Thru the fence Operations

[Tom-D]

Some one explain what is included.

If I would like to come to your airport and work, am I a thru the fence operator?

 

[Ken Ibold]

Are you talking about residential through the fence or commercial? At an airport that has received AIP funds (with their accompanying grant assurances) or not? Existing TTF access or new?

 

[Tom-D]

Are you talking about residential through the fence or commercial? At an airport that has received AIP funds (with their accompanying grant assurances) or not? Existing TTF access or new?

If you want me to come to your airport and work on your aircraft, Am I a TTF operator?

 

[SCCutler]

TTF applies to property granted access to the airport, but which is not on ground owned by airport sponsor. Reasonable restrictions can be made by the airport sponsor on the use of the airport by the property owner. I doubt that this extends to stopping you, as an A&P, from servicing aircraft in a hangar which is off of the airport property.

Edit:

Under the circumstances you describe, no, you are not a "Through-the-fence Operator."

 

[docmirror]

Warning: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, the basic answer is no, you are not a through the fence operator in the general sense. A TTF operator has a ground lease on, or adjacent to a municipal, state, federal managed or operated airport. The ground lease is to the manager of the airport, or to a private party adjacent with easement right of way access to the taxiway/runway.

The more common is a ground lease(or ground ownership in some cases) adjacent to the municipal field, where the private company is offering personal or commercial pilot/aircraft services to people who use the city owned facility.

Through the fence, refers to a real, or imagined fence line that separates the private ground lease(or owned) from the city/county/state/fed maintained and controlled runways and taxiways, towers, radio beacons, lighting, etc.

 

[docmirror]

As a mobile repairman, there is a fair amount of controversy involved in doing work on an airport, whether it is a private field, or city/county/state/fed run. The controversy comes in several flavors, the primary being that you are taking away goods and services from the current 'through the fence' operators on the field. The TTF operator prolly cannot prohibit you from doing work directly but they can appeal to the controlling facility that you are infringing on their exclusive TTF agreement to provide those goods and services.

There are also insurance, liability, and taxation and business license issues involved.

 

[Tom-D]

Oakland International Airport has other interpretations they believe any one not having a lease with them as a tenant is a TTF operator.

ANYONE in side the fence must have a badge displayed at all times while they are with in the boundary of the airport. To get that badge to provide a service to their tenants, you must go to school, plus pay a kick back to the airport to work there.

Their rules are written in a manner that is very protectionist toward their FBOs that are operating on the field.

 

[poadeleted20]

"Through the fence" has nothing to do with maintenance unless you put a maintenance shop on non-airport property adjacent to the airport so planes can taxi off the airport up to your shop. This is covered in Chapter 20 (Compatible Land Use and Airspace Protection) of FAA Order 5190.6B. Driving your truck full of tools through the main gate to work on someone's plane in that someone's own hangar is a totally different issue covered by other sections of that order (Chapter 8 on Exclusive Rights, Chapter 10 on Reasonable Commercial Minimum Standards, and Chapter 11 on Self-Service).

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/

 

[Tom-D]

TTF applies to property granted access to the airport, but which is not on ground owned by airport sponsor. Reasonable restrictions can be made by the airport sponsor on the use of the airport by the property owner. I doubt that this extends to stopping you, as an A&P, from servicing aircraft in a hangar which is off of the airport property.

Edit:

Under the circumstances you describe, no, you are not a "Through-the-fence Operator."

That was my take on it, it applies to off airport aircraft operating thru a fence entry to the airport. Not independent service providers like CFIs and A&Ps.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you want me to come to your airport and work on your aircraft, Am I a TTF operator?

No, you are not. But that doesn't mean the airport cannot otherwise restrict your activities -- see Chapters 8, 10, and 11 of FAA Order 5190.6B, linked above.

 

[Tom-D]

"Through the fence" has nothing to do with maintenance unless you put a maintenance shop on non-airport property adjacent to the airport so planes can taxi off the airport up to your shop. This is covered in Chapter 20 (Compatible Land Use and Airspace Protection) of FAA Order 5190.6B. Driving your truck full of tools through the main gate to work on someone's plane in that someone's own hangar is a totally different issue covered by other sections of that order (Chapter 8 on Exclusive Rights, Chapter 10 on Reasonable Commercial Minimum Standards, and Chapter 11 on Self-Service).

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/

I whole heartedly agree Ron, But I got the boot anyway. By not complying with the Port of Oakland's rules of TTF operators.

 

[poadeleted20]

Oakland International Airport has other interpretations they believe any one not having a lease with them as a tenant is a TTF operator.

ANYONE in side the fence must have a badge displayed at all times while they are with in the boundary of the airport. To get that badge to provide a service to their tenants, you must go to school, plus pay a kick back to the airport to work there.

