Thru the fence Operations

[docmirror]

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, more than most, I appreciate the complaint found here. I'm a libertarian in most all things having to do with personal liberty, and I can see the value to the aircraft owner in having the option of selecting the person he wants to work on his private plane.

You mentioned you were in Oakland, and also that you've paid CA state income tax. This is not the norm for many independent contractors out there. Most, if not all independents take income from customers, and avoid/evade paying state income tax. That is one, and only one of the possible sticky points involved. Most states/municipalities, including Oakland CA have found it necessary to require a state license of some kind for running a business in that location. Regardless of whether you have a fixed address in the city or not, you are required in most cases to have a 'business license' for the type of business you run. Now, I know, and you know that there are plenty of small businesses that do temp or distance work in Oakland that do not have a business license there. A small time plumber, living in Fremont will come over and snake a drain in Oakland without a license and faces about a 0% chance of getting caught by the city. Same with you, you don't have a business license but you do perform business activities within the city.

The same can be said of other requirements. Most businesses are required to carry some kind of liability insurance to get that license. If not, the airport can surely require insurance to protect themselves from an injury lawsuit, or a bad faith, or even an accident as a result of your work at their facility. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is a fact of life. At some point in the past, some contractor has gone onto a public airport, completed their work, and subsequently the owner/operator/contractor/third-party has sued, and included the airport admin as a co-defendant. for that reason, now the airport/city requires at a minimum a hold-harmless, and likely a binder of insurance to protect themselves from your activity where they did no wrong, and made no gain on your activity.

Again, I'm not defending this but explaining that it's not as cut and dried anymore is we might like it to be.

Next we have the matter of unfair competitive advantage. It's one of the most pernicious and annoying aspects of business in the US. But, there are laws on the books that cut both ways for the benefit of the public. In too many cases, big brother is going to preemptively 'take care' of the little guy by protecting them from so-called fly-by-night operations( I am not accusing you, in fact I would be happy to have you work for me, and have asked your opinion several times) where that operation could have detrimental effects on the public. In a large sense, it's one reason you have your A&P and IA certifications. The feds want to 'insure' that you are qualified to work on planes, and to that end, they require qualifications to keep any Joe-shmoe from putting a wing on backwards. Extend this philosophy to the extreme, and we get a situation where a form in triplicate is required to take a dump on a tuesday in an outhouse in Fargo.

So, while you weren't technically a TTF operator, the other factors involved in servicing planes on someone else's property, regardless of whether it was muni property, or private property under the control of a third party, that property owner has rights as well. They can tell you to get lost, and not work on my land(owner, leaseholder, muni) without providing the same oversight as the TTF FBO, or muni facility. If the shoe was on the other hand, and someone came on your private airport to do an annual, I'm betting you would have some problems with that. After all, you invested in the land, and the surface prep, the licensing, insurance, maybe a bond, and here comes a guy in a Ford pickup with a few tools and some grease and is going to work on YOUR airport?

 

[TMetzinger]

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?

Tom, I can't believe you've been in business for as long as you seem, and haven't run into this before.

The FAA says the Airport can make reasonable rules on who it allows to provide services on the airport. They set out guidelines for those rules.

It's common practice at some airports (particularly larger ones owned by state/local governments) to require any commercial work done on the airport property to be done by folks in compliance with the rules, and YES, those rules favor tenant businesses.

Having a hangar lease doesn't make you the hangar owner, and it doesn't get you out of complying with the rules.

As a CFI I know that there are airports where I cannot provide ground instruction in the airport public spaces. So far nobody's prohibited flight instruction in a private airplane (because the owner DOES own the airplane), but quite a few airports prohibit soliciting, advertising, or giving ground instruction unless you're associated with one of the tenant flight schools.

In most cases I do the ground instruction at the client's residence or business, or perhaps a local library, and all we do on the airport is go flying.

 

[poadeleted20]

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.

The classic "TTF" operation was described above, and is described in detail in section 20.4 of the Compliance Manual. I don't see trailering in a plane from a non-adjacent location as falling under that definition. Do you know of an FAA document which says otherwise?

