Airport Rules - Mobil Mechanics/Training

[Lowflynjack]

Well, this post may get me more attention than I want, but here goes! It will be interesting to see what everyone thinks about this.

Part 1 - Our airport got a complaint from a local shop that is based on the field, which started things going downhill quickly. His complaint is that a lot of us use our own mechanic instead of giving him business. His argument is that it's not a fair playing field because he has overhead and the mobile guy doesn't.

The city council has now decided to implement a fee for the mobile mechanic (I don't have it in writing yet). He can pay $5K per year. They say they're basing this on the cost of a ground lease / water / electricity and other expenses the shop owner would have. If enforced, this will put our mechanic out of business at our airport.

Now, another fun fact on this is, this shop owner used to own a share of an airplane before he owned the shop. The same mobile mechanic did the annuals on his airplane. So the way I see it, the shop owner was okay using the mobile mechanic to his benefit, not giving business to the shop, but now that he owns the shop it's not fair anymore. This doesn't really matter now though, things have been set in motion.

I'm one of the plane owners who refuses to use this shop. I would think the FAA would frown on an airport trying to tell me who can work on my plane, or imposing fees that essentially cause my mechanic to walk away, leaving me with one I don't trust. I'm sure there are similar stories out there. What do you guys think? Get the FAA involved? Lawyers?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2 - Our new airport manager says she's a rule follower and mentioned this rule:
Lessee agrees he will not conduct any commercial activity such as pilot instruction, aerial spraying, charter flights, air taxi, sightseeing flights, aerial photography, aircraft engine or airframe repair, and avionics repair within the Hangar or on the Airport.
I'm assuming this may be fairly standard, but what constitutes conducting commercial activity out of a hangar. My friend instructs in gyroplanes and keeps them in a hangar. Surely parking your plane that you use for instruction in a hangar shouldn't be against the rules. I would think the FAA wouldn't want the airport to impact training! What about my photography business? I keep my plane there, but no business is being conducted there.

I'm hoping we're not headed down a rocky road here, but I think we are.

 

[RyanShort1]

That manager needs a change of mind. You're hiring someone to WORK on your plane, not offering services out of your hangar... I'd get a lawyer involved 100%.

Also, no over head is BS. It may not be the SAME overhead, but the mobile mechanic still has overhead costs.

 

[Lowflynjack]

That manager needs a change of mind. You're hiring someone to WORK on your plane, not offering services out of your hangar... I'd get a lawyer involved 100%.

Also, no over head is BS. It may not be the SAME overhead, but the mobile mechanic still has overhead costs.

My thoughts on the overhead, is nobody made him buy the business. He could sell it and become mobile, leveling the playing field.

 

[AA5Bman]

Hoo boy, this could get messy. I can relate to the situation though - I use a mobile mechanic occasionally and fly to another field when bigger work is required in order to avoid using the on-premise FBO/shop. I've had guys from the FBO come out and just ominously stand there giving us the stink-eye while we're changed the oil on the plane.

 

[MauleSkinner]

My friend instructs in gyroplanes and keeps them in a hangar. Surely parking your plane that you use for instruction in a hangar shouldn't be against the rules.

The lease for a commercial operator like your friend would be entirely different than a simple hangar lease.

 

[schmookeeg]

A 5K for not paying rent fee?! there is a special sort of brain damage that seems common to all airport management. Amazing.

I've seen the playing field "leveled" by requiring like insurances, which I think is appropriate. But a non-hangar-rental fee is absurd.

 

[MauleSkinner]

A 5K for not paying rent fee?! there is a special sort of brain damage that seems common to all airport management. Amazing.

I've seen the playing field "leveled" by requiring like insurances, which I think is appropriate. But a non-hangar-rental fee is absurd.

…and probably illegal, as it most likely doesn’t meet the minimum standards requirements for the airport.

 

[cowman]

Mobile mechanic doesn’t have overhead? What about transportation costs.

But more importantly, why would the city step in here at all? Seems like local guy is trying to create a government enforced monopoly. If these actions are typical of this guy I have a guess as to why he doesn’t see more business.

