What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RE: Legal Help ... SGU ???

F

fstringham7a

Well Known Member
RE: Legal Help ... SGU ???

Need help form all Vans Airforce legal minds (jail house lawyers, hanging judges, ........)

Our fair (?) City is building a new replacement airport. Recently the Draft proposed regs have been put forward. There are a number items in the proposal that makes me think aircraft building will be impossible at this new airport IF this proposal is accepted in it's current condition.

http://www.sgcity.org/airport/pdf/RulesAndRegulations7-08draft.pdf

What say you?

Frank @ 1L8 ...RV7A...paint/stuff
 
Are you a member of EAA, and AOPA????

Both have legal depts that can probably help.

Good luck.
 
One more thought---------it aint an aircraft until it is signed off. Just a bunch of parts.

Sec E, #4 seems to be the main stumbling block in the contract, but it refers to aircraft. Not a bunch of parts.
 
Frank,

A quick read supports your concerns that aircraft building in a hangar at the airport may be problematic. Section G.2.c and E.4 seem to give me the greatest concern. Not only do these provisions possibly prohibit aircraft construction, they also seem to prohibit a owner with a repairman certificate from performing maintance on his or her own aircraft.

I would contact EAA's legal department, as overly broad regulations such as these often result in the unintended and harmful consequences cited above (atleast I hope these are unintended). Otherwise, as these are only a draft, I recommend voicing your conern at the next city council or airport comission meeting.

Good luck, as this is something that needs to be addressed soon before a hangar tenant gets burned for trying to build.

Mike, I think that is a crafty argument to say they are just parts, but not probably one you want to test. You may also run into issues with Section G.2.i, storage of of non-aeronautic equipment or materials if you say that what you have in there is not an aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Keith, the parts for a plane are definitely aeronautic-----just not a plane.

I would bet the clause, G 2 i, is referring to cars, tractors, boats, household junk etc.

Still, better to be proactive than reactive on this for sure.
 
I would call AOPA and/or EAA. I always keep the doors closed when working on my airplane, nope, not doing anything illegal. I just hate it when I have snoopers. That and I don't have to explain myself to NO ONE.
 
It worked for me

The "pile-of-parts vs an aircraft on Jan/1/08" argument was enough to hold off the tax man until 2009. However, I would get the EAA/AOPA legal guys involved before it's too late.

Steve
 
The good news in the proposed regs is that they've prohibited fist fights and brawls:

4. No major aircraft maintenance or altercation will be permitted in any private aircraft hangar. Minor general maintenance such as oil changes or repairs
on personal aircraft is permitted.
Click to expand...

On a more serious note, let's think who generated these regs:
  1. Local fire department. They don't want lots of oil, grease, and fuel in each hangar. See if you can talk to them about their concerns and what they can work with.
  2. Local FBO. Does the airport now have an FBO that does repairs? If so, E.4. is probably to protect their business and keep out the drive-by A&Ps. You might talk to the FBO to see if additional wording to E.4. to allow homebuilding and maintenance of experimental aircraft is OK with them. I'm sure they won't object to experimental work done.
  3. City Attorney. They want to minimize liability from people doing work and injuring themselves, getting paid to do work in what should be non-business hangars, and so forth. Talk to the city legal staff to see what their concerns are.

You've got some work ahead of you, but it's doable. Are there like-minded people? Form an Airport Support Group like we did at our airport, Friends of University Airport. I wouldn't start with the elected officials or even city department chiefs (exception: airport manager), they'll just go into defensive mode. Start ASAP organizing in a non-threatening way and getting to know the proper people.
 
I am not a legal mind, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn before. :p

I would be interested in knowing what the motivation behind not allowing any maintenance to transpire in the hangars is based on. It seems there is some underlying reason for these restrictions. Is it a safety issue they are concerned with? Is it an economic one? I would hate to think it is for the sole purpose of allowing for some monopolistic FBO maintenance facility at the airport. Why would an airport restrict an owner from doing work on his own airplane?