 

[Tom-D]

Tom, more than most, I appreciate the complaint found here. I'm a libertarian in most all things having to do with personal liberty, and I can see the value to the aircraft owner in having the option of selecting the person he wants to work on his private plane.

You mentioned you were in Oakland, and also that you've paid CA state income tax. This is not the norm for many independent contractors out there. Most, if not all independents take income from customers, and avoid/evade paying state income tax. That is one, and only one of the possible sticky points involved. Most states/municipalities, including Oakland CA have found it necessary to require a state license of some kind for running a business in that location. Regardless of whether you have a fixed address in the city or not, you are required in most cases to have a 'business license' for the type of business you run. Now, I know, and you know that there are plenty of small businesses that do temp or distance work in Oakland that do not have a business license there. A small time plumber, living in Fremont will come over and snake a drain in Oakland without a license and faces about a 0% chance of getting caught by the city. Same with you, you don't have a business license but you do perform business activities within the city.

The same can be said of other requirements. Most businesses are required to carry some kind of liability insurance to get that license. If not, the airport can surely require insurance to protect themselves from an injury lawsuit, or a bad faith, or even an accident as a result of your work at their facility. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is a fact of life. At some point in the past, some contractor has gone onto a public airport, completed their work, and subsequently the owner/operator/contractor/third-party has sued, and included the airport admin as a co-defendant. for that reason, now the airport/city requires at a minimum a hold-harmless, and likely a binder of insurance to protect themselves from your activity where they did no wrong, and made no gain on your activity.

Again, I'm not defending this but explaining that it's not as cut and dried anymore is we might like it to be.

Next we have the matter of unfair competitive advantage. It's one of the most pernicious and annoying aspects of business in the US. But, there are laws on the books that cut both ways for the benefit of the public. In too many cases, big brother is going to preemptively 'take care' of the little guy by protecting them from so-called fly-by-night operations( I am not accusing you, in fact I would be happy to have you work for me, and have asked your opinion several times) where that operation could have detrimental effects on the public. In a large sense, it's one reason you have your A&P and IA certifications. The feds want to 'insure' that you are qualified to work on planes, and to that end, they require qualifications to keep any Joe-shmoe from putting a wing on backwards. Extend this philosophy to the extreme, and we get a situation where a form in triplicate is required to take a dump on a tuesday in an outhouse in Fargo.

So, while you weren't technically a TTF operator, the other factors involved in servicing planes on someone else's property, regardless of whether it was muni property, or private property under the control of a third party, that property owner has rights as well. They can tell you to get lost, and not work on my land(owner, leaseholder, muni) without providing the same oversight as the TTF FBO, or muni facility. If the shoe was on the other hand, and someone came on your private airport to do an annual, I'm betting you would have some problems with that. After all, you invested in the land, and the surface prep, the licensing, insurance, maybe a bond, and here comes a guy in a Ford pickup with a few tools and some grease and is going to work on YOUR airport?

Private property is private and you will do as the owner wishes, but a public entity such as a port owned airport under the control of dictators making rules that restrict who can do what/where. is a different matter.

The FAA prevents the airport operator from creating a monopoly in 5190.6B para 8.1 but does allow airport operators to set standards for independent service providers like CFIs and A&Ps.the problem arrises when the airport sets standards that the lowly can't comply with.

Such as the Port of Oakland has done when they say you must be a CRS, and a FBO to work there. that means to teach there you CFIs must become a flight school which requires you rent a space, provide insurance, and all other stuff that being a business requires.

The jest of all this is simply a major reason our industry is dying.

 

[docmirror]

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.

I would also like to know the reference for this as well. I don't think there is any hope of restricting N numbered aircraft from ANY public use airport provided the operator is in compliance with the regs. If you are saying the FAA regs will be changed to deny this type of access, that is doubtful, but who knows given our current trend toward communism....

