Here we go again

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

First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
present.

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".

Basically they know every one on the field.
As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..

The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.

He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.

Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
he's feuding with?

There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)

They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.

Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
emergency landings, or real soft field landings.

This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.

There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
operations.

He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
every possible legal alternative.

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

"Roger" wrote in message
...

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

First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
present.

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.
..............................snip

The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.

He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.

......snip

He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
every possible legal alternative.

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

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?

Thanks.

First thing I'd do is I'd jam his unicom... he he he.

Seriously, fine-tooth-comb every thing about the FBO and make it difficult
for him to conduct business. Isn't there a lawyer among you?

Care to give us details for a letter-writing campaign? E-mails, tel no's fax
no's for the city and FBO?



"Roger" wrote in message
...

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

First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
present.

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".

Basically they know every one on the field.
As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..

The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.

He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.

Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
he's feuding with?

There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)

They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.

Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
emergency landings, or real soft field landings.

This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.

There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
operations.

He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
every possible legal alternative.

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

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.


"Roger" wrote in message
...

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

First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
present.

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".

Basically they know every one on the field.
As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..

The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.

He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.

Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
he's feuding with?

There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)

They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.

Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
emergency landings, or real soft field landings.

This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.

There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
operations.

He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
every possible legal alternative.

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

"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
et...

There are 2 sides to every story.


Not necessarily.

No. Anonymous letters are a coward's way of communicating. Please
talk to him face-to-face and give him your card so he knows who is
speaking to him.


OtisWinslow wrote:
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.


"Roger" wrote in message
...

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

First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
present.

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".

Basically they know every one on the field.
As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..

The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.

He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.

Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
he's feuding with?

There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)

They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.

Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
emergency landings, or real soft field landings.

This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.

There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
operations.

He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
every possible legal alternative.

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

Sometimes.

In this case I'd call it smart. This FBO is liable to retaliate given the
actions they've taken already. I certainly wouldn't call attention to
myself given his previous behavior. If he had real problems he
was dealing with and was working with the tenants to resolve them
then it would be different.



"William W. Plummer" wrote in message
...
No. Anonymous letters are a coward's way of communicating. Please talk
to him face-to-face and give him your card so he knows who is speaking to
him.


OtisWinslow wrote:
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.


"Roger" wrote in message
...

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

First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
present.

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".

Basically they know every one on the field.
As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..

The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
parking on the field around the hangers. Actually, he has a feud
going with a couple guys in the one hangar and classes any one else
over there as being with them and against them. The cars do not
impede aircraft movements. No one drinks and flys.

He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.

Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
he's feuding with?

There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)

They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas, No
alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
trucks) Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
times. I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.
Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.

Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
emergency landings, or real soft field landings.

This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe) Good
thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.

There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
operations.

He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
of CYA ignorance and trying to pretend they have a big airport.
Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
every possible legal alternative.

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

See if you can get some help from AOPA.

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 03:26:24 -0400, Roger
wrote in
::


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

Which pilots, all the pilots using the airport or a minority or
majority of them?

First: we have a small airport with two runways 18/36 at 3000' X 75
and 06/24 at 3800' X 75. No scheduled flights or even charters at
present.

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.

So there's an A&E among the pilots?

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.

That is a lot. Do they purchase the bulk of the fuel they consume
from the FBO?

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)

1,500 to 2,600 hours annually is a substantial number hours. How many
pilots are there in that other hanger?

There are a couple instructors in there as well.

Are they actively instructing on the field? Are they perceived as
siphoning instruction business away from the FBO?

After flying they hang around the hangar, have a couple beers and eat
pop corn.

While I have observed such activity occurring at uncontrolled fields
in the past, and the individuals seemed to conduct themselves in a
reasonably mature, orderly and low key manner, it was, in truth,
drinking in public view. That's generally a citable offence.

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

Were the Airport Advisory members specifically referring to the
consumption of alcoholic beverages on public property, or the rest of
the activities you described above?

Basically they know every one on the field.
As the AOPA says, they are our best security as they'd instantly
recognize, or rather not recognize any one not normally there..

Have you ever observed those pilots challenge anyone on the field?

The FBO has taken exception to this. He does not like the pilots
parking on the field around the hangers.

Airports are for airplanes; they are not parking lots. It's difficult
to argue with that. Is it likely, that this is a tangible "offence,"
that the FBO is attempting to use as a lever to bolster his irrational
consternation?

Actually, he has a feud going with a couple guys in the one hangar
and classes any one else over there as being with them and against them [sic].

What is the nature of the feud, hostile or friendly? Is the FBO's
gripe limited to the parking issue alone, or ...? Have the "couple of
guys" attempted to sincerely and respectfully reconcile the FBO's
complaints, or do they find it fun to playfully taunt and incite him?
Just because the FBO may be acting irrationally, that doesn't give the
targets of his wrath license to behave similarly or worse. They
should respectfully confront him privately in a reasonable and civil
manner; the solution lies in rational communication.

The cars do not impede aircraft movements.

Ever? Would a policy of unlimited car parking on the airport movement
areas be an asset to security, safety? Don't parked cars on the
airport pose the same hazard of children darting out from behind them
as they do when parked on the road?

No one drinks and flys.

I take it you are a member of the drinking pilots group, or how could
by be so sure of that fact?

Despite adhering to the FAA regulation prohibiting flying within 8
hours of consumption of intoxicating spirits, surely you are aware
that there are other issues involved with drinking in public.

He has bent the city's ear to the point they have a draft of new
regulations, but at least are asking for pilot input.

