Gene Whitt's Lawsuit

On Dec 7, 10:24 am, Angelo Campanella
wrote:
wrote:
Hello everyone on this board. Thanks your support of general aviation.
Here are some details. I am a CFI trying to offer instruction at the
Sand Springs Oklahome William Pogue Municipal Airport.

The terms of your offer need to be clarified.

If you are running advertisements to the effect that you or your
"enterprise" is to offer flight instruction to the public, then I can
see why the airport manager would get nervous since the airport is
implied as being party to it.

If you met one or more private individuals owning aircraft that want
your instructional service, then you can have a private agreement, in my
opinion, to provide him/her with instructions as long as FAA 61/91 are
adhered to.

It gets more tricky if you have an aircraft based at that field and you
offer primiary instruction in it to individuals and student pilots,
since it invariably comes to student pilots taking off solo from and
landing at that airport, when you, the instructotor must be availble,
and ther is some risk extant.

I have been
informed by Ken, the "Airport manager, Attendant" that I may not
provide CFI services. I have contacted the FAA, and a gentleman in
Austin Texas and countless peers who all side with me on the issue.
The airport attendant, Ken has provided me with several pages of
"minimum Standards," which are unreasonable to say the least. The
standards require me to rent space, build a building, a parking lot,
with bathrooms and public phones and classrooms. All of this- save
for handicap access and insurance, two plane and pavement to the
runway!!!... CLEARLY not in a CFI's budget.

This means the manager is offering the opportunity for you to set up a
formal flight school, which could be feasible, or it could be absurd
depending on your intentions and resources.

I will fight this battle with all of your support and for general
aviation.
If anyone would like to come out for a flying lesson at Sand Springs,
Oklahoma, just bring lunch money and gas money and I'll show you what
I am dealing with. My tel number is 918.271.1099 Best Regards, Homer
Woolslayer, Equinox Instruction

Sounds like you have an airplane, and have established an "enterprise".

Perhaps tere is middle ground. But the insurance companies always end
up being the spoilers in such situations since they want to reduce THEIR
risk to zero.

Good luck.

Angelo Campanella

Hello, it is Homer the instructor with the C-150 at Sand Springs,
William Pogue Airport.
The fact is, they have verbally and in writing informed me that to
"operate" I must lease land, build a building, provide restrooms and
public phones, provide for classroom space, provide a minimum of two
planes, one with 4 seats and for IFR, they even provide demensions of
the parking lot I must provide and the taxiway to the runway I must
provide. Make no mistake, and with respect, the "minimum standards"
are not reasonable. In addition there is a considerable amount of
training traffic in and out of the airport, but from the sky and from
the other flight schools around Tulsa. Also remember that many smart
aircraft owners have planes owned by separate corporations for tax and
accounting purposes, and that from time to time, many people have
business at their local airport. What business is it of the City of
sand Springs, if I operate my plane within the rules of the FAA?
Please understand, I am not having drunkin go-cart races between the
empty tiedown spaces. I am administering Dual Flight Instruction!
The FAA FSDO, Bob Newell is very careful when he tells me that the
verbiage in the "Grant Assurance Clause" will have all of the answers
I need. he implied that I do not have a case. The problem is, he
also told me that he could not get me a copy of that document and that
I'd have to get it from Sand Springs. In essence, and according to
Bob Newell at the Oklahoma FSDO, the FAA is telling me that I am on my
own.
I hope that anyone reading this message board understands that this is
not about me. This is about you and your tax dollars being used to
build hundreds of beautiful airports all over the country that you in
fact are not welcome to use.
I have legal representation, and god willing I'll have the finances to
fight this. In the mean time, be careful if you get your plane worked
on, or your flight review performed at Sand Springs, William Pogue
Airport- it might not be legal...hehehehe
I wonder if it would be legal to get a blow-up doll, dress it as a
Spartan Student and teach it how to fly for free, all day every day at
the sand Springs William Pogue airport, just a thought...
Regards, Homer Woolslayer
I

Both of these positions are valid objections. The FBO or the airport
authority or whoever or whatever is responsible to the insurance company
covering liability for the airport not only has an inherent right, but a
responsibility to insure that anyone conducting a business operating
from the property has been duly cleared to do so by the insurance
covering the airport.