 

[poadeleted20]

So, while you weren't technically a TTF operator, the other factors involved in servicing planes on someone else's property, regardless of whether it was muni property, or private property under the control of a third party, that property owner has rights as well. They can tell you to get lost, and not work on my land(owner, leaseholder, muni) without providing the same oversight as the TTF FBO, or muni facility. If the shoe was on the other hand, and someone came on your private airport to do an annual, I'm betting you would have some problems with that. After all, you invested in the land, and the surface prep, the licensing, insurance, maybe a bond, and here comes a guy in a Ford pickup with a few tools and some grease and is going to work on YOUR airport?

The big problem here is that Tom doesn't accept that he is a "third party contractor" for the purposes of FAA Order 5190.6B, and thus subject to to reasonable commercial minimum standards developed by the airport, rather than an employee of the tenant entity acting under that Order's "self servicing" provisions and thus not subject to such commercial minimum standards. If he were, as I suggested, to read the IRS publications I linked above, and apply the tests therein to his own operation, that might become clear to him. But as long as he insisits he is an "employee" of the tenant entity (the aircraft owner), and not a third party contractor, he will not understand the why his position is unsupportable.

 

[docmirror]

Private property is private and you will do as the owner wishes, but a public entity such as a port owned airport under the control of dictators making rules that restrict who can do what/where. is a different matter.

No -- sadly it really isn't different in real life. In any place where the public can gather, the rules and regulations will expand exponentially to the point of the outhouse dump I referenced earlier.

We are ever and increasingly restricted on what we can do, say, conduct, how we act, and when we are allowed on public property. An excellent example of this in modern action is the TSA.

Again, please understand I'm with you on this. My response to the WTC 9/11 actions would have been worlds different. Rather than restricting the rights and privileges of the citizenry, I would have closed the borders, and tossed out everyone who was not a citizen. My world after 9/11 would have been completely different than the one we face ourselves with, but reality is reality, and we will not make any advances in liberty until we have gone through the long, and annoying process of socialism/collectivism.

 

[poadeleted20]

I would also like to know the reference for this as well. I don't think there is any hope of restricting N numbered aircraft from ANY public use airport provided the operator is in compliance with the regs. If you are saying the FAA regs will be changed to deny this type of access, that is doubtful, but who knows given our current trend toward communism....

Where the airport might be able restrict this sort of operation is by prohibiting the performance of maintenance on the airport by nontenants not meeting the airports standards for such activities, arguing that assembling the aircraft constitutes such prohibited maintenance, not legal self-servicing by a tenant, which is protected by 5190.6B. However, I believe such enforcement would have to be uniformly applied to be defensible, in which case they couldn't even let a transient pilot pour his/her own oil.

If Joe has some examples of successful prohibition of trailering in airplanes under either TTF or any other provisions of 5190.6B, I'd like to see them.

That said, they could just make it real hard to get the trailer on the ramp or to find a place to leave it while you fly.

 

[Tom-D]

The big problem here is that Tom doesn't accept that he is a "third party contractor" for the purposes of FAA Order 5190.6B, and thus subject to to reasonable commercial minimum standards developed by the airport, rather than an employee of the tenant entity acting under that Order's "self servicing" provisions and thus not subject to such commercial minimum standards. If he were, as I suggested, to read the IRS publications I linked above, and apply the tests therein to his own operation, that might become clear to him. But as long as he insisits he is an "employee" of the tenant entity (the aircraft owner), and not a third party contractor, he will not understand the why his position is unsupportable.

the fact that I'm a first, second, or third party is not the problem, the problem comes from the rules of any airport that restrict free trade by being too restrictive to allow competition to give the aircraft owners the choice of who works on their aircraft.

 

[poadeleted20]

Like I said, Tom's failure to read the relevant FAA Order and IRS publications prevents him from understanding why what the airport is doing is completely legal and not an illegal restriction of trade. Or maybe Tom just thinks the restrictions permitted by Federal and state laws including those enshrined in FAA Order 5910.6B are not in the public interest, in which case his arguments have been rejected repeatedly by the courts and the legislatures, and he is just ranting about things which just aren't going to change because it has been well-established that the protection of consumers and the public is a valid state function, iancluding the establishment of reasonable standards for those providing commercial services.