 

[midwestpa24]

A few things to note here:

1. Airports can, and are encouraged by the FAA to, have Commercial Minimum Standards for any and all business uses of the airport and its facilities. These minimum standards usually include insurance clauses, required spaces, certifications, etc. Now the Standards do have to be somewhat reasonable, and can not create normally create an exclusive use (although small airports do sometimes run into this, as there may only be one "maintenance" sized hangar). The minimum standards are designed to protect the airport, ensure airport services meet a level of expectations, and level the playing field between tenants.

2. Airports also normally impose use restrictions on hangar leases, often times prohibiting maintenance or commercial operations out of a leased hangar. This is done due to liability and perhaps fire code. Different fire codes apply based on whether aircraft are being stored or being maintained in the hangar.

Now all that being said, I don't know the airport in question or the situation. This could be 100% legit, 100% not, or more than likely somewhere in between.

 

[Lindberg]

If the airport has any FAA grants, check the grant assurances. The airport may be prohibited from prohibiting you from maintaining your airplane. If so, then you're just maintaining your airplane with his help. It wouldn't be inappropriate for the airport to charge him for use of any airport resources, but if he is using none, there's nothing to charge him for. He shouldn't even be required to have any more insurance than you'd be required to have working on your own plane in your hangar.

From the current FAA Grant Assurances:

[Sponsor] will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which (sic) operates to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own employees [(including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueling)] that it may choose to perform.

 

[Racerx]

I would spite that shop and airport and fly to another airport for maintenance. Might go a step further and never buy fuel from them again. Rather than talk to the people on field on how he could gain your business he tries to get someone to change rules. Are they going to take it a step further and void your lease if you don't use the on field maintenance? Government has no business "leveling the field." By doing so, they're doing the opposite.

My local municipality had a vacant grocery store for sale for 15 years. The owner wouldn't sell because the lease ran that long. He was still getting paid just no store. So it looked vacant. As soon as lease was up it was sold to a storage facility. Except for a small sliver that was still vacant. The village said the only way to entice a tenant to the location is to refund 50% of the villages take on sales tax for 10 years so a tractor supply could get go there. How is that fair to established local businesses giving a large corporation with no ties to the community a break. Do competitors also get the same break?

 

[Magman]

Just have 1 airline flight per day and TSA may arrive at your airport.

Vehicle tags, “ approved mechanics “, personal id, confronting/ reporting

those w/o visible id, twice a year “training” , max group size for gatherings in

your hangar, etc etc. and the list grows.

Some grants allow multiple operators on the field but they must have the

same #1.

 

[Morgan3820]

I sold my mechanic a token share in the corporation that owns the airplane. They can’t stop an owner from working on their own airplane within the limits of their certification.

 

[Bell206]

I'm sure there are similar stories out there. What do you guys think?

I ran into this a few times over the years as a freelance mechanic. But without being able to read the actual airport rules or city rules I really can't offer any input as it is usually very specific to the airport and how it is run. Regardless, if the body who has overall jurisdiction of the airport decides to make a new rule there's usually not much others, to include the FAA in most cases, can do about it. However, in most cases except one, I along with the aircraft owner were able to figure a work around those rules and provided the maintenance he needed. But as I mentioned it is specific to the situation at hand. Perhaps throw out some more specific questions and I might be able to give you some direction.

 

[midwestpa24]

They can’t stop an owner from working on their own airplane within the limits of their certification.

Possibly, depending on the language in the hangar lease. Many airports, mine included, have lease provisions prohibiting maintenance work on aircraft in the leased hangars. As I stated above, this is due to liability, insurance, and fire codes. Hangar fires are often caused by maintenance that is occurring (parked aircraft don't usually spontaneously combust), and in a T-hangar type situation or hangars being near each other, the fire can quickly spread throughout the buildings damaging neighboring hangars and aircraft.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Can't you just lock the doors and let the mechanic do his work inside?
"John and I are hangar chatting, bye"
Maybe these are open hangars?

 

[Lowflynjack]

Can't you just lock the doors and let the mechanic do his work inside?
"John and I are hangar chatting, bye"
Maybe these are open hangars?

LOL, in the winter we can! Texas Summers are brutal!

 

[Bell206]

They can’t stop an owner from working on their own airplane within the limits of their certification.

