restrict any other "vehicles" being "parked" there and the hangar
becoming a "garage" for insurance purposes.

The "owners" are "We the People" -- it's a municipal airport hangar.

I believe the original intent of the clause(s) was to prevent the use
of hangars as non-aircraft storage units. The current commission,
however, is taking a very rigid reading of the lease, and has
announced a ban on ANYTHING not directly related to aviation --
including bicycles, of all things.

Our airport support group, "Friends of Iowa City Airport", is
absolutely abuzz with comments and crossfire, from commissioners and
tenants. It's actually kind of fun, but the ramifications are too
serious to really enjoy it.

Honestly, just when you thought you had seen everything...

Jay,

I see your point with respect to the "we the people" part. However,
that being said, it's like saying the owners of a public company are
the shareholders. Sure they are, but the shareholders (or people)
hire (elect) a management team (commissioners) to run the company
(municipality) on a day to day basis.

Any "insurance reasons" aside, it seems that there is a consensus
about personal storage and protection of grant monies. Neither of
which seem (at least to me) to be that unreasonable. However, to me,
at least, the specification of bicycles could also deal with a more
general term "vehicle." Without having seen any insurance policies
that are applicable to the property, anything else from me is just a
WAG. shrug

Regardless, I don't see why a potential lessee couldn't at least
*attempt* to negotiate bicycles, fridges, or any other item as an
exception to the clause when negotiating the terms of the lease.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:11:17 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote in . com:


The airport commission is using this as justification for the ban,
since allowing the hangars to be used to "store" stuff would be a
"change or alteration in the facilities" and put our FAA grant money
at stake.

While I agree with the notion of using publicly funded aircraft
hangars solely for aviation purposes (not socializing nor domicile nor
non-aviation storage) it would seem that the airport commission is
citing an inapplicable regulation. To get the government's official
position on this bicycle issue, you might contact the local FAA
Regional office, and ask their opinion after you have read the Airport
Layout Plan, and are familiar with the specific language it contains
relating to bicycles.

But, if someone wants to use the hangar that was built with aviation
subsidies that I provided as merely a storage shed, I gotta a problem with
dat. There are lots of public storage facilities that they can use (and
probably pay more per square foot).

Agree 100%. There should be no hangars occupied by "stuff" instead
of an airplane.

However, what our airport commission (one ****ed off commissioner,
more accurately) is insisting is that we cannot keep "stuff" in our
hangars along *with* our airplanes.

This is a huge change, and will destroy what minimal social aspects
our airport has to offer. If we can't keep a fridge full of
refreshments, or a couch, the hangars revert to being nothing but a
tin shack on hot asphalt.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Perhaps you could work to have the wording changed to something like:
"Items not related to aviation or airport activity"?

It already says that. The airport commission is now proposing
interpreting this rule as meaning no non-aviation "stuff" in hangars
even WITH an aircraft inside.

Until now, that clause has been used to prevent people from renting
hangars solely to store "stuff". Now, they're trying to extend it to
apply to tenants who have aircraft properly stored in their hangars --
a HUGE change.

This has all happened because a single commissioner was/is ****ed that
she lost a vote to raise hangar rents sky-high. When she lost the
vote, she announced that "if this rate increase cannot go through than
I will insist that the hangar leases be followed strictly to the
letter of the law, and that regular inspections be made to make sure
that no hangar tenants are improperly using hangars for storage".

It's nothing but a snit from a scorned commissioner, but it could have
long-range (and bad) ramifications for our airport. Our rents are
already much higher than neighboring airports, and GA activity overall
is still way down...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"