 

[docmirror]

Where the airport might be able restrict this sort of operation is by prohibiting the performance of maintenance on the airport by nontenants not meeting the airports standards for such activities, arguing that assembling the aircraft constitutes such prohibited maintenance, not legal self-servicing by a tenant, which is protected by 5190.6B. However, I believe such enforcement would have to be uniformly applied to be defensible, in which case they couldn't even let a transient pilot pour his/her own oil.

If Joe has some examples of successful prohibition of trailering in airplanes under either TTF or any other provisions of 5190.6B, I'd like to see them.

That said, they could just make it real hard to get the trailer on the ramp or to find a place to leave it while you fly.

Well, a legislative body could stretch the English use of the word 'maintenance' to mean anything they want. A reasonable man would never interpret swinging the wings, and unfolding the tail of an airplane in preparation for flight to be 'maintenance', but the legislatures are a far, far thing from the 'reasonable man' standard.

 

[N801BH]

Why is it that EVERY job poor ol Tom gets involved in turned into a pi$$ing match ?...

My guess is, as broke as California is, the Dept Of Revenue will get word of this and collect back taxes on Toms work, including interest and penelties...

I agree, people should have the right to hire anyone to work on their plane, house, boat or any other item.... BUT... As long as Tom has been in business he had to have known of this "issue" at airports around the country.

 

[Tom-D]

As long as I have been providing a service as an A&P to owners, I have never been told that I was a TTF operator and not allowed to work in a owners hangar.

I think the Oakland port is way over the top on this protectionism.

 

[Tom-D]

Why is it that EVERY job poor ol Tom gets involved in turned into a pi$$ing match ?...

You may believe that because I never mention all the jobs that I do that are routine, Of the 6 engine overhauls, 15 annuals I've completed not a single complaint has been noted.

yet when I note that you owners may be in big trouble getting anything but high priced FBO service, you think I have a pizzing contest on every job.

get real with your comments.

 

[comanchepilot]

The classic "TTF" operation was described above, and is described in detail in section 20.4 of the Compliance Manual. I don't see trailering in a plane from a non-adjacent location as falling under that definition. Do you know of an FAA document which says otherwise?

I'll need to look but it was my understanding that the BDL FSDO instructed the airports in CT to refuse badging and similar to pilots who want to trailer airplanes to the airports - and the FBOs refuse access under the security rules. So the trailering guys are frozen out - last I heard.

As I said - I'll look -

 

[poadeleted20]

I'll need to look but it was my understanding that the BDL FSDO instructed the airports in CT to refuse badging and similar to pilots who want to trailer airplanes to the airports - and the FBOs refuse access under the security rules. So the trailering guys are frozen out - last I heard.

As I said - I'll look -

Interesting, if true. However, enforcement of the Compliance Manual is not within the FSDO's purview. This is an Airports issue, not a Flight Standards matter.

 

[Tom-D]

Interesting, if true. However, enforcement of the Compliance Manual is not within the FSDO's purview. This is an Airports issue, not a Flight Standards matter.

Many airports are now running scared of the NSA/TSA, and not allowing many things under the guise of safety.

They take your civil rights and no one complains.

 

[BillTIZ]

I'll need to look but it was my understanding that the BDL FSDO instructed the airports in CT to refuse badging and similar to pilots who want to trailer airplanes to the airports - and the FBOs refuse access under the security rules. So the trailering guys are frozen out - last I heard.

As I said - I'll look -

I have not heard that. Especially coming from FSDO.
I would think AOPA and EAA would be all over that.

The local municipal airport could require that the "trailer crowd" require a badge or gate card to get on airport. Normally those cards are not issued to individuals that do not maintain an aircraft on the airport or a paid tiedown or hanger. Special provisions would need to be set up, also where they can assemble without interfering with operations, and where to park trailers while out flying. It would not be unreasonable to expect to pay a few for this "service" similar to the transient daily ramp fee.

 

[BillTIZ]

As long as I have been providing a service as an A&P to owners, I have never been told that I was a TTF operator and not allowed to work in a owners hangar.

I think the Oakland port is way over the top on this protectionism.

There was a similar issue with our local airport management. "Shade Tree" mechanics operating out of their trucks in their "customers" hangers or on the ramp needed to provide a local business license with fees paid to operate on the airport and have an operating agreement with the airport authority.

