Is it typical for an FBO to ask to see evidence of a/c insurance?

Newp's ol bud, you are defending the status quo, and I continue say it
is unreasonable and needs to be changed by force of law...
If the airport requires you to abrogate your insurance to them because
your C-150 sleeps in a hangar there and only flys on weekends, but lets
Joe Hotrod come screaming over the fence in his Stage 1 Lear every
weekend without a penny of abrogated coverage to the airport; I
propose to you that is discriminatory...
And, how about the public roaring into the parking lot in a 4 ton SUV,
with their little darling, Dennis the Hatchet Kid, just rearing to the
demolish everything in sight... Why does not the airport owner demand
named insured status from them before the door locks are popped? They
demand it of you before your airplane is tied down (like little Denny
should be)

The answer is simple, because it hasn't been done before (that I know
of), status quo again... At that point it is discrimination against a
class of people, airplane owners who are hangared on the field versus
airplane owners who use the field without hangaring there... Now it
will take some deep pockets to herd a discrimination suit through the
courts for a decade or so.... Non the less, my gut instinct tells me
that the Appeals and Superior courts are going to take a hard look at
any case where there is blatant discrimination between classes of
airplane owners...

Cheers;

denny

Denny wrote:

Newp's ol bud, you are defending the status quo, and I continue say it
is unreasonable and needs to be changed by force of law...
If the airport requires you to abrogate your insurance to them because
your C-150 sleeps in a hangar there and only flys on weekends, but lets
Joe Hotrod come screaming over the fence in his Stage 1 Lear every
weekend without a penny of abrogated coverage to the airport; I
propose to you that is discriminatory...
And, how about the public roaring into the parking lot in a 4 ton SUV,
with their little darling, Dennis the Hatchet Kid, just rearing to the
demolish everything in sight... Why does not the airport owner demand
named insured status from them before the door locks are popped? They
demand it of you before your airplane is tied down (like little Denny
should be)

The answer is simple, because it hasn't been done before (that I know
of), status quo again... At that point it is discrimination against a
class of people, airplane owners who are hangared on the field versus
airplane owners who use the field without hangaring there... Now it
will take some deep pockets to herd a discrimination suit through the
courts for a decade or so.... Non the less, my gut instinct tells me
that the Appeals and Superior courts are going to take a hard look at
any case where there is blatant discrimination between classes of
airplane owners...

Cheers;

denny


The real result of such a successful legal challenge is likely to be the
elimination and/or curtailment of hangar rentals at the airport in
question, not the airport in quesiton giving up a liability coverage
they have come to rely on.

xyzzy wrote:

The real result of such a successful legal challenge is likely to be the
elimination and/or curtailment of hangar rentals at the airport in
question, not the airport in quesiton giving up a liability coverage
they have come to rely on.

If you seriously think that any airport in this neck of the woods is going to
give up the $450/month or so rent on each of their hangars just because some
judge says they have to go back to dealing with insurance the way they dealt
with it a few years ago, you really have a screw loose.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

If you seriously think that any airport in this neck of the woods is going
to give up the $450/month or so rent on each of their hangars just because
some judge says they have to go back to dealing with insurance the way
they dealt with it a few years ago, you really have a screw loose.

In a city looking to close their airport -- a fairly common situation,
nowadays -- this type of thing would be the perfect excuse to shut it down.

Heck, if this were to happen, I can just imagine our city attorney gleefully
making the announcement that "Due to onerous and burdensome changes in
insurance liability laws, we will no longer be able to provide hangar space
or transient parking at our airport..."

Let's not push this issue, please.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

: If you seriously think that any airport in this neck of the woods is going to
: give up the $450/month or so rent on each of their hangars just because some
: judge says they have to go back to dealing with insurance the way they dealt
: with it a few years ago, you really have a screw loose.

... but with the insanity that has become of liability insurance in the past
(surprisingly few) years, it may *not* make sense.

I'm actually interested in the legalities of the leases that federally-funded
airports use for hangars and tiedowns. Some issues are specifically spelled out
(self-fueling, for instance). Other issues are less clear... like what one is allowed
to do in ones rented hangar. Some places are getting so that you aren't allowed to
keep tools in your own hangar... just an airplane.

Anyway, the whole thing is rather sickening. I figure you should be able to
do whatever the hell you want if you're leasing the space (provided you are not
breaking the law WRT chemical hazzards, fire codes, drug smuggling, etc)...

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

Anyway, the whole thing is rather sickening. I figure you should
be able to
do whatever the hell you want if you're leasing the space (provided you are not
breaking the law WRT chemical hazzards, fire codes, drug smuggling, etc)...

Be careful how you phrase that or more airports will end up like SMO,
where hangars are not available and about 1/3 of the ones on the field
are being used for non-aviation purposes. See Barry Schiff's column in
AOPA pilot last month on this...