Gene Whitt's Lawsuit

Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

Sorry I don't, but out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind an
airport banning freelance CFIs? Other than fuel surcharge we do not
really pay any money to the airport when we take a dual, do we? I
don't understand how the airport stands to lose if I tried to take
flying lessons in my own airplane privately with a CFI.

On Dec 1, 10:21 pm, wrote:
Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

Sorry I don't, but out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind an
airport banning freelance CFIs? Other than fuel surcharge we do not
really pay any money to the airport when we take a dual, do we? I
don't understand how the airport stands to lose if I tried to take
flying lessons in my own airplane privately with a CFI.

They could demand that the instructor must be employed by a bonded and
insured business establishement to avoid lawsuits in case of an
accident. Since many instructors little or no assets, it is possible
that someone could go after the airport for allowing that instructor
to operate there. All of these are stupid reasons, but I can see some
over zealous airport administrator taking such measures.

Ripper wrote:


The airport has to have a functional FBO, at the very least to sell
fuel.


No they don't. It's called self serv.




Most FBO's are struggling to get by. The FBO earns some part of it's
income from flying lessons - so theres a reason for the airport to
support the monopoly FBO.

And that's illegal.



Some airports have tried to ban free lance A&Ps. There's usually an
excuse, like safety, but it's really the same reason.

Also illegal.

I don't see the connection.. the only reason an airport would have to
ban a freelance CFI would be if they somehow miss out on a cut that
they otherwise get from an FBO employed CFI. Of course there could be
liability or even security reasons although they don't make much sense
to me either.

The airport has to have a functional FBO, at the very least to sell
fuel. If there isn't one, keeping an airplane at that airport is MUCH
harder, and there will be fewer airplanes there. With fewer airplanes
there's less reason to have an airport, and more reason for the city
to sell it off to a developer.

Most FBO's are struggling to get by. The FBO earns some part of it's
income from flying lessons - so theres a reason for the airport to
support the monopoly FBO.

Some airports have tried to ban free lance A&Ps. There's usually an
excuse, like safety, but it's really the same reason.

Contact Bill Gunn, a man who teach for the AOPA Instructor Refreshers and
whose job in Texas is to prevent such airport bans. He can supply all the
details of the Federal laws and court cases.
Aviation Education Contact

Texas Division of Aviation

125 E. 11th Street

Austin, TX 78701-2483

512-476-9262

512-479-0294 FAX

Contact: Mr. William Gunn





wrote in message
news | Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
| against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
| there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
| gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:47:38 -0800 (PST), Andrew Sarangan
wrote:

On Dec 1, 10:21 pm, wrote:
Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

Sorry I don't, but out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind an
airport banning freelance CFIs? Other than fuel surcharge we do not
really pay any money to the airport when we take a dual, do we? I
don't understand how the airport stands to lose if I tried to take
flying lessons in my own airplane privately with a CFI.

They could demand that the instructor must be employed by a bonded and
insured business establishement to avoid lawsuits in case of an
accident. Since many instructors little or no assets, it is possible
that someone could go after the airport for allowing that instructor
to operate there. All of these are stupid reasons, but I can see some
over zealous airport administrator taking such measures.



This seems to be the reasoning behind the proposal.. At this time
there is not an FBO operating on the field. The manager (or the city
through the manger) wants to require that all CFI who teach at the
field hold scheduled office hours and maintain office space. A&P's
are allowed to operate on the field unregulated. It seems to me that
any time one of the dozens of student/instructor combos does a touch
and go at the field, they'd be violatingthe rules set by the manager..

The airport manager cannot require freelance CFI's to maintain office space
and hours and not allow the same for A&P.
There has to be provisions with the airport management for "through the
fence" businesses or their share of the FAA Airport funding is in jeopardy.

BT



This seems to be the reasoning behind the proposal.. At this time
there is not an FBO operating on the field. The manager (or the city
through the manger) wants to require that all CFI who teach at the
field hold scheduled office hours and maintain office space. A&P's
are allowed to operate on the field unregulated. It seems to me that
any time one of the dozens of student/instructor combos does a touch
and go at the field, they'd be violatingthe rules set by the manager..

We fought the same battle when the local County Dept of Aviation was trying
to ban "freelance CFIs".. after a few meetings with legal.. this is what
they came up with.
BT
FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS

A person holding a current FAA flight instructor's certificate, who gives
occasional flight instruction and does not advertise or proactively make
available flight instruction and does not advertise or proactively make
available flight instruction to an Aircraft Owner in the Aircraft Owner's
aircraft, shall not be deemed a commercial operator. Additionally in
accordance with County Code as may be amended, the permit requirements of
this section do not apply to the incidental conduct of certain business or
commercial transactions on an irregular and infrequent basis occurring
between persons who are not based at or who are not otherwise operating any
commercial activity from the Airport



wrote in message
news
Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..

That does not meet the Federal standard and is not enforceable. It is too
restrictive with words added to allow the county to require permits and fees
to operate at the federally funded airport.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFII-ASMELI, A&P
BE400/BE1900-BE300
"BT" wrote in message
...
| We fought the same battle when the local County Dept of Aviation was
trying
| to ban "freelance CFIs".. after a few meetings with legal.. this is what
| they came up with.
| BT
| FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS
|
| A person holding a current FAA flight instructor's certificate, who gives
| occasional flight instruction and does not advertise or proactively make
| available flight instruction and does not advertise or proactively make
| available flight instruction to an Aircraft Owner in the Aircraft Owner's
| aircraft, shall not be deemed a commercial operator. Additionally in
| accordance with County Code as may be amended, the permit requirements of
| this section do not apply to the incidental conduct of certain business or
| commercial transactions on an irregular and infrequent basis occurring
| between persons who are not based at or who are not otherwise operating
any
| commercial activity from the Airport
|
|
|
| wrote in message
| news | Anyone have a link to or a copy of the lawsuit Gene Whitt filed
| against the airport that stopped freelance CFI's from operating from
| there. My local airport is attempting the same thing and I'm
| gathering information for the freelance CFI's I know..
|
|