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