We are all fellow pilots. We should conduct ourselves respectfully as
fellows, not adversaries. The FBO and the "offending" pilots should
arrange to have a private meeting to air their differences in a civil
and rational manner. Once specific complaints have been established
by both sides, compromises should be suggested in a spirit of
camaraderie and good will. Sicing the "authorities" on fellow pilots
without attempting to privately resolve the issues is cowardly and
ignoble. We airmen are better than that.

I suspect the FBO has been acting as the on-site airport "authority"
in residence in the past, and now sees that assumed authority
challenged, and may actually view the "offending" pilots as
detrimental to his business for a number of reasons. Whether there
are grounds for that attitude or not is the true question, in my
opinion.

Did I mention a couple of the guys in there are mechanics? The ones
he's feuding with?

Are they providing services to aircraft owners on the field? Are they
siphoning mechanic business away from the FBO?

There is another group on the other side of the field but he can't see
them from his hangar and isn't feuding with any of them (at present)

Are the members of that group also flying a lot of hours, parking
their cars around the hangars, drinking on the field, and do they also
possess mechanic and instructor certificates?

They do not want any cars on the field except when the pilots go to
their specific hangar. Parking will be in designated areas,

I would think it acceptable to park one's car _in_ his hangar while he
is flying the aircraft he has hangared at the airport. Other than
that, the proposed policy seems oriented to future airport growth.

No alcohol on the filed (zero tolerance meaning none even in cars or
trucks)

That proposal seems a bit draconian. What if a pilot or one of his
passengers wants to bring some wine to the folks he is visiting for
Thanksgiving? That wouldn't be possible under such an ordinance as
you cite. Prohibiting _open_ _containers_ of alcoholic beverages on
the airport might be more reasonable. Open containers are likely
already prohibited in the cabin of motor vehicles on public
property/roads.

Cars will require a permit be displayed in the window at all
times.

I presume that the intent of this proposed policy is to limit the
number of cars that have access to airport movement areas, but it
could also be used to identify "strange" vehicles for security
purposes. How would these permits be allocated, one per hangar? What
are the requirements for acquiring these proposed vehicle permits?

I have a bad back and need to park right by the hangar.

Would you object to parking _within_ your hangar?

Your wife and kids, or friends will need to be escorted in to your
hanger, or be escorted out to the plane after you taxi to the ramp.

That proposed policy is consistent with those in force at larger
airports, and may be prudent in light of current security concerns and
growth you cite. What would be _your_ preference for a policy
governing public access to airport movement areas? Do you feel that
unlimited access for all is appropriate?

Landings will be on runways only. No grass and no taxiways. This
kinda puts a crimp in tail draggers on windy days, or practicing
emergency landings, or real soft field landings.

This came about when a tail dragger practicing emergency procedure
landed on a taxiway. (Some of the help doesn't recognize safe and
unsafe operations. If it's different, then it must be unsafe)

Are those to whom you refer as "help" employed by the municipality
operating the airport or the FBO?

Do such relatively unorthodox landing practices as you describe in
fact place aircraft in closer proximity to people or structures than
landings on runways? If so, does that reduce safety margins?

Good thing they weren't watching when I did an engine out and over shot the
turn to the runway while still 20 feet in the air.. It was safe, but
would probably have scared the crap out of the one individual.

Would the individual to whom you refer be the FBO?

There's much more, but the changes run about 5 pages not counting
another set for ultra lights and another set for "parachute"
operations.

It's human nature to oppose change, and that is exacerbate as we age.
I would humbly suggest, that the pilots embrace the fact that changes
will occur, and attempt to steer that change toward policies they can
accept through respectful discussion and creative and constructive
input to those drafting the changes in airport policy.

He's been bending enough ears that the city is doing a lot of this out
of CYA ignorance

In today's litigious climate in the US and the evolving security
issues, such CYA legislation is rampant. The best way to address
excessive restrictions is with reason. Reasonable arguments have a
chance of success. Emotional arguments only lead to escalation and
hostility.

and trying to pretend they have a big airport.

As you have stated, the airport activity has grown substantially. It
may not yet be a big airport, but it's beginning to have the same
issues.

Once they got the city attorney involved they are trying to cover
every possible legal alternative.

That is unfortunate. I can understand how that might be repugnant.
It's far better, in my opinion, if fellow pilots are able to confront
their difference privately amongst themselves, and air their issues
with an eye toward resolution rather than winning and losing.

The FBO's concern may reasonably stem from perceived competition with
the mechanic and flight training services he provides under oversight
and regulation of the FAA, that probably only marginally enable him to
remain in business at all. Emotionally, he may see his historic
"power" and "authority" being eroded by "unregulated" newcomers. If
the pilots are able to (privately) assuage his concerns for the
former, and get him to face the realities of the latter, there is a
possibility all will be able to "just get along."

But finding a rational reason to permit open consumption of
intoxicating liquor on public property is probably not possible.
After all, an airport is not a tavern. The civil authorities have
retained unto themselves the power and responsibility to license
taverns. And given the public perception of airline captains/crew
regularly reporting for duty under-the-influence as is frequently
reported in the news media, pilots publicly consuming intoxicating
spirits on public property is probably doing a disservice to the
reputation of our fellows.

If the pilots are able to establish themselves as an asset to the
airport and the community at large, they will be perceived more
favorably also. Perhaps they could consider organizing constructive
aviation related activities that are of public benefit, such as free
sightseeing flights on Sunday afternoons, pancake breakfasts to lure
the public out, drafting FAA grant proposals for funding needed
airport improvements, creating a fund drive for erecting perimeter
fencing, donating time as a group toward community service activities
like "policing" the airport grounds or even non aviation related
services, or ...

I've played devil's advocate here a bit to prepare you for the
arguments likely to be presented by those opposing the activities you
describe. I hope you find my comments respectful and helpful.

My 2¢

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!