Part of the fight included an individual owner that deemed that no current aircraft shop on the airport was qualified to work on his aircraft. He did have a unique piston powered aircraft, but I forget what it was. We do have jets on the airfield but no jet engine shop.

Part of the AIP stipulations are that the airport authority cannot deny any one to work, as long as the paperwork is complete and minimum standards are met. The airport authority cannot allow a monopoly of a single provider to operate without compitition. They can require a mechanic to show proper business licensing to operate on their airport.

They can require that to do business within the county, community, you need to have a local business license. But based on special aircraft /owner requirements, outside maintenance is allowed. A primary example would be a corporate transient aircraft that "broke" and the parent company brought in their own A&P employee to effect the repairs.

Welcome to airport management 101. Airport authorities need revenue to keep the airport open, part of that revenue comes from fees and permits when they allow other business to operate on the airport.

 

[Tom-D]

There was a similar issue with our local airport management. "Shade Tree" mechanics operating out of their trucks in their "customers" hangers or on the ramp needed to provide a local business license with fees paid to operate on the airport and have an operating agreement with the airport authority.

I have a business license.

Part of the fight included an individual owner that deemed that no current aircraft shop on the airport was qualified to work on his aircraft. He did have a unique piston powered aircraft, but I forget what it was. We do have jets on the airfield but no jet engine shop.

Part of the AIP stipulations are that the airport authority cannot deny any one to work, as long as the paperwork is complete and minimum standards are met. The airport authority cannot allow a monopoly of a single provider to operate without compitition. They can require a mechanic to show proper business licensing to operate on their airport.

They can require that to do business within the county, community, you need to have a local business license. But based on special aircraft /owner requirements, outside maintenance is allowed. A primary example would be a corporate transient aircraft that "broke" and the parent company brought in their own A&P employee to effect the repairs.

Welcome to airport management 101. Airport authorities need revenue to keep the airport open, part of that revenue comes from fees and permits when they allow other business to operate on the airport.

I service customers in Wa. Id.and Or. I have business licenses in all three states, and insurance to cover liability. I do meet all the requirements to do business.

The airports that I go to the aircraft owner opens the gate with their card, and I work out of their hangars as an independent service provider.

BVS is where my hangar is located, that hangar is for the storage of my aircraft, so I can not operate the business there because the airport sees that as a commercial operation and not allowed in storage hangars, I can go to any other hangar and work on aircraft that are stored there. (that is providing a service to others and allowed)

When I go to harvey field in Marysvill Wa. My customer opens the gate for me and works with me and we leave the airport together.

In Olympia Wa my customer opens the gate, and we park the Motorhome right at his hangar, and spend the night there, with no restrictions from the airport. then we leave when we are ready because the gate will open when any vehicle approaches.

In Bonners Ferry Id, we were told the gate code, entered the airport and camped a week by my customer's hangar while completing the engine change. no problems from anybody.

At Richland Wa. we were issued a temp gate card, and came and went as we pleased. Then dropped it in the box as we left.

AWO in Arlington has a gate code, which I know and come and go as I please.

You see not all airports treat the independent service providers the way Oakland port does.

when they find out the CFIs are making money on the airport they will restrict them too.

 

[N801BH]

I service customers in Wa. Id.and Or. I have business licenses in all three states, and insurance to cover liability. I do meet all the requirements to do business.............

QUOTE]

Oakland International Airport is in California... I assume you do NOT have a business license there ?...

If not you can bet the people who ran you off will report you to the California Dept of Rev and they will come calling with their hand out..

Good luck arguing with those folks. They are 46 BILLION in debt and can get milk out of a grapefruit.

 

[Tom-D]

I service customers in Wa. Id.and Or. I have business licenses in all three states, and insurance to cover liability. I do meet all the requirements to do business.............

QUOTE]

Oakland International Airport is in California... I assume you do NOT have a business license there ?...

If not you can bet the people who ran you off will report you to the California Dept of Rev and they will come calling with their hand out..

