X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:37:31 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma06.mx.aol.com ([64.12.78.142] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4958316 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:19:07 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.78.142; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (imo-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.136]) by imr-ma06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p3QMIKAV004847 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:18:20 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.e83.13122e3b (45329) for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic-m24.mail.aol.com (magic-m24.mail.aol.com [172.20.22.197]) by cia-mc05.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMC055-b1114db744a971; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:18:17 -0400 From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <1d181.3a9e2ece.3ae89ea9@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:18:17 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: The Big Squeeze On GA X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1d181.3a9e2ece.3ae89ea9_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 130 X-AOL-IP: 24.15.17.119 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Sky2high@aol.com --part1_1d181.3a9e2ece.3ae89ea9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Bob, =20 I must be more careful. The FAA requires that the airport should have=20 access (so the FAA can use it?). These are City owned hangars on land th= at=20 the Feds contributed to and the hangar occupants have sub-leases with the= ir=20 own organization (landlord) that itself has a master lease with the airp= ort=20 for both the hangars and the land upon which they sit. As the landlord,= =20 the organization is responsible for the group rent to the City, local lan= d=20 taxes and common area maintenance including the exterior skins of each=20 building. =20 "Intrusive" would be "free" and "unobstructed" access to the interiors =20 while the sub-leases allow for "reasonable" access with notice to the=20 sub-lessee - i.e. non-intrusive.=20 =20 Scott=20 =20 =20 In a message dated 4/26/2011 10:16:32 A.M. Central Daylight Time, =20 rpastusek@htii.com writes: =20 Scott,=20 Not to beat a dead horse, but are you fairly sure the inspectors were FAA= =20 reps? I ask this because our city Fire Marshall regularly inspects the ci= ty=20 hangars we rent=E2=80=A6but not the privately built/owned hangars on the= field=20 (KHEF). The airport manager is also required to record and report the=20 registration number of each aircraft on the field on 1 Jan of each year.= None of=20 these have ever been =E2=80=9Cintrusive=E2=80=9D and the locals are very= considerate.=20 We have had TSA folks periodically drive around the airport and check our= =20 access procedures=E2=80=94particularly staying close by until the gate cl= oses/not=20 allowing tailgating. Have not seen FAA folks involved in any of this; the= y=20 almost seem subservient to TSA here. =20 Bob=20 =20 =20 Subject: [LML] Re: The Big Squeeze On GA Scotty, what was the rational for FAA access to the hangars? What are= =20 they looking for?=20 =20 =20 =20 On Apr 25, 2011, at 4:24 PM, _Sky2high@aol.com_ (mailto:Sky2high@aol.com)= =20 wrote: =20 Chris, =20 =20 Big Squeeze indeed. I "sublease" a hangar in Sky Haven, the 194 hangar= =20 complex at KARR (_www.SkyHaven.com_ (http://www.skyhaven.com/) ). To =20 clarify, rental agreements are made with Sky Haven, a corporation with al= l of the=20 sub-lessees as its members and run by a board elected from among the=20 members. Sky Haven itself leases the grounds and buildings from the City= of=20 Aurora (municipal public towered airport) on a very long term basis and= =20 annually charges each hangar for providing common area maintenance (taxes= ,=20 building exteriors, pavement, etc.). The sub-leases may be bought and so= ld much=20 like real property deeds and are recorded with the county clerk since the= =20 term of the lease tracks that of the master lease with the City. =20 =20 Last November the FAA inspected the airport and was unhappy that it could= =20 not gain entry to each and every hangar - they did inspect over 6 hangars= =20 because the sub-lessees were present and allowed entry. Recently, the FA= A =20 issued a letter to the airport demanding that the airport have=20 "unobstructed" and "free" access to the Sky Haven hangar interiors. Thei= r suggestion=20 was that the airport have keys to each hangar by September 30. =20 =20 The Sky Haven sub-lease provides for reasonable access with the sub-lesse= e=20 being present or at any time and by any other means in the case of an =20 emergency. The lease between Sky Haven and the City does provide the Cit= y=20 with the right to "enter upon the premises" at "any reasonable time" for= =20 various purposes including inspection. Part of the problem is whether =20 "premises" includes the interior of each hangar. =20 =20 In any event, this does bring up issues of "unreasonable search" (4th=20 Amendment), privacy, liability if the airport holds keys, etc. =20 =20 We have considered asking the AOPA for advice, but your comments are not= =20 very encouraging. =20 =20 The net of all this - another example that the agency that is supposed to= =20 promote GA is sure doing a great job of holding its thumb on the jugular= . =20 =20 Scott Krueger =20 N92EX, Hangar 66=20 =20 =20 =20 In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:14:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 _starliteaviation@yahoo.com_ (mailto:starliteaviation@yahoo.com) writes: =20 =20 =20 I find the searching of GA aircraft very interesting but this is not the= =20 only way GA is being attacked. Here at our airport, MCAS Yuma, Arizona=20 (NYL), GA is getting hit on two fronts. First you need to know we are a= joint=20 use military base with airline, GA, and military traffic. The airline=20 terminal is on the north side, GA on the west, and military is about a mi= le or=20 more away on the southeast side of the airport. MCAS is one of three base= s=20 that have been chosen for the F35 Strike Fighter and the military did a= threat=20 assessment on the base to list potential problems. Last summer, before I= =20 became the AOPA representative, I was approached by one of the board membe= rs=20 stating the airport management and the board of directors were told by th= e=20 military that GA was a security threat and Personally Operated Vehicles,= =20 POV=E2=80=99s, should no longer be able to drive onto the airport. Since= the meeting=20 was the next day I didn=E2=80=99t have a lot of time to organize the GA= population=20 but was able to get 40 or so pilots together and was able to stall this= =20 initiative. Since that time the airport management and the board of =20 directors have been pushing this issue. So now the airport management has= decided=20 to allow us, for now, to drive to our hangers and T-Shades and will be=20 taking away any other driving privileges starting July 1st, 2011. You can= see=20 the plan at _www.yumaairport.com_ (http://www.yumaairport.com/) on the le= ft =20 side click on General Aviation, on the right side click on Vehicles. =20 Since then I have become the AOPA ASN Volunteer here at NYL and have=20 attended every monthly board meeting. I feel strongly it won=E2=80=99t be= long before we=20 are not allowed to drive onto the airport. I also question AOPA=E2=80=99s= roll in=20 GA as they were no help at all and I am still awaiting a response from an= =20 email I sent to Sean Collins on 3-14-2011. As someone else made mention,= I=20 guess they are too busy selling alcohol and don=E2=80=99t have time for= us mere=20 pilots. Since when do alcohol and flying go together? =20 Fly Safe,=20 Christopher J. Alberti=20 =20 KNYL AOPA Representative =20 N441JH Lancair 4P Hanger C3 President/CEO=20 Starlite Aviation Technologies LLC =20 1963 S. 39th Drive=20 Yuma, Arizona 85364=20 Phone: 928-581-2383 =20 Fax: 928-329-6488=20 Email: _starliteaviation@yahoo.com_ (mailto:starliteaviation@yahoo.com) = =20 =20 Web Site: _www.starliteat.com_ (http://www.starliteat.com/)=20 This message contains confidential information only for the use of the=20 addressee(s). If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for= =20 delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading,=20 disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibite= d. If you=20 have received this message by mistake, please notify us, by replying to= the=20 sender, and delete the original message immediately thereafter. --part1_1d181.3a9e2ece.3ae89ea9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en <= FONT id=3Drole_document color=3D#000000 size=3D2 face=3DArial>
Bob,
 
