X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:39:42 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-mb02.mx.aol.com ([64.12.207.163] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4959412 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:02:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.207.163; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (imo-ma02.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.137]) by imr-mb02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p3RG1KCU009518 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:01:20 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.1083.4b43f48 (45324) for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic-m24.mail.aol.com (magic-m24.mail.aol.com [172.20.22.197]) by cia-mc04.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMC048-b10c4db83dca19b; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:01:14 -0400 From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <3d9c4.6e2795da.3ae997ca@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:01:14 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_3d9c4.6e2795da.3ae997ca_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_3d9c4.6e2795da.3ae997ca_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Colyn, et al, =20 To clarify - the FAA conducted a "land use" inspection of our airport. = =20 They wrote a letter to the airport requiring a response on 5 compliance= =20 issues, one of which was that the airport did not have instant access to= the=20 interior of each of the 194 hangars in the complex known as Sky Haven. = There=20 claim is that this issue "potentially conflicts" with certain grant=20 assurances. They have suggested that one way is for the airport to hold= keys to=20 each of the hangars. We think that the terms and conditions spelled out= in=20 our master lease and tenant sub-leases reasonably deal with tenant escort= ed=20 access at reasonable times with a cutout for immediate entry in case of= an=20 emergency. Sky Haven is currently working up a comprehensive response to= =20 and for the airport. Time will tell. =20 Q: What are they looking for? To eliminate the potential conflict. =20 Sky Haven is trying to resolve this without being forced to give up=20 private hangar keys to the airport, notwithstanding any given up voluntar= ily. =20 After all, the master lease with the City (and agreed to by the FAA) prov= ides=20 for the storage of non-aircraft and the establishment of private offices= =20 in each hangar. =20 =20 Private offices imply confidentiality of activities conducted therein =20 although the master lease does not allow any commercial activity within Sk= y =20 Haven. Giving out keys is problematic. =20 Anyway, it is not a problem a this moment, just a dark cloud on the horizo= n=20 that is being worked on. =20 Scott =20 =20 =20 In a message dated 4/26/2011 7:56:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, =20 colyncase@earthlink.net writes: Scotty, what was the rational for FAA access to the hangars? What are= =20 they looking for? =20 On Apr 25, 2011, at 4:24 PM, _Sky2high@aol.com_ (mailto:Sky2high@aol.com)= =20 wrote: Chris, =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 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 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 with=20 the right to "enter upon the premises" at "any reasonable time" for=20 various purposes including inspection. Part of the problem is whether "p= remises"=20 includes the interior of each hangar. =20 In any event, this does bring up issues of "unreasonable search" (4th =20 Amendment), privacy, liability if the airport holds keys, etc. =20 We have considered asking the AOPA for advice, but your comments are not= =20 very encouraging. =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 Scott Krueger N92EX, Hangar 66=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= =20 threat assessment on the base to list potential problems. Last summer, be= fore I=20 became the AOPA representative, I was approached by one of the board=20 members stating the airport management and the board of directors were to= ld by=20 the military that GA was a security threat and Personally Operated Vehicl= es,=20 POV=E2=80=99s, should no longer be able to drive onto the airport. Since= the=20 meeting was the next day I didn=E2=80=99t have a lot of time to organize= the GA=20 population 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= left=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 KNYL AOPA Representative 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 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. =3D --part1_3d9c4.6e2795da.3ae997ca_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>
Colyn, et al,
 
To clarify - the FAA conducted a "land use" inspection of our=20 airport.  They wrote a letter to the airport requiring a response on= 5=20 compliance issues, one of which was that the airport did not have ins= tant=20 access to the interior of each of the 194 hangars in the complex known as= Sky=20 Haven.  There claim is that this issue "potentially conflicts" with= certain=20 grant assurances.  They have suggested that one way is for the= airport=20 to hold keys to each of the hangars.  We think that the terms and=20 conditions spelled out in our master lease and tenant sub-leases reasonabl= y deal=20 with tenant escorted access at reasonable times with a cutout for immediat= e=20 entry in case of an emergency.  Sky Haven is currently work= ing up=20 a comprehensive response to and for the airport.  Time will tell.
 
Q: What are they looking for?  To eliminate the potential=20 conflict.
 
