FAR Reference - Self Fueling

I was just reading both the land lease, and hangar keeper agreements for the
now City owned Morey Airport. (C29), and they both state:

"The Lessee further agrees not to transport, or cause to be transported,
onto airport premises, gasoline or other flammable fluids for the purpose of
self-fueling aircraft."

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

--
Ben
C-172 - N13258 @ 87Y

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

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$) *
************************************************** ***********************

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ...


This is very incorrect. AC numeration is AC(Applicable FAR)... Thus,
this poster needs to read FAR 150. From what is described here....
the airport is in violation 14 CFR Part 150.


That's not true. The AC numbers mimic but aren't directly mapped
into the FAR parts. The ones that end in zero usually don't, as this
one doesn't . 14 CFR 150 talks about Airport Noise Planning. He most
likely wants to check Part 151, which covers the Federal Aid to Airports.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in
:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:07:35 -0400, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
. ..


This is very incorrect. AC numeration is AC(Applicable FAR)...
Thus, this poster needs to read FAR 150. From what is described
here.... the airport is in violation 14 CFR Part 150.


That's not true. The AC numbers mimic but aren't directly mapped
into the FAR parts. The ones that end in zero usually don't, as this
one doesn't . 14 CFR 150 talks about Airport Noise Planning. He
most likely wants to check Part 151, which covers the Federal Aid to
Airports.

Oops... Your answer is more correct than mine. I believe he does want
FAR 151 instead of 150. Also, there is an FAA Order that directs FAA
field personnel how to handle this matter.... sorry, don't have that
number handy, but I can dig it up, if anyone is interested.

A google of "exclusive aeronautical rights" might yield some useful
information.



http://www.faa.gov/arp/pdf/5190-6a.pdf

Page 11 SPECIFICALLY addresses your situation if the airport recieves, or
has received any federal funds.

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

ET wrote in
:



A google of "exclusive aeronautical rights" might yield some useful
information.



http://www.faa.gov/arp/pdf/5190-6a.pdf

Page 11 SPECIFICALLY addresses your situation if the airport recieves,
or has received any federal funds.


Thought I would add something interesting, the above publicaton
specifically says you must be allow to fuel your own aircraft. It even
goes on to mention mo-gas... It also says the airport owner can charge you
the same "fuel flowage fee" that it charges the fbo, if they do charge
them....



--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Page 11 SPECIFICALLY addresses your situation if the airport recieves,
or has received any federal funds.


Thought I would add something interesting, the above publicaton
specifically says you must be allow to fuel your own aircraft. It even
goes on to mention mo-gas... It also says the airport owner can charge you
the same "fuel flowage fee" that it charges the fbo, if they do charge
them....
--
ET


The "kicker" is, the airport can require you to maintain the same safety
standards for storage, handling and filtering your fuel as they require for
the fbo or other fuel distributor.

BT

"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.

"Gene Kearns" wrote:
The fallacy of this argument is that (1) the FAA is not in the
business of protecting FBOs any more than the aircraft owner's
commercial interests and (2) the tax money is accepted by an airport
authority..... not the FBO.

I agree, but it's not that the FAA seeks to protect the FBO per se,
it's that they may have no choice but to allow the airport
operator/sponsor to write rules which reach an accommodation
satisfactory to all parties. One of FAA's purposes in grant
management is to keep reliever airports open and get full use of
taxpayer money as dictated by Congress. In a case where fuel sales
are judged important enough to dictate survivability of the airport,
I just can't see FAA stepping in to defend the right of tentants to
divert fuel dollars to local gas stations. It's not just the FBO
that's hurt; the City loses on the per-gallon fees.

What would happen in our case, as in the past where the City found its
budgets threatened, is local Congress people intervene to "assist" all
the parties in reaching an accommodation. It's unrealistic to me that
FAA would initiate an action to trigger this process over an issue
such as self-fueling. Their position at the table would be
indefensible, since the cover by their own documents is the fuzzy
definition of "reasonable restrictions."

Tax funds are for the many not
the airport authority and/or the FBO.... thus the laws prohibiting
fraud and good-ole-boy networks.... the federal prohibition against
granting exclusive aeronautical rights.

Except FAA grant money may not be used for airport operations and
maintenance, only capital improvements. Funds to operate come from us
users, plus commonly subsidies by local gov't. There are limits to
the latter that voters will tolerate, leaving only users to foot the
bills.

There's no good ole boy network at my airport; the City and the FBO
don't like each other at all. But the voters are getting fed up with
the airport, and the FBO has this aversion to net operating losses.

Fred F.