I must be more careful.  The FAA requires that the airport=20 should have access (so the FAA can use it?).  These are City own= ed=20 hangars on land that the Feds contributed to and the hangar occupan= ts=20 have sub-leases with their own organization (landlord)  that itself= has a=20 master lease with the airport for both the hangars and the land upon which= they=20 sit.  As the landlord, the organization is responsible for the group= rent=20 to the City, local land taxes and common area maintenance including= the=20 exterior skins of each building.
 
"Intrusive" would be "free" and "unobstructed" access to the interior= s=20 while the sub-leases allow for "reasonable" access with notice to the sub-= lessee=20 - i.e. non-intrusive. 
 
Scott
  
In a message dated 4/26/2011 10:16:32 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 rpastusek@htii.com writes:

Scott,

 

Not=20 to beat a dead horse, but are you fairly sure the inspectors were FAA re= ps? I=20 ask this because our city Fire Marshall regularly inspects the city hang= ars we=20 rent=E2=80=A6but not the privately built/owned hangars on the field (KHE= F). The=20 airport manager is also required to record and report the registration= number=20 of each aircraft on the field on 1 Jan of each year. None of these have= ever=20 been =E2=80=9Cintrusive=E2=80=9D and the locals are very considerate.

 

We=20 have had TSA folks periodically drive around the airport and check our= access=20 procedures=E2=80=94particularly staying close by until the gate closes/n= ot allowing=20 tailgating. Have not seen FAA folks involved in any of this; they almost= seem=20 subservient to TSA here.


Bob

 


Su= bject:=20 [LML] Re: The Big Squeeze On GA

 

Scotty,   what was the=20 rational for FAA access to the hangars?   What are they looking=20 for?