Doesn't make much sense to me, does this also mean that a CFI
operating out of another airport cannot come to this particular
airport and give instruction in the pattern for example? A CFI could
easily fly into this airport with a student and give dual instruction
from scratch. Would that be banned also? Would this airport also ban a
student from flying solo into this airport for liability reasons? Any
number of unknown people can fly in and taxi around the airport every
day and to pick on flight instruction for "liability reasons" which is
also supposedly the safest form of flying activity is bizarre.

wrote:
Both of these positions are valid objections. The FBO or the airport
authority or whoever or whatever is responsible to the insurance company
covering liability for the airport not only has an inherent right, but a
responsibility to insure that anyone conducting a business operating
from the property has been duly cleared to do so by the insurance
covering the airport.

Doesn't make much sense to me, does this also mean that a CFI
operating out of another airport cannot come to this particular
airport and give instruction in the pattern for example? A CFI could
easily fly into this airport with a student and give dual instruction
from scratch. Would that be banned also? Would this airport also ban a
student from flying solo into this airport for liability reasons? Any
number of unknown people can fly in and taxi around the airport every
day and to pick on flight instruction for "liability reasons" which is
also supposedly the safest form of flying activity is bizarre.

What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
as they operate the airport under present law.
The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
covers these situations.
The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
to do with the issue.

--
Dudley Henriques

Ok, its not logical to me but if that is the way it is then that's
what it is! I can understand private airports not allowing anybody
to operate due to liability reasons but a public airport allowing
unknown strangers to operate freely if they are based elsewhere but at
the same time not allowing the same operations if they originate from
the same airport strikes me as a bit weird.


What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
as they operate the airport under present law.
The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
covers these situations.
The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
to do with the issue.

--
Dudley Henriques

OK, this hits me a lot like me trying to open a HotDog stand on property not
belonging to me (public or private). The original premise I read as "I have
a plane or two which I want to give instruction in and rent out to a limited
group". This seems like a commercial venture which is usually regulated in
some form by numberous affected parties. Ceaser wants his share.

Also, many airport authorities give one or more FBO franchises with very
strict requirements (like requiring "money losing" flight training, and
marginally cost effective A&P service, all in order to rake in the very
profitable jet fuel sales). I know one FBO that practically gives an A&P
rent free hanger hanger space, just so they can meet the contract minimums
with the State.

Anyway, you need to find a way to stay further under the radar. Don't flaunt
your actions at those people who are trying to operate the same type of
business under the yoke of local ordinances. Especially if your activity may
actually put them out of business.


wrote in message...
Ok, its not logical to me but if that is the way it is then that's
what it is! I can understand private airports not allowing anybody
to operate due to liability reasons but a public airport allowing
unknown strangers to operate freely if they are based elsewhere but at
the same time not allowing the same operations if they originate from
the same airport strikes me as a bit weird.


What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
as they operate the airport under present law.
The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
covers these situations.
The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
to do with the issue.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, "Mike Isaksen" wrote:
OK, this hits me a lot like me trying to open a HotDog stand on property not
belonging to me (public or private). The original premise I read as "I have
a plane or two which I want to give instruction in and rent out to a limited
group". This seems like a commercial venture which is usually regulated in
some form by numberous affected parties. Ceaser wants his share.

Also, many airport authorities give one or more FBO franchises with very
strict requirements (like requiring "money losing" flight training, and
marginally cost effective A&P service, all in order to rake in the very
profitable jet fuel sales). I know one FBO that practically gives an A&P
rent free hanger hanger space, just so they can meet the contract minimums
with the State.

Anyway, you need to find a way to stay further under the radar. Don't flaunt
your actions at those people who are trying to operate the same type of
business under the yoke of local ordinances. Especially if your activity may
actually put them out of business.



wrote in message...
Ok, its not logical to me but if that is the way it is then that's
what it is! I can understand private airports not allowing anybody
to operate due to liability reasons but a public airport allowing
unknown strangers to operate freely if they are based elsewhere but at
the same time not allowing the same operations if they originate from
the same airport strikes me as a bit weird.

What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
as they operate the airport under present law.
The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
covers these situations.
The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
to do with the issue.

--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks. As to the hotdog Stand, I just have a 150 in a tiedown.
There is no other flight instruction offered at the airport!
I am sure bc of this. Really just a plane in a tiedown. It has not
moved other than to fly since I bought it, it was already there.
Defend yourselves on this, it is your airport! Trust me, I am getting
done with aviation. Can you see why?
Homer

On Dec 8, 4:32 pm, wrote:
Ok, its not logical to me but if that is the way it is then that's
what it is! I can understand private airports not allowing anybody
to operate due to liability reasons but a public airport allowing
unknown strangers to operate freely if they are based elsewhere but at
the same time not allowing the same operations if they originate from
the same airport strikes me as a bit weird.





What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
as they operate the airport under present law.
The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
covers these situations.
The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
to do with the issue.

