Gene Whitt's Lawsuit

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..
I'm not sure I understand the scenario here and could use some backup
information. I'm a long time fan of Gene's, but unless I'm missing
something, free lance CFI's operating off an airport have always as far
as I know been an issue for the FBO both from a business standpoint and
from a potential liability standpoint.
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.
I understand these things are quite complicated, but I can definately
see potential issues for a free lance CFI operating commercially from a
field without meeting these conditions.
This having been said, I sincerely hope Gene Whitt can work things out
as he is a fine flight instructor.


--
Dudley Henriques

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

"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

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