Sky Haven is trying to resolve this without being=20 forced to give up private hangar keys to the airport,=20 notwithstanding any given up voluntarily.  After all, the master= lease=20 with the City (and agreed to by the FAA) provides for the storage of= =20 non-aircraft and the establishment of private offices in each=20 hangar. 
 
Private offices imply confidentiality of activities conducted therein= =20 although the master lease does not allow any commercial activity within Sk= y=20 Haven.  Giving out keys is problematic.
 
Anyway, it is not a problem a this moment, just a dark cloud on the= horizon=20 that is being worked on.
 
Scott   
 
In a message dated 4/26/2011 7:56:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 colyncase@earthlink.net writes:
Scotty,=20   what was the rational for FAA access to the hangars?   What= are=20 they looking for?=20

On Apr 25, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:
Chris,
 
Big Squeeze indeed.  I "sublease" a hangar in Sky Haven,&nbs= p;the=20 194 hangar 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= from=20 among the members.  Sky Haven itself leases the grounds and build= ings=20 from the City of Aurora (municipal public towered airport) on a very= long=20 term basis and annually charges each hangar for providing common= =20 area maintenance (taxes, building exteriors, pavement, etc.).&nbs= p; The=20 sub-leases may be bought and sold much like real property deeds a= nd are=20 recorded with the county clerk since the term of the lease tracks that= of=20 the master lease with the City.
 
Last November the FAA inspected the airport and was unhappy that= it=20 could not gain entry to each and every hangar - they did inspect = over 6=20 hangars because the sub-lessees were present and allowed entry.&n= bsp;=20 Recently, the FAA issued a letter to the airport demanding that the ai= rport=20 have "unobstructed" and "free" access to the Sky=20 Haven hangar interiors.  Their suggestion was that the= =20 airport have keys to each hangar by September 30.
 
The Sky Haven sub-lease provides for reasonable access with the= =20 sub-lessee being present or at any time and by any other mea= ns in=20 the case of an emergency.  The lease between Sky Haven and the Ci= ty=20 does provide the City with the right to "enter upon the premises" at= "any=20 reasonable time" for various purposes including inspection.  Part= of=20 the problem is whether "premises" includes the interior of each=20 hangar.
 
In any event, this does bring up issues of "unreasonable search"= (4th=20 Amendment), privacy, liability if the airport holds keys, etc.
 
We have considered asking the AOPA for advice, but your comments= are=20 not very encouraging.
 
The net of all this - another example that the agency that is sup= posed=20 to promote GA is sure doing a great job of holding its thumb on the=20 jugular.
 
Scott Krueger
N92EX, Hangar 66 
 
In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:14:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,= starliteaviation@yahoo.com=20 writes:

I find=20 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, Arizo= na=20 (NYL), GA is getting hit on two fronts. First you need to know we ar= e a=20 joint use military base with airline, GA, and military traffic. The= =20 airline terminal is on the north side, GA on the west, and military= is=20 about a mile or more away on the southeast side of the airport. MCAS= is=20 one of three bases that have been chosen for the F35 Strike Fighter= and=20 the military did a threat assessment on the base to list potential= =20 problems. Last summer, before I became the AOPA representative, I wa= s=20 approached by one of the board members stating the airport managemen= t and=20 the board of directors were told by the military that GA was a secur= ity=20 threat and Personally Operated Vehicles, POV=E2=80=99s, should no lo= nger be able=20 to drive onto the airport. Since the meeting was the next day I didn= =E2=80=99t=20 have a lot of time to organize the GA population but was able to get= 40 or=20 so pilots together and was able to stall this initiative. Since that= time=20 the airport management and the board of directors have been pushing= this=20 issue. So now the airport management has decided to allow us, for no= w, to=20 drive to our hangers and T-Shades and will be taking away any other= =20 driving privileges starting July 1st, 2011. You can see= the=20 plan at = www.yumaairport.com on the left side click=20 on General Aviation, on the right side click=20 on Vehicles.

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


 
Fly Safe,=20

Christopher J. Alberti
KNYL AOPA=20 Representative
N441JH Lancair 4P= Hanger=20 C3
President/CEO
Starlite Aviation Technologies LLC
1963= S.=20 39th Drive
Yuma, Arizona 85364
Phone: 928-581-2383
Fax:= =20 928-329-6488
Email: starliteaviation@yahoo.co= m
Web Site: www.starliteat.com

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

=3D
--part1_3d9c4.6e2795da.3ae997ca_boundary--