Actually on airport property they can. It all depends on how the airport is classified and managed that sets the ground rules. Your FAA certifications have zero influence over how an airport is managed.

 

[Lowflynjack]

I would spite that shop and airport and fly to another airport for maintenance.

Most of us have done that for this and other reasons. I will fly it to my mechanic's home base for anything I can, but we're worried about the times we need to get the plane fixed before flying it.

 

[weilke]

What does the airports 'uniform commercial standards' policy say about mobile service providers ?

The lease prohibition is against you hiring a mechanic and providing maintenance to others out of your hangar.

Until they set up the correct policies they are interfering with your use of the airport as an 'individual user'.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Your best route is to get more reasonable terms for the mobile mechanic. In my mind, reasonable could be 1) similar insurance requirements as the based-mechanic; 2) business license/registration with the municipality, if that is a thing in your area, including paying any applicable business taxes; 3) a reasonable fee for processing an application to conduct business on the field.

I think our airport takes a reasonable approach:
https://www.cityoffullerton.com/government/departments/airport/commercial-operations?locale=en

 

[Lowflynjack]

Your best route is to get more reasonable terms for the mobile mechanic. In my mind, reasonable could be 1) similar insurance requirements as the based-mechanic; 2) business license/registration with the municipality, if that is a thing in your area, including paying any applicable business taxes; 3) a reasonable fee for processing an application to conduct business on the field.

I think our airport takes a reasonable approach:
https://www.cityoffullerton.com/government/departments/airport/commercial-operations?locale=en

That certainly does sound fair. I'll used this in our next airport board meeting. Thank you.

 

[Morgan3820]

Possibly, depending on the language in the hangar lease. Many airports, mine included, have lease provisions prohibiting maintenance work on aircraft in the leased hangars. As I stated above, this is due to liability, insurance, and fire codes. Hangar fires are often caused by maintenance that is occurring (parked aircraft don't usually spontaneously combust), and in a T-hangar type situation or hangars being near each other, the fire can quickly spread throughout the buildings damaging neighboring hangars and aircraft.

Fortunately the airport manager keeps a home built in the hanger across from mine. And he works on his own aircraft so it is hard for him to say much. But we do have a requirement to keep a fire extinguisher in the hanger. Fortunately my mechanic doesn’t present that much of a economic threat to the resident ap. He only dabbles in planes that the main ap doesn’t wanna bother with like exhibition aircraft and home builts. He has a regular 9 to 5 and just turns wrenches on airplanes part time. However one of the downsides is that if my ap gets in over his head the local ap doesn’t wanna work on our plane because he’s all or nothing kind a guy. So far it hasn’t been a real problem more of an inconvenience. We just go to the airport next over and that guy didn’t seem to have the same attitude.

 

[Bell206]

That certainly does sound fair. I'll used this in our next airport board meeting. Thank you.

Another question to bring up is for your commission to define "commercial operations" if that is the term they are using and how they classify the shop who is complaining. One method how we worked around this was that I was a private contractor to a specific owner. Since I always used a mx services agreement with customers this was sufficient to prove a "private contract." One commission tried to include the use of "private contractors" in their rules but couldn't use that verbiage since they were a public body. Are any of your airport rules in the public domain somewhere?

 

[weilke]

And what kind of socialist city government do you have that feels entitled to adjust the profitability of businesses as they see fit ?

If the shop on the field pays a gross receipts tax on maintenance, it is reasonable for the mobile mechanic to be subject to the same tax. If the shop has to provide 1mil liability and add the airport as additional insured , it's reasonable to require the mobile mechanic to do the same. 5k just to disadvantage the better businessman, not so much.

If I had this issue, I would make the mechanic a W2 employee of my business, give him a company ID and a snazzy polo shirt with his name our logo embroidered. Now my employee works on my aircraft ----> individual user.

 

[Lowflynjack]

I've posted some of the rules our city has listed before. You would think a city would have someone that could review the rules before posting them. These rules have been in place for a long time.

Some of them are just worded poorly. What's an automotive?
Lessee may park his and/or his passenger’s privately owned automotive(s) inside the Hangar or on the tie-down, but only while on a flight, which originated at the Airport.

