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.

"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
et...

There are 2 sides to every story.


Not necessarily.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
et...

There are 2 sides to every story.



Not necessarily.



Right, if only one person is involved there is only one side ... unless
the person has multiple personalities. :-)


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Right, if only one person is involved there is only one side ... unless
the person has multiple personalities. :-)


There can be two people involved and still be only one side.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Right, if only one person is involved there is only one side ... unless
the person has multiple personalities. :-)



There can be two people involved and still be only one side.



I'm sure this is theoretically possible, but ask any police officer who
has interviewed multiple witnesses to anything and never do they have
the same perspective (side).

Matt

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 08:27:26 GMT, "Earl Grieda"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .

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



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?

I wish it were and I'm sure he, or his family will see or read this,
but he is not noted for open dialog when certain issues or people are
involved.

Me? I've been trying to ride the fence, but you have to remember that
there's splinters in them thar rails.

Without going into detail, which I can't for liability reasons, there
is a history between some of the parties.

Over the past few years we have lost a few airplanes and pilots to
other airports due to the atmosphere. As there has been an increase
in both pilots and airplanes all hangars are still full and that is
the bottom line to which he points.

The City and particularly the Airport Advisory commission is well
aware of the history and has asked for pilot input to the proposed
regulations (and other issues). The unfortunate part is the
involvement of the lawyers who want to fill the regs with all kinds of
CYAs.

Meetings have been scheduled and requests sent to nearly all local
pilots.

There is an ongoing dialog with advisory commission, but you have to
remember they are "advisory" although the city does seem to listen.
Again, they too are aware of the "history" and have been giving input
since day one, even before most of the pilots were aware of the dive
for change.

Most of the proposed regulations appear to make sense at first glance.
Only when you read on and think of the side effects that most do not.
Several of the safety issues do make sense.

As far as people walking to the hangars common sense has to be used.
I have some friends who just meet me at the hangar.

Others, I meet at the terminal building. I would never have a first
timer walk to the hangar or even walk across the ramp unescorted.
I don't know of any local pilots who have a different view of that.

As far as the parking in designated areas, there are no places they
could use except out side the fence and that would mean some very long
walks for many of the pilots. With a bad back I need to park next to
the hangar. The cars really aren't in the way for cutting grass as
most of those pilots use their own mowers and cut the grass in that
area. I used to cut it around the whole string of hangars where I had
my plane, but the snow plow has dug so many divots and broken up
enough concrete that you need a brush hog, which is what the airport
uses for grass cutting. Hence it's not the neatest.

Unfortunately the fuel supply for the snow plow is at the end of the
taxiway where I have the Deb and that gets torn up from them turning
around.

The real down side for this is the confrontational attitudes it's
building between the FBO (who also operates the airport for the city
on contract) and pilots.

Another porposition is to eliminate all open flame heaters. That would
eliminate the big catalytic heater I use and salamanders. It'd also
eliminate about half of the engine preheaters.

Me? I want to be able to warm up the hangar when it's below freezing
in there.

As I said earlier, the city and Advisory Council are well aware of the
history and present atmosphere and the drive could very well backfire
for the one behind it. No mater how it comes out there will be no real
winners.

As to one suggestion in another post, a good third of the pilots
already are purchasing gas at other airports, but part of that is
because it's 20 to 40 cents a gallon cheaper. For me, it'd have to
be a lot cheaper than that to save money except for stopping off when
going right by the other airport. OTOH I've always used a Beech
specialist for my maintenance with only little stuff done on airport.

Many of the pilots are taking their planes to other airports, or
getting some one to work on them in their own hangars.
The way the regulation is presently written and the draft as well say
no one may operate a business open to the general public, but it does
not prohibit working on some one's plane in their own hangar. That
may have been the intent, but it's not what the wording says.

Some blame the FBO for the high fuel price, but that is not his fault
as the city put in small tanks, meaning they can only take about a
half truck load and that raises the price considerably. Then as a
business he has taxes and flowage fees the city wouldn't. So for that
a good part of the blame is with the city. Two nearby airports are
city or county owned and operated and have large tanks so they can get
and sell gas cheaper.

Oh! to one other comment. Yes, we have a number of AIs in addition to
mechanics that are renting hangars at the airport. None are running
an active business except one and he's working out of another airport.
OTOH many of them are taking an active hand in restoration and
building projects. These are things the FBO would not have been
involved in anyway. Some help with conditional inspections and for
those who have puchased homebuilts. The FBO will not work on a home
built whether it has a certified engine or not.

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

Thanks.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:10:16 -0400, Roger
wrote in
::

he is not noted for open dialog when certain issues or people are
involved.

If that can be documented (video recorder?), it could be useful for
you.

May I humbly suggest, that if you don't like the current rules and/or
the proposed new additions/changes, write your own as a suggestion to
the airport owners. Complaining is easy. Stating what you want is a
lot more difficult, but considerably more constructive. Those who
enact the rules will have to supply reasons for denying your
proposals, or grant them.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:34:43 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:10:16 -0400, Roger
wrote in
::

he is not noted for open dialog when certain issues or people are
involved.

If that can be documented (video recorder?), it could be useful for
you.

May I humbly suggest, that if you don't like the current rules and/or
the proposed new additions/changes, write your own as a suggestion to
the airport owners.

It's already being done.

Complaining is easy. Stating what you want is a
lot more difficult, but considerably more constructive. Those who
enact the rules will have to supply reasons for denying your
proposals, or grant them.

No they don't.
They can refuse to even consider them.
However, they did ask for input and they are, or will be receiving it
and in a polite and constructive manner.

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

"Roger" wrote in message ...
The unfortunate part is the involvement of the lawyers
who want to fill the regs with all kinds of CYAs.

OK, the first order of business is to shoot all the lawyers... They're not
pilots are they? If so, oh well -- acceptable collateral damages...