Their rules are written in a manner that is very protectionist toward their FBOs that are operating on the field.

None of that has anything to do with "through the fence" issues. TTF is strictly a land use issue, so unless you're operating off land adjacent to the airport directly onto the airport via a non-public access route, you're not a TTF operator. But as I said above, they still have the authority to restrict/regulate your operation under other provisions of FAA Order 8190.6B.

 

[poadeleted20]

I whole heartedly agree Ron, But I got the boot anyway. By not complying with the Port of Oakland's rules of TTF operators.

I can't speak to how they word their rules, but by the FAA's definition, you were not a TTF operator. However, they certainly do have the authority under FAA Order 5190.6B to "give you the boot" if you do not comply with their validly adopted rules on those providing commrecial services on their airport. Note that the self-service provisions in that order apply only to the "employees" of the tenant, not outside contractors like you.

Self-service activities must be performed by the owner or
employees of the entity involved. Self-service activities cannot be contracted out to a third party.

 

[Tom-D]

No, you are not. But that doesn't mean the airport cannot otherwise restrict your activities -- see Chapters 8, 10, and 11 of FAA Order 5190.6B, linked above.

I like this part
8.1. Introduction. This chapter describes the sponsor's federal obligations under Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, which prohibits an airport sponsor from granting an exclusive right for the use of the airport, including granting an exclusive right to any person or entity providing or intending to provide aeronautical services to the public.
In particular, the sponsor may not grant a special privilege or a monopoly to anyone providing aeronautical services on the airport or engaging in an aeronautical use. The intent of this restriction is to promote aeronautical activity and protect fair competition at federally obligated airports.
It is the responsibility of the FAA airports district offices (ADOs) and regional airports divisions to ensure that the sponsor has not extended any exclusive right to any airport operator or user.

 

[Tom-D]

I can't speak to how they word their rules, but by the FAA's definition, you were not a TTF operator. However, they certainly do have the authority under FAA Order 5190.6B to "give you the boot" if you do not comply with their validly adopted rules on those providing commrecial services on their airport.

That is the term they used

 

[poadeleted20]

That is the term they used

As I explained, that doesn't matter. If you were acting as a third-party contractor, you are subject to their rules on minimum standards for commercial service providers, regardless of what term they use to describe such providers.

 

[Tom-D]

I can't speak to how they word their rules, but by the FAA's definition, you were not a TTF operator. However, they certainly do have the authority under FAA Order 5190.6B to "give you the boot" if you do not comply with their validly adopted rules on those providing commrecial services on their airport. Note that the self-service provisions in that order apply only to the "employees" of the tenant, not outside contractors.

I was properly escorted while on airport property, and complying with security rules, the young man that was doing the ports biding stated I was not allowed to work on the airport because it was against the TTF rules.

Fortunately I was finished, So I simply packed up and left. But it still doesn't seem right or fare that they restrict who can work where.

 

[Tom-D]

As I explained, that doesn't matter. If you were acting as a third-party contractor, you are subject to their rules on minimum standards for commercial service providers, regardless of what term they use to describe such providers.

Not a third party contractor, I was employed by the aircraft owner to work on their aircraft. It would be the same as if you employed me that's not a third party employer.

none of the FBOs on the field were involved.

 

[docmirror]

As I said back in post 6, there are other factors involved. Licensing by the city/county/state/feds, adequate insurance, liability for work/injury, tax rules, etc.

I don't think the chap that tossed you was that interested in the minutia of the reasons and used the 'TTF' as a catch-all for making you leave.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not a third party contractor, I was employed by the aircraft owner to work on their aircraft. It would be the same as if you employed me that's not a third party employer.

none of the FBOs on the field were involved.

Employed? You mean you were hired by that person as an employee, getting a regular wage and being paid with a W-2 with taxes and FICA withheld, and your tools and equipment supplied by them, and them setting your work hours and everything else in the IRS's "right to control and direct" test? I really doubt that. In fact, I'm quite certain you were an independent contractor, not an "employee."

 

[Tom-D]

Bottom line here:

you owners can be cheated by the airport rules, you could loose the hangar you are occupying, when you elect to use any freelanced A&P.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not a third party contractor, I was employed by the aircraft owner to work on their aircraft. It would be the same as if you employed me that's not a third party employer.

I don't think you understand the difference between an employee and an independent contractor. Here's some reading for you:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small...ndent-Contractor-(Self-Employed)-or-Employee?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1779.pdf

And for a whole lot more on the subject, just Google "irs right to control and direct test."

 

[Tom-D]

I don't think you understand the difference between an employee and an independent contractor. Here's some reading for you:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small...ndent-Contractor-(Self-Employed)-or-Employee?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1779.pdf

And for a whole lot more on the subject, just Google "irs right to control and direct test."