Some of them have no logic. Get authorization from the airport manager?
STRAIGHT-IN APPROACHES. Straight-in approaches shall not be used unless authorized by the Airport Manager or unless radio contact with the airport advisory radio has been established from at least five (5) miles out.

Huh?
Aircraft which find it dangerous or difficult to conform to the standard pattern due to their high speed or other special characteristic may fly a circular counter-clockwise pattern (counter-clockwise for runway 35; clockwise for runway 17) with a radius of not more than three (3) miles and at an altitude of not more than one thousand (1,000) feet above the ground.

They actually think they can control airplanes flying over the city!!
ALTITUDE, ACCELERATION, DECELERATION. No fixed wing aircraft shall be operated over the City of Taylor at an altitude of less than one thousand (1,000) feet above the ground. Aircraft engines shall not be accelerated nor decelerated while over the Taylor area in such manner as to distract, excite or disturb persons on the ground, regardless of altitude.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of crop dusters intimidating me.
Agricultural spraying operations, if authorized, will be conducted in accordance with procedures approved by the Airport Manager and only from the areas designated on the airport. Reckless flying, careless handling of chemicals and indifference toward policing the area or intimidation of other aircraft users will not be tolerated.

And some of my favorites... there are things you can't do with those things you hang your clothes on:
Aircraft shall not be fueled while the engine is running or while in a hanger or other enclosed place.
No inflammable substance shall be used in cleaning motors or other parts of an aircraft inside a hanger or other building.
Hanger entrances shall be kept clear at all times. No boxes, crates, cans, bottles, paper or other litter shall be permitted to accumulate in or about a hangar. (Got it right once!)
All aircraft shall be gassed at the gas pump, or if by truck on the ramp clear of hangers.
There shall be no taxiing of aircraft by engine power into or out of hangers.


And if you think I'm making this up, see for yourself!
Airport Rules
Hangar Lease

 

[Morgan3820]

It’s stuff like this it made me leave marinas and get my own waterfront. I got so tired of the marina people tell me when and where and what I could do on my own boat.

 

[weilke]

As for the tortured language, this is written by people who know neither aviation nor law, but they know that no matter how sloppily written, the moment it becomes adopted, it is difficult to change.

 

[midwestpa24]

I've posted some of the rules our city has listed before. You would think a city would have someone that could review the rules before posting them. These rules have been in place for a long time.
.....
And if you think I'm making this up, see for yourself!
Airport Rules
Hangar Lease

It happens unfortunately. Often times the rules get added to by lawyers and bureaucrats with no knowledge of aviation, and those additions long outlive the situation or person that caused their creation. I've worked for years to clean up some of our Airport Rule and codes that either didn't make sense, were long outdated (ex. aircraft must be bonded and grounded for fueling), or were in direct conflict with current FARs. I really don't like when airports try to codify actual aircraft operations, such as traffic patterns, etc. If it isn't in the official Chart Supplement, or other FAA documentation, it doesn't exists. What pilot takes the time during their flight briefing to research City and Airport codes and regulations?

 

[bradg33]

Possibly, depending on the language in the hangar lease. Many airports, mine included, have lease provisions prohibiting maintenance work on aircraft in the leased hangars. As I stated above, this is due to liability, insurance, and fire codes. Hangar fires are often caused by maintenance that is occurring (parked aircraft don't usually spontaneously combust), and in a T-hangar type situation or hangars being near each other, the fire can quickly spread throughout the buildings damaging neighboring hangars and aircraft.

The FAA Grant Assurances disagree with you. They're quite clear that, if the airport is still subject to grant assurances, it cannot prohibit an owner from working on his/her/its own airplane. Someone quoted the grant assurance above. If the lease has that type of prohibition, the applicable Grant Assurance prohibits the airport from enforcing it.

 

[Bell206]

I've posted some of the rules our city has listed before.

Giving a quick look to your rules here are the things that caught my eye that are similar to what I fought against myself. All in all the rules seem average for a municipal airport.

Your main hurdle is in the lease under item 2 below. However, in my experience unless there is a "must" or "shall" in front it becomes a bit hard to enforce as every lease holder does some type of work on their aircraft even if it is cleaning which is outside this statement. And if they don't enforce it for one they can't enforce it against the people who choose not to use the resident mechanic.
2. The Hangar is to be used only for the storage or tie down of the above-described Aircraft, together with the accessories or other personal property necessary or ancillary for the operation of the aircraft and Lessee’s use of the Hangar.