The storage of hazardous materials and the statements about fueling would be sticky points for me also. Basically they are saying the only way you can get fuel in an aircraft at that airport is to buy it from the FBO. So what if you have a powered parachute with a two stroke that needs auto fuel and pre-mixed oil? Are they going to not allow fueling of this aircraft?

Flying is built around notions of freedom. Most pilots fly because of the freedoms they have in doing so. Now we have governing entities who are forcing such restrictive measures on the actual location where we can fly such that there are fewer and fewer opportunities to enjoy such freedoms.
 
Salt Lake #2, is mostly along those lines too. Although I have not read all the whys and wherefores lately. However, airplane construction in hangars is out. And the same goes for heaters such as propane or diesel in the winter; as it's a big no. Nobody has complained about mounting wings on an RV yet, as long as they're completed somewhere else.
And the NO painting rule is the same ...... too.

Skypark is the place for airplane construction, because so many hangars are privately owned.

L.Adamson --- RV6A U42 (Salt Lake #2)
 
Section G.1.b: Refueling or defueling of any aircraft is prohibited in any hangar.

Could also be a problem. Remember you are going to have to calibrate your fuel guages and do a fuel flow test. What are you to do with the fuel you drain out during this process, dump it on the ramp?

Sounds like they are building a fortress rather than an airport. Sounds like a real sterile environment. :(
 
We had a similar problem at the Twin Falls airport when they decided to redo the leases and general operation of the airport. We organized a hanger owners group and participated in the whole process and headed off a lot of problems that would have come up if left to the city and airport manager. We have members of the hanger group on the airport board and also a couple of us attend all of the airport board meetings and city council meetings that involve the airport. It looks like you might be a little late as they already have the regs drafted. Get a hanger owners group together ASAP and start making some noise. The only thing politicians listen to is numbers. Don
 
I've been pro-active about my airport for a long time, including lease discussions for the city-owned t-hangars. Put another way, I sat down with the city attorney, the fire chief, and the city council to discuss the same rules. It may help to understand why they appear in almost any model lease circulating these days.

2. The following is prohibited in aircraft storage hangars:

a. Starting or taxiing an aircraft - Our aircraft owners support this provision; in standard t-hangars, cranking indoors blows huge amounts of dirt in adjecent hangars.

b. Refueling of any aircraft - The concern is fire. Fueling and de-fueling indoors has burned down a lot of hangars. Nobody cares if you burn up your own airplane. The rule protects other airplane owners and city property.

c. Any major alterations to any aircraft except minor maintenance work. - Here's where working with city officials on a regular basis can pay. The model rule is mostly based on the idea of prohibiting shade-tree mechanics. Approach them with the idea that you merely wish permission to assemble finished components. Explain that you bring new aircraft to the airport on a trailer and attach the wings. It need not even be in this section of the lease. "Aircraft may be assembled or disassembled with the written permission of the airport manager" works fine, assuming he is not a Nazi.

d. Painting - You have no business painting in a public t-hangar - fire and overspray. The guy with the Saratoga in the next hangar won't like it either.

e. Welding - Again, fire. Aircraft quick drains leak. Fuel fumes are heavier than air and blanket the floor in still air. And sparks light trash.

f. Open flame tools - Same

g. Storage of any Hazardous Materials - Standard even for an apartment lease

h. Flammable materials storage - Fire again

i. Storage of non-aeronautic equipment or materials unless approved by
the Airport Manager. - Check per-square-foot rental rates for your hangar against standard mini-storage per-square-foot rates. Without this provision your available hangars will soon be warehouses used by folks who don't even own an airplane. It is a constant problem at our airport
 