I am an independent contractor. directly employable by any one.

your reference :
I am an independent contractor or in business for myself
If you are a business owner or contractor who provides services to other businesses, then you are generally considered self-employed.

 

[poadeleted20]

Bottom line here:

you owners can be cheated by the airport rules, you could loose the hangar you are occupying, when you elect you use any freelanced A&P.

Any time you violate the provisions of your lease, you stand to lose that lease. But that doesn't mean every hangar tenant is being "cheated by the airport rules" or at risk of losing your hangar just because you use a freelance A&P.

The real bottom line here: Airports have rules. Find out what they are before you sign a lease with that airport, don't sign the lease if you don't want to live under those rules, and once you do sign that lease, obey them if you want to stay there.

And for freelance A&P's (which means "independent contractors"), make sure you understand the difference between an employee and an independent contractor, and what the rules for third party contractors are at any airport where you are considering performing work.

 

[Tom-D]

Ron, If you are implying I am not a licensed business and not paying my taxes, you are wrong.

 

[poadeleted20]

I am an independent contractor. directly employable by any one.

your reference :
I am an independent contractor or in business for myself
If you are a business owner or contractor who provides services to other businesses, then you are generally considered self-employed.

Clearly you a) didn't read the IRS publications I posted, and b) have no understanding of the difference between an employee and an independent contractor. I can't help you learn if you won't read the material I've presented you.

As an exercise, I would suggest going through all the questions in the "right to control and direct" test, and answering them for your situation that day in Oakland. That might be an instructive and productive use of your time this afternoon.

 

[Tom-D]

Any time you violate the provisions of your lease, you stand to lose that lease. But that doesn't mean every hangar tenant is being "cheated by the airport rules" or at risk of losing your hangar just because you use a freelance A&P.

The real bottom line here: Airports have rules. Find out what they are before you sign a lease with that airport, don't sign the lease if you don't want to live under those rules, and once you do sign that lease, obey them if you want to stay there.

And for freelance A&P's (which means "independent contractors"), make sure you understand the difference between an employee and an independent contractor, and what the rules for third party contractors are at any airport where you are considering performing work.

And when the airport TTF rules say that you must use the FBOs that are allowed to operate on the airport, the airport is in violation of your first link, and cheating you.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, If you are implying I am not a licensed business and not paying my taxes, you are wrong.

I am implying nothing of the sort. But I am saying I have no doubt whatsoever that you were not an employee of that aircraft owner that day in Oakland, but rather were an independent contractor, and subject to the airports rules on third party contractors performing services on their airport. You really need to learn this better if you want to operate your own business without running into such problems again in the future.

 

[poadeleted20]

And when the airport TTF rules say that you must use the FBOs that are allowed to operate on the airport, the airport is in violation of your first link, and cheating you.

Tom's statement is total nonsense. I;m done unless someone else has a question on this issue.

 

[Tom-D]

Clearly you a) didn't read the IRS publications I posted, and b) have no understanding of the difference between an employee and an independent contractor. I can't help you learn if you won't read the material I've presented you.

As an exercise, I would suggest going through all the questions in the "right to control and direct" test, and answering them for your situation that day in Oakland. That might be an instructive and productive use of your time this afternoon.

I fail to see the relevance of the difference here. I am a independent contractor, otherwise known as self employed.

I do know I am legal with the IRS, so your reference to them is very much a moot point.

 

[gprellwitz]

Ron, If you are implying I am not a licensed business and not paying my taxes, you are wrong.

Tom, that is NOT what he's implying. You get a 1099 from the jobs you do, not a W-2, right? If so, you're an independent contractor and are not considered to be the employee of the person for whom you are doing the job. You still pay taxes, in fact more out of pocket, since there is no withholding for Social Security. You are paying the full load on that, instead of only half as those receiving W-2s do.

 

[Tom-D]

I believe that this thread is not about my being a legal tax payer, but about the ability of any airport to restrict your rights as an aircraft owner to have anyone you like work on your aircraft.

As Ron pointed out in his first link, it is illegal for any airport to create a monopoly of services, by restricting who can work on the airport. So, when the airport creates overly restrictive rules they are cheating you.

You best find out what those rules are for your airport.

 

[poadeleted20]

I fail to see the relevance of the difference here. I am a independent contractor, otherwise known as self employed.

Perhaps a ray light shines throug.

Correct -- you are an employee of yourself, the third party in the situation after the aircraft owner (second party) and the airport (first party). You are, as you say, an independent contractor providing contract services to that aircraft owner, not an employee of that second party. That means your work does not fall under the self-service provisions of 5190.6B, and the airport has the authority to require you to comply with their standards for commercial service providers to operate on their airport.