And on the airport side they use the same terminology that allowed me and the owner to go the private contractor route as all the "commercial" ops definitions mention "to the public" which our agreement was not. Something to discuss with your compadres before the board meeting. The only other rule that stood out was I.22 on designating a place to repair an aircraft. Never saw that before and without a specific list wouldn't know how it would be enforced. Never cared for these situations and always went out of my way to help the owner(s) beat the system. Good luck.

 

[midwestpa24]

The FAA Grant Assurances disagree with you. They're quite clear that, if the airport is still subject to grant assurances, it cannot prohibit an owner from working on his/her/its own airplane. Someone quoted the grant assurance above. If the lease has that type of prohibition, the applicable Grant Assurance prohibits the airport from enforcing it.

Airports certainly can protect their property, the hangar they own that they are leasing to you. They are not prohibiting you from working on your own airplane, they are just saying you can't do it in their hangar. Grant assurances don't allow the airport to prohibit certain activities, but it does not prevent them from regulating those activities to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the airport for all operators. As a matter of fact, the airports are encouraged by the FAA to have such regulations, and to ensure fair and equal treatment of all users. Trust me, this is what I do for a living.

A perfect example is self-fueling. We can not stop an owner from fueling their own aircraft. However we can place restrictions on fueling in a hangar, storing large quantities of fuel in the hangar, and if you are inclined to have your own fuel farm or truck on the airfield, ensure that it is inspected and maintained in accordance with NFPA 407.

 

[bradg33]

Airports certainly can protect their property, the hangar they own that they are leasing to you. They are not prohibiting you from working on your own airplane, they are just saying you can't do it in their hangar. Grant assurances don't allow the airport to prohibit certain activities, but it does not prevent them from regulating those activities to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the airport for all operators. As a matter of fact, the airports are encouraged by the FAA to have such regulations, and to ensure fair and equal treatment of all users. Trust me, this is what I do for a living.

I'd love to see the issue litigated (maybe it has been, I'm not vested enough to look it up). But the grant assurance says the airport can't enforce any rule that operates to prohibit, among other things, owners from maintaining their own airplanes. I'll agree they can regulate certain aspects of how you do it to the extent there's an independent safety concern (must have a fire extinguisher in your hangar, can't run the engine inside, flammable liquids need to be properly stored, etc.) but to say that all maintenance must be performed outdoors (which I'd guess most airport policies also purport to prohibit) arguably operates to prohibit an owner from maintaining their own aircraft, as much maintenance can't safely and efficiently be performed outdoors.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Airports certainly can protect their property, the hangar they own that they are leasing to you. They are not prohibiting you from working on your own airplane, they are just saying you can't do it in their hangar. Grant assurances don't allow the airport to prohibit certain activities, but it does not prevent them from regulating those activities to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the airport for all operators. As a matter of fact, the airports are encouraged by the FAA to have such regulations, and to ensure fair and equal treatment of all users.

They're saying we can't work on them in the hangar, or anywhere on the airport, except they'll allow it in the maintenance shop. So in my case, the mobile mechanic has worked on a lot of planes at our airport for many years. If he chooses not to pay the $5K, and I have an issue where I can't fly to another airport, I'm forced to use this mechanic or pull my wings off and trailer it somewhere.

Lessee agrees he will not conduct any commercial activity such as pilot instruction, aerial spraying, charter flights, air taxi, sightseeing flights, aerial photography, aircraft engine or airframe repair, and avionics repair within the Hangar or on the Airport.

 

[Lindberg]

They're saying we can't work on them in the hangar, or anywhere on the airport, except they'll allow it in the maintenance shop. So in my case, the mobile mechanic has worked on a lot of planes at our airport for many years. If he chooses not to pay the $5K, and I have an issue where I can't fly to another airport, I'm forced to use this mechanic or pull my wings off and trailer it somewhere.

Lessee agrees he will not conduct any commercial activity such as pilot instruction, aerial spraying, charter flights, air taxi, sightseeing flights, aerial photography, aircraft engine or airframe repair, and avionics repair within the Hangar or on the Airport.