--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you are exactly right.
They are not consistant or reasonable.
If they are not illeagal then washington will be notified and the
rules will be changed.
I guess J. Inhofe can't get his BFR done at the Sand Spring William
Pogue Airport, it would be illeagal!
Good job, guys, defend YOUR rights.
Homer

On Dec 8, 4:32 pm, wrote:
Ok, its not logical to me but if that is the way it is then that's
what it is! I can understand private airports not allowing anybody
to operate due to liability reasons but a public airport allowing
unknown strangers to operate freely if they are based elsewhere but at
the same time not allowing the same operations if they originate from
the same airport strikes me as a bit weird.





What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
as they operate the airport under present law.
The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
covers these situations.
The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
to do with the issue.

--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very wierd

"Mike Isaksen" wrote in message
news:snI6j.4828$3s1.2899@trnddc06...
OK, this hits me a lot like me trying to open a HotDog stand on property
not belonging to me (public or private). The original premise I read as "I
have a plane or two which I want to give instruction in and rent out to a
limited group". This seems like a commercial venture which is usually
regulated in some form by numberous affected parties. Ceaser wants his
share.

Also, many airport authorities give one or more FBO franchises with very
strict requirements (like requiring "money losing" flight training, and
marginally cost effective A&P service, all in order to rake in the very
profitable jet fuel sales). I know one FBO that practically gives an A&P
rent free hanger hanger space, just so they can meet the contract minimums
with the State.

Anyway, you need to find a way to stay further under the radar. Don't
flaunt your actions at those people who are trying to operate the same
type of business under the yoke of local ordinances. Especially if your
activity may actually put them out of business.


Apparently Ceaser doesn't want his share, Ceaser doesn't want it to happen.
This is the third most prominent airport in the Tulsa metro area, and they
haven't offered aircraft rental or flight instruction for something like the
last 20 years now. Further it is maintained my municipal funds, and appears
to have had a LOT of federal money spent on it lately. But apparently anyone
that doesn't OWN an aircraft is not welcome.

It appears Mr. Woolslayer is a local tax paying citizen, who has bought a
150 already hangered or tied down there, and would like to give instruction
originating at the location. Something most small airports would welcome,
and would help promote GA in the Sand Springs area as well. Note that
several area flight schools use the facility every day, but all fly in,
shoot landings for an hour or so, and fly out without stopping. The only
thing they are stopping, is people driving in the front gate to use the
airport for instruction and rental.

But it seems to me a small number of aircraft owners conspire to keep the
facility some kind of private social club for aircraft OWNERS only. It will
be intresting to see what happens. The airport is indeed a local gem.

On Dec 9, 10:15 am, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Mike Isaksen" wrote in message

news:snI6j.4828$3s1.2899@trnddc06...





OK, this hits me a lot like me trying to open a HotDog stand on property
not belonging to me (public or private). The original premise I read as "I
have a plane or two which I want to give instruction in and rent out to a
limited group". This seems like a commercial venture which is usually
regulated in some form by numberous affected parties. Ceaser wants his
share.

Also, many airport authorities give one or more FBO franchises with very
strict requirements (like requiring "money losing" flight training, and
marginally cost effective A&P service, all in order to rake in the very
profitable jet fuel sales). I know one FBO that practically gives an A&P
rent free hanger hanger space, just so they can meet the contract minimums
with the State.

Anyway, you need to find a way to stay further under the radar. Don't
flaunt your actions at those people who are trying to operate the same
type of business under the yoke of local ordinances. Especially if your
activity may actually put them out of business.

Apparently Ceaser doesn't want his share, Ceaser doesn't want it to happen.
This is the third most prominent airport in the Tulsa metro area, and they
haven't offered aircraft rental or flight instruction for something like the
last 20 years now. Further it is maintained my municipal funds, and appears
to have had a LOT of federal money spent on it lately. But apparently anyone
that doesn't OWN an aircraft is not welcome.

It appears Mr. Woolslayer is a local tax paying citizen, who has bought a
150 already hangered or tied down there, and would like to give instruction
originating at the location. Something most small airports would welcome,
and would help promote GA in the Sand Springs area as well. Note that
several area flight schools use the facility every day, but all fly in,
shoot landings for an hour or so, and fly out without stopping. The only
thing they are stopping, is people driving in the front gate to use the
airport for instruction and rental.

But it seems to me a small number of aircraft owners conspire to keep the
facility some kind of private social club for aircraft OWNERS only. It will
be intresting to see what happens. The airport is indeed a local gem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is light at the end of the tunnel!
We have found lots of material that supports the tax payers and their
right to use the airport.
That's all for now.
Homer