 

On=20 Apr 25, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Sky2high@aol.com=20 wrote:



Chris,

 

Big=20 Squeeze indeed.  I "sublease" a hangar in Sky Haven, the 194= hangar=20 complex at KARR (www.SkyHaven.com).  To=20 clarify, rental agreements are made with Sky Haven, a corporation= with=20 all of the sub-lessees as its members and run by a board elected fr= om=20 among the members.  Sky Haven itself leases the grounds and buildin= gs=20 from the City of Aurora (municipal public towered airport) on a very lon= g term=20 basis and annually charges each hangar for providing common=20 area maintenance (taxes, building exteriors, pavement, etc.). = The=20 sub-leases may be bought and sold much like real property deeds and= are=20 recorded with the county clerk since the term of the lease tracks that= of the=20 master lease with the City.

 

Last=20 November the FAA inspected the airport and was unhappy that it could not= gain=20 entry to each and every hangar - they did inspect over 6 hangars be= cause=20 the sub-lessees were present and allowed entry.  Recently, the= FAA=20 issued a letter to the airport demanding that the airport have "unobstru= cted"=20 and "free" access to the Sky Haven hangar interiors.  The= ir=20 suggestion was that the airport have keys to each hangar by September=20 30.

 

The=20 Sky Haven sub-lease provides for reasonable access with the sub-lessee= being=20 present or at any time and by any other means in the case of= an=20 emergency.  The lease between Sky Haven and the City does provide= the=20 City with the right to "enter upon the premises" at "any reasonable time= " for=20 various purposes including inspection.  Part of the problem is whet= her=20 "premises" includes the interior of each hangar.

 

In=20 any event, this does bring up issues of "unreasonable search" (4th Amend= ment),=20 privacy, liability if the airport holds keys, etc.

=

 

We=20 have considered asking the AOPA for advice, but your comments are not ve= ry=20 encouraging.

 

The=20 net of all this - another example that the agency that is supposed to pr= omote=20 GA is sure doing a great job of holding its thumb on the=20 jugular.

 

Scott=20 Krueger

N92EX,=20 Hangar 66 

 

In=20 a message dated 4/25/2011 1:14:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, starliteaviation@yahoo.com=20 writes:

I find the=20 searching of GA aircraft very interesting but this is not the onl= y way=20 GA is being attacked. Here at our airport, MCAS Yuma, Arizona (NYL),= GA is=20 getting hit on two fronts. First you need to know we are a joint use= =20 military base with airline, GA, and military traffic. The airline term= inal=20 is on the north side, GA on the west, and military is about a mile or= more=20 away on the southeast side of the airport. MCAS is one of three bases= that=20 have been chosen for the F35 Strike Fighter and the military did a thr= eat=20 assessment on the base to list potential problems. Last summer, before= I=20 became the AOPA representative, I was approached by one of the board= members=20 stating the airport management and the board of directors were told by= the=20 military that GA was a security threat and Personally Operated Vehicle= s,=20 POV=E2=80=99s, should no longer be able to drive onto the airport. Sin= ce the meeting=20 was the next day I didn=E2=80=99t have a lot of time to organize the= GA population=20 but was able to get 40 or so pilots together and was able to stall thi= s=20 initiative. Since that time the airport management and the board of=20 directors have been pushing this issue. So now the airport management= has=20 decided to allow us, for now, to drive to our hangers and T-Shades and= will=20 be taking away any other driving privileges starting July 1st,=20 2011. You can see the plan at www.yumaairport.com= on the left=20 side click on General Aviation, on the= right=20 side click on Vehicles.

Since then I have= =20 become the AOPA ASN Volunteer here at NYL and have attended every mont= hly=20 board meeting. I feel strongly it won=E2=80=99t be long before we are= not allowed to=20 drive onto the airport. I also question AOPA=E2=80=99s roll in GA as= they were no=20 help at all and I am still awaiting a response from an email I sent to= Sean=20 Collins on 3-14-2011. As someone else made mention, I guess they are= too=20 busy selling alcohol and don=E2=80=99t have time for us mere pilots.= Since when do=20 alcohol and flying go together?


 = ;

Fly=20 Safe,

Christopher J. Alberti

KNYL=20 AOPA Representative

N441JH=20 Lancair 4P Hanger C3
President/CEO
Starlite Aviation Technologi= es LLC=20
1963 S. 39th Drive
Yuma, Arizona 85364
Phone: 928-581-2383= =20
Fax: 928-329-6488
Email: starliteaviation@yahoo.com

Web=20 Site: www.starliteat.com

This message= contains=20 confidential information only for the use of the addressee(s). If you= are=20 not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the= =20 addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distri= buting=20 or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received= this=20 message by mistake, please notify us, by replying to the sender, and= delete=20 the original message immediately=20 thereafter.

=

 

<= /DIV> --part1_1d181.3a9e2ece.3ae89ea9_boundary--