Dan's on the right track. In fact, before you get too involved in a legal fight that will get everyone up in arms, have a talk with the manager. Granted, some managers you can't work with but find out first. If you've got a good manager, he can clear you around some of the obstacles. Offer to do what it takes to make it work; maybe a good insurance policy (KFLG requires liability) or frequent visits by the manager to insure that you are staying within the limits they allow will get you the Ok. We're lucky here; not only is our new Manager aviation friendly, he shows up at EAA meetings and often visits hangars just to see how we're progressing - he's offered to help on my project a couple of times. If I am not sure that something I'm doing is allowable, I check with him; as long as he knows what's going on he'll Ok reasonable operations. I recently purged/tested/calibrated my fuel system by pulling the plane out of the hangar and using a pump and fuel cans to move fuel around; I had someone on fire extinguisher duty and there was no problem with airport Ops. This is one of those situations where it is better to ask permission than forgiveness.;)
 
flion said:
We're lucky here; not only is our new Manager aviation friendly, he shows up at EAA meetings and often visits hangars just to see how we're progressing - he's offered to help on my project a couple of times
Click to expand...
Hmmm, now this seems a little odd to me. Should not every AIRPORT manager be aviation friendly? Why should we consider it a matter of luck if we have one that is aviation friendly? This should just be a given.

Yeah, I know it aint so everywhere, but why not? Any airport governing body should expect this as the minimum requirement for a manager!
 
We had similar problems in Las Vegas

and it took a year or so to get them resolved. Understand that the FAA is coming down hard on GA airports who accept FAA funding (most all). Bean counters and Lawyers are hurting us everywhere.

We put together a group through the EAA chapters, the Clark County Aviation Assoc, and hangar owners. Then we convinced the County that the new rules and regs needed joint review to be workable. In the end, it seems to be working pretty well.

CHECK OUT this link of our rules and operating regs: http://www.hnd.aero/info_tenant.asp

You will see the results of our years negotiations, and a set of rules and regs that (so far) everyone can live with.

Email me offline if you have any questions on the docs above. fraziernv-at-earthlink-dot-net
 
RVbySDI said:
Hmmm, now this seems a little odd to me. Should not every AIRPORT manager be aviation friendly? Why should we consider it a matter of luck if we have one that is aviation friendly? This should just be a given.

Yeah, I know it aint so everywhere, but why not? Any airport governing body should expect this as the minimum requirement for a manager!
Click to expand...

Our manager is only commercial minded and thinks we are a PIA. He wanted to stack the airport board with non aviation people so he could have a rubber stamp but was cut off by our owners group. A lot of the managers of the medium and large airports are politicians rather than airplane guys. Now that he knows we watch everything very closely he is better to work with. Now if we can get the building dept to get off the International Commercial building code maybe we could build new hangars for a reasonable price. Don
 
RE:Update

I have got input from EAA Legal with AOPA Legal first of next week. EAA legal has sent emails of concerns to the SGU airport manager.

By the way SGU's airport baord was relieved of their assignment by the Mayor about 1.5 years ago. Our airport is probably the only city airport in the USA to not have a board for over sigth:eek:.

I just got back home from a great meeting of interested airport users. They are getting their act together by forming an airport users exploritory/pr board, hiring an attorney, and forming an airport users association. Maybe...just maybe reason will prevail once all the ducks are lined up.

Don't want to bore you with all the details but the new Airport is way over budget.......revenues expected from sale of the old airport property is way down (go figure...the economy is in the tank now as compared with the rosey picture of a few years back when the city father's made their projections)......with alot of grief given to airport Commercial/GA building owners in regards to new leases/moving expenses to the new airport and who is going to pay the freight....................and it goes on.

Thanks for the input. It was useful.

Frank @ 1L8..with an interest in my city airport SGU
 
Last edited:
Frank,

One other thought regarding fueling airplanes at your new airport.

Many of the LSA's use Rotax engines, which do better on auto fuel. What if the FBO doesn't have auto fuel? Does this mean LSA pilots will have to use 100 LL and pay for the additional maintenance using this fuel requires?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top