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.

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..

On Dec 2, 6:25 am, DrRobb wrote:

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..- Hide quoted text -

The issue is confusing. Mather Airport in Sacramento also has the same
ban. Any CFI doing business there *MUST* have office space there.
There was an FBO from a nearby airport that wanted to purchase tie
down and allow pilots to rent their planes from Mather (on your honor,
no FBO office there). The airport found out about it and removed them.
This FBO is already fully insured, etc so that wasn't the issue. I
think the issue is keeping office space rented so non-aviation
businesses don't try to move in.

-Robert

Looks like a call to the local FSDO, state attorney general and the
AOPA should be able to clear up this issue.

In my opinion, since the airport is recieving federal funds from the
FAA, the airport manager is in violation. The flight instructor only
needs to meet TSA regulations and not violate any FAR's.

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.

The FBO's typically pay rents and percentage of the take.
They want to protect the FBO who is paying versus the freelancers
who don't.

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.