Unless the mechanic is the lessee, he's not bound by that clause.

 

[bradg33]

They're saying we can't work on them in the hangar, or anywhere on the airport, except they'll allow it in the maintenance shop. So in my case, the mobile mechanic has worked on a lot of planes at our airport for many years. If he chooses not to pay the $5K, and I have an issue where I can't fly to another airport, I'm forced to use this mechanic or pull my wings off and trailer it somewhere.

Lessee agrees he will not conduct any commercial activity such as pilot instruction, aerial spraying, charter flights, air taxi, sightseeing flights, aerial photography, aircraft engine or airframe repair, and avionics repair within the Hangar or on the Airport.

You're missing the part that YOU, the Lessee, are not conducting any commercial activity. You're not using your hangar to work on someone else's airplane for money. Hiring a vendor to work on your airplane in your hangar is not you conducting commercial activity. Under this particular clause, allowing the mobile mechanic to work on your airplane in your hangar isn't a breach.

 

[midwestpa24]

I'd love to see the issue litigated (maybe it has been, I'm not vested enough to look it up). But the grant assurance says the airport can't enforce any rule that operates to prohibit, among other things, owners from maintaining their own airplanes. I'll agree they can regulate certain aspects of how you do it to the extent there's an independent safety concern (must have a fire extinguisher in your hangar, can't run the engine inside, flammable liquids need to be properly stored, etc.) but to say that all maintenance must be performed outdoors (which I'd guess most airport policies also purport to prohibit) arguably operates to prohibit an owner from maintaining their own aircraft, as much maintenance can't safely and efficiently be performed outdoors.

Just to lay it out there, I do manage an airport and this is something we work with regularly, both with tenants, the fire marshal, and the FAA.

Yes Grant Assurance 22. Paragraph f. states "It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own employees [including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueling] that it may choose to perform."

However Grant Assurance 22. Paragraph h. also states "The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport."

In this case, adoption of fire code standards to protect the hangars is the norm, and is supported by the FAA. If we are talking about T-hangars, they don't usually meet code for aircraft maintenance facilities.

But what do I know?

 

[Bell206]

But the grant assurance says the airport can't enforce any rule that operates to prohibit, among other things, owners from maintaining their own airplanes.

FYI: the grant assurance "self-service" protections only apply to the aircraft owner and their employees. It's stated in several guidance docs. Unfortunately, it does not apply to any outside 3rd party mx providers. But where it does draw the line is if the airport prohibits the owner's self-service rights in order to direct all mx services to a domiciled commercial mx provider. Which in the OPs case it sounds like the intent and if the airport does fall under these FAA rules then they may want to rethink their position. In my experience, it can make for some interesting discussions at an airport commission meeting if this is in fact the intent of the OPs airport new rules.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Just to lay it out there, I do manage an airport and this is something we work with regularly, both with tenants, the fire marshal, and the FAA.

Yes Grant Assurance 22. Paragraph f. states "It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own employees [including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueling] that it may choose to perform."

However Grant Assurance 22. Paragraph h. also states "The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport."

In this case, adoption of fire code standards to protect the hangars is the norm, and is supported by the FAA. If we are talking about T-hangars, they don't usually meet code for aircraft maintenance facilities.

But what do I know?

Appreciate the input. I can understand not being allowed to run a maintenance shop out of a hangar, but working on our own planes seems reasonable. Do you allow it at your airport?

 

[Lowflynjack]

FYI: the grant assurance "self-service" protections only apply to the aircraft owner and their employees. It's stated in several guidance docs. Unfortunately, it does not apply to any outside 3rd party mx providers. But where it does draw the line is if the airport prohibits the owner's self-service rights in order to direct all mx services to a domiciled commercial mx provider. Which in the OPs case it sounds like the intent and if the airport does fall under these FAA rules then they may want to rethink their position. In my experience, it can make for some interesting discussions at an airport commission meeting if this is in fact the intent of the OPs airport new rules.

I think that's where we're at. Requiring insurance is acceptable. Asking for $5K isn't. We plan to discuss it at the next advisory meeting, but the next step would be to call the FAA and see where it goes from there.