Good luck arguing with those folks. They are 46 BILLION in debt and can get milk out of a grapefruit.

They will have a he-- of a time trying to prove who paid what/when.

Their biggest concern was my motorhome in their parking lot. at least that was what they used as an excuse to tell me to leave. Only one guy from the port was talking about TTF operations. I'm not too concerned, I've had no contact with them since I left.

2 NSA agents came by on an inspection tour Monday morning, they only wanted to know if I was entering the airport un escorted, I told them no and they were happy with that, They were actually very nice, both were retired military. It was only the people from the Port of Oakland that were have a fit.

 

[SCCutler]

As the old expression goes, “You may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride.”

Which is to say, even if you are right, the agony, expense and disruption of challenging the airport sponsor’s authority (especially where, as here, the sponsor is large and well-financed) will usually dissuade most from trying.

Airports will frequently set very tough standards for businesses that want to provide services on the field, and those standards are frequently crafted to automatically favor the on-field businesses over any others. Ain’t right, but it takes a pretty deep pocket to mount an offensive on this.

As for how the topic ever got around to whether Tom is filing taxes, etc., I am flummoxed.

 

[poadeleted20]

As for how the topic ever got around to whether Tom is filing taxes, etc., I am flummoxed.

It came about when Tom claimed he was an employee of the aircraft owner in Oakland, and therefore could work on that plane under the "self-servicing" provisions of 5190.6B. I asked if that aircraft owner was withholding income taxes and FICA from what he paid Tom, and also paying the employer's half of the FICA. Tom responded that he was complying with all relevant tax laws, which suggested Tom didn't understand why I was asking the question, which was to help determine his status as employee or contractor.

BTW, if he is paying all those taxes himself directly, he isn't an employee, and thus subject to the minimum commercial standards provisions, which was my original point.

 

[Tom-D]

As the old expression goes, “You may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride.”

Which is to say, even if you are right, the agony, expense and disruption of challenging the airport sponsor’s authority (especially where, as here, the sponsor is large and well-financed) will usually dissuade most from trying.

Airports will frequently set very tough standards for businesses that want to provide services on the field, and those standards are frequently crafted to automatically favor the on-field businesses over any others. Ain’t right, but it takes a pretty deep pocket to mount an offensive on this.

As for how the topic ever got around to whether Tom is filing taxes, etc., I am flummoxed.

As usual the question was answered early in the thread, but morphed into some thing else when Ron tried to prove the port could boot me, which was never in question anyway.

 

[SCCutler]

I think you all got diverted into a loop based upon semantics - when you (Tom) said you were "employed by" the aircraft owner, Ron took it to be a literal use of the term "employed," including the full statutory employer-employee relationship. I believe we can all agree that issue has been cleared up, OK?

 

[Tom-D]

I think you all got diverted into a loop based upon semantics - when you (Tom) said you were "employed by" the aircraft owner, Ron took it to be a literal use of the term "employed," including the full statutory employer-employee relationship. I believe we can all agree that issue has been cleared up, OK?

Hopefully

 

[poadeleted20]

I think you all got diverted into a loop based upon semantics - when you (Tom) said you were "employed by" the aircraft owner, Ron took it to be a literal use of the term "employed," including the full statutory employer-employee relationship. I believe we can all agree that issue has been cleared up, OK?

I'm still not sure Tom understands any of the following:

• He was acting as a "third party contractor," not an "employee" of the aircraft owner, and that the difference is critical in this context.
• As a a third-party contractor, he was subject to any reasonable commercial standards the airport established for such providers.
• Establishment of such standards is permitted by 5190.6B as long as the standards are applied evenly to all service providers, and is not by any legal standard "cheating" the owners of aircraft based on that airport.
• The airport was completely legal in ordering him off the airport for failing to comply with those standards.
• The airport's actions violated neither his "rights" nor those of the aircraft owner.

And to reiterate one earlier point -- airports can establish monopolies by a single service provider if the FAA agrees that such a situation is economically justified. That's the situation here in Salisbury MD, where the FAA agrees with airport management that there isn't sufficient business to have more than one FBO on the field without having both go bust. That said, I'm pretty sure the FAA would not feel the same about Oakland International.

