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.