I do know I am legal with the IRS, so your reference to them is very much a moot point.

...and the light goes out. The issue is not whether you are "legal with the IRS," but whether you are, by the IRS definition, an employee of, or an independent contractor to, that aircraft owner. Here's a question in that regard -- did that aircraft owner withhold income taxes from your pay for working for him/her and pay the employer's half of your FICA for that pay, and will you be getting a W-2 rather than a 1099 for that money? I'll bet not.

 

[poadeleted20]

I believe that this thread is not about my being a legal tax payer, but about the ability of any airport to restrict your rights as an aircraft owner to have anyone you like work on your aircraft.

Then you don't understand the problem. Please read the pubs linked above.

As Ron pointed out in his first link, it is illegal for any airport to create a monopoly of services, by restricting who can work on the airport.

I didn't say that, and it isn't true. There are in fact provisions in that order allowing monopolies when economically justtified. That's why it's legal for the airport commission here at KSBY to allow only one FBO on the field so there's only one source of fuel unless, under the self-service provisions, you build your own fuel farm (as two corporate flight operations have). Of course, that fuel farm has to meet all Federal and State standards for a fuel storage and dispensing operation, and that ain't cheap, but it's completely legal under that Order for the airport to require that those safety and environmental protection standards be met.

So, when the airport creates overly restrictive rules they are cheating you.

Ah, so it's "overly" restrictive rules we're talking about. Tom may think the airport's rules are "overly restrictive," but those rules are subject to the limitations in Chapter 10 of FAA Order 5190.6B.

So, Tom, which specific provision(s) in that chapter do the rules at Oakland violate?

You best find out what those rules are for your airport.

Finally something on which Tom and I agree. Yes, do so, as running afoul of them could get you kicked out of your hangar.

 

[Tom-D]

Tom, that is NOT what he's implying.

When I am in compliance with the security rules of any airport, why should the airport have a problem with me working there?

What Ron is implying is, I don't know my status with the IRS, which is wrong.

What my Business license says is pretty simple, I am tax exempt until I exceed 28k per year for state tax, but I am liable for US income tax, and FICA on all earnings.

But when you know the numbers, you see I should pay nothing IAW the US tax code.

 

[poadeleted20]

When I am in compliance with the security rules of any airport, why should the airport have a problem with me working there?

What Ron is implying is, I don't know my status with the IRS, which is wrong.

What my Business license says is pretty simple, I am tax exempt until I exceed 28k per year for state tax, but I am liable for US income tax, and FICA on all earnings.

But when you know the numbers, you see I should pay nothing IAW the US tax code.

 

[Tom-D]

Then you don't understand the problem.

Probably not, I am used to this being America, where we are free to work anywhere with out Gestapo tactics used to restrict who can do what, where.

AS for the tax issue, My customer pays the bottom line of the bill, I pay the taxes due to both the state and Federal.

The airport in question is not involved, and should not be, That is simply a matter of their over restrictive rules to protect their FBOs on field. and in violation of your link. chapter 8.1 first para.

 

[Tom-D]

Do you have a business license to act as a CFI on all airports? Aren't you actually an employee of the student, aren't you actually holding out to the public a service of employment?

Would it please you when any airport says that you can't teach here until you have our permission, and pay us a kick back on your earnings?

 

[Ken Ibold]

That is simply a matter of their over restrictive rules to protect their FBOs on field. and in violation of your link. chapter 8.1 first para.

There are other motivations involved. When an airport accepts FAA grant money, the airport makes assurances that it will be operated in such a way as to make itself as self-sufficient as possible (that is, not dependent on public funds for operating costs). The airports then put rules into place that favor on-airport businesses, because the economic model requires that.

If you look at true through-the-fence commercial operations, which involve land-use agreements between the airport and a business with an adjacent physical plant, you will find all sorts of provisions for the business paying a sliding fee based on how much business traffic runs through the airport. In fact, the FAA has a draft through-the-fence rule now out for public comment that prohibits through the fence entirely at Part 139 airports. Existing agreements will be allowed to continue but new ones will not. Airports that are not Part 139 have a little bit of flexibility, but the proposed rule clearly skews things away from allowing commercial aeronautical use on adjacent properties.

The government built and runs the airport and, right or wrong, feels entitled to set the rules for being there.

 

[comanchepilot]

Ok - here is a TTF op -

Guy owns a Kitfox - he trailers it to the airport since it lives in his garage when he is not flying. THAT is a classic through the fence operation - and the FAA has apparently told the EAA that they intend or have prohibited such operations since Homeland Security [why do I ALWAYS think of Directorate Z (well really the Fifth Chief Directorate) of the KGB when I hear that term?] has its panties in a wad over that type of operation. You know, terrorists and crop dusters and anthrax etc etc etc.