 

[SCCutler]

I'm still not sure Tom understands any of the following:

• He was acting as a "third party contractor," not an employee of the aircraft owner.
• As a a third-party contractor, he was subject to any reasonable commercial standards the airport established for such proividers.
• Establishment of such standards is not by any legal standard "cheating" aircraft
• The airport was completely legal in ordering him off the airport for failing to comply with those standards.
• The airport's actions violated neither his "rights" nor those of the aircraft owner.

Ron, the sense I get is that Tom (1) knows he is an independent contractor, but (2) does not concede that the restictions that the airport is imposing are reasonable, and (3) based upon his belief that the restrictions are not reasonable, he further believes that such restrictions serve to "cheat" aircraft owners out of the ability to secure services from some independent operators (like Tom).

Tom may or may not be correct in his belief, but it is his belief. The problem, of course, is that if he or anyone else is to secure a ruling or dispensation that the restrictions in place are not reasonable, someone is going to have to spend a great deal of time, toil and coin in the process.

This is a serious problem, one that faces a great many airports, many of which are run by bureaucrats whose skills run more to bed-feathing than airport-managing, and it would be imprudent for all of us to blithely assume that, if the sponsor put a policy in place, it is de facto reasonable. This creates the slipperiest of slopes.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, the sense I get is that Tom (1) knows he is an independent contractor, but (2) does not concede that the restictions that the airport is imposing are reasonable,

I got the distinct impression that Tom doesn't even know what that airport's standards are, and that he believed that as an "employee" of that aircraft owner, based on the self-service clause in 5190.6B, the airport had no right to boot him off the field. Later on, Tom changed the discussion into one about whether or not aircraft owners were being "cheated" by the airport's application of uniform commercial standards to all maintenance service providers when those standards might be higher than a "back of the truck" mechanic can meet while maintaining low prices.

 

[Jaybird180]

This is a serious problem, one that faces a great many airports, many of which are run by bureaucrats whose skills run more to bed-feathing than airport-managing, and it would be imprudent for all of us to blithely assume that, if the sponsor put a policy in place, it is de facto reasonable. This creates the slipperiest of slopes.

That is a great feat of word-crobatics that would make any literary proud.

 

[SCCutler]

I got the distinct impression that Tom doesn't even know what that airport's standards are, and that he believed that as an "employee" of that aircraft owner, based on the self-service clause in 5190.6B, the airport had no right to boot him off the field. Later on, Tom changed the discussion into one about whether or not aircraft owners were being "cheated" by the airport's application of uniform commercial standards to all maintenance service providers when those standards might be higher than a "back of the truck" mechanic can meet while maintaining low prices.

Agreed that Tom did not know what the standards are, but note that the functionary who addressed Tom did not tell him what they were, either - he just made vague references to "through the fence" rules.

In any event, I am confident we all understand what the issue is, and I hope we can let it go now.

Please?

 

[docmirror]

As Spike has mentioned, and I mentioned well back in this thread, there are real problems with commercial restrictions, not just in aviation but we do face some pernicious issues that affect pilots and plane owners. I'm one of those that would like to see the federal and state registers on commercial operations relaxed, but I'm in the minority. Most people, and pretty much every govt entity is involved in expanding their reach and control of anything having to do with public use airports.

I was going to rent a space at the Cleburne airport south of Ft Worth, then I made the mistake of downloading and reading the city ordinances and rules docket for the airport. Jeezalou, it's a miracle anyone ever actually gets to practice aviation at these bastions of bureaucracy. I mean, I was looking at this and the airport manager has the power to restrict who flies, when, where, how, and can(try) to confiscate anyones plane should he feel the need.

I find myself making a conscious effort to avoid these kinds of places when I travel across the land, but of course, we can't avoid all regulation all the time. But really, if I read some of this stuff correctly, if you break a rule at the airport and the manager sees it he can 'prohibit' that plane from taking off. Our rights have been killed by the thousand cuts, and Tom's example is not surprising.

 

[Tom-D]

I got the distinct impression that Tom doesn't even know what that airport's standards are, and that he believed that as an "employee" of that aircraft owner, based on the self-service clause in 5190.6B, the airport had no right to boot him off the field. Later on, Tom changed the discussion into one about whether or not aircraft owners were being "cheated" by the airport's application of uniform commercial standards to all maintenance service providers when those standards might be higher than a "back of the truck" mechanic can meet while maintaining low prices.

The question of who had the authority to boot me was never in question until you brought it aboard.

It is the port's airport, they run it they make the rules, which in my opinion are very protectionist in nature, and way beyond realistic expectations.

It would be like you being told this airport does not allow a CFI to operate here with out being a certified flight school, so get off the airport.

Any reasonable person would not expect that, nor would they have reason to believe they needed to know that in advance.

 

[N801BH]

The question of who had the authority to boot me was never in question until you brought it aboard.

It is the port's airport, they run it they make the rules, which in my opinion are very protectionist in nature, and way beyond realistic expectations.

It would be like you being told this airport does not allow a CFI to operate here with out being a certified flight school, so get off the airport.

Any reasonable person would not expect that, nor would they have reason to believe they needed to know that in advance.

Geez Tom.. Just few posts back you made this statement

" BVS is where my hangar is located, that hangar is for the storage of my aircraft, so I can not operate the business there because the airport sees that as a commercial operation and not allowed in storage hangars, I can go to any other hangar and work on aircraft that are stored there. (that is providing a service to others and allowed) ".

So you travel hundreds of miles into California and whine when the same rules are held over your head.....

Maybe you should focus your energy on your homefield.

 

[wabower]

I have found that the best way to deal with airport authorities is to contribute to the campaigns of all candidates running for county commissioner and then hope like hell the guy you're up against didn't give more.

 

[Tom-D]

Geez Tom.. Just few posts back you made this statement

" BVS is where my hangar is located, that hangar is for the storage of my aircraft, so I can not operate the business there because the airport sees that as a commercial operation and not allowed in storage hangars, I can go to any other hangar and work on aircraft that are stored there. (that is providing a service to others and allowed) ".

So you travel hundreds of miles into California and whine when the same rules are held over your head.....

Maybe you should focus your energy on your homefield.

I am allowed to go any where and provide a service, I can't operate a business from my hangar, I do these overhauls here at home, not at BVS.

I'm sorry if you believe I was whining. My intent was to inform you of the stupidly of TTF rules at Oakland airport, because it may be happening at your airport too.

Don't try to blame the whole mess on me, I didn't make their rules. If i had to cope with Oaklands rules here at BVS we would be running for port commissioner

 

[Tom-D]

I have found that the best way to deal with airport authorities is to contribute to the campaigns of all candidates running for county commissioner and then hope like hell the guy you're up against didn't give more.

That is the level that this must be dealt with, but remember we are talking about California.

 

[gprellwitz]

I am allowed to go any where and provide a service, I can't operate a business from my hangar, I do these overhauls here at home, not at BVS.

I'm sorry if you believe I was whining. My intent was to inform you of the stupidly of [TTF] rules at Oakland airport, because it may be happening at your airport too.

Don't try to blame the whole mess on me, I didn't make their rules. If i had to cope with Oaklands rules here at BVS we would be running for port commissioner

The problem I have with this statement is that you are still calling them "Through The Fence" rules. They are not, and the airport "representative" who called them that was misinformed or just misspoke. I thought that was already agreed in the first few pages.

They are, however, the airport rules that they have in place, stupidly or not, to govern the activity of contractors, and that's a category into which you fit.

 

[BillTIZ]

It would be like you being told this airport does not allow a CFI to operate here with out being a certified flight school, so get off the airport.

The local airport authority tried that here, until it was pointed out the could not apply the same standard to transient instructors from other airports bringing their students here on XC and required tower training.

Then they tried to require that local, independent instructors have a business license and register with the airport authority for TTF instructing. Well that didn't work either when they found they could not restrict instructors coming in to provide flight training for private owners. No local instructors were C421 qualified, so an outside instructor was needed for insurance sign offs.

They gave up trying to enforce the independent CFI rule.