FAA Order 5190.6B - FAA Airport Compliance Manual

Bob Noel

Bob Noel

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
24,361
Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
I'm seeing some chatter about the Sept 2009 version of 5190.6B.
Complaints include (quoting from aviationbanter - not the order)

"No more autofuel may be used in aircraft."

' "Autofuel was not recognized as an authorized aviation fuel, nor does it suggest
that airports take actions to install self-service, ethanol-free premium grade
autogas pumps to support the 100,000+ aircraft that use autogas as their
primary, FAA-approved aviation fuel," the EAA noted.'

" The banning of trailerable Light Sport Aircraft, powered parachutes,
weight-shift- control and gyroplanes was recognized as an activity not permitted
because of the FAA's through-the- fence (TTF) prohibitions, EAA said.'"

When I downloaded 5190.6B from the FAA site, I couldn't find
the parts of 5190.6B that support these conclusions.

What am I missing?
 
Bob Noel said:
I'm seeing some chatter about the Sept 2009 version of 5190.6B.
Complaints include (quoting from aviationbanter - not the order)

"No more autofuel may be used in aircraft."

' "Autofuel was not recognized as an authorized aviation fuel, nor does it suggest
that airports take actions to install self-service, ethanol-free premium grade
autogas pumps to support the 100,000+ aircraft that use autogas as their
primary, FAA-approved aviation fuel," the EAA noted.'

" The banning of trailerable Light Sport Aircraft, powered parachutes,
weight-shift- control and gyroplanes was recognized as an activity not permitted
because of the FAA's through-the- fence (TTF) prohibitions, EAA said.'"

When I downloaded 5190.6B from the FAA site, I couldn't find
the parts of 5190.6B that support these conclusions.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

EAA and others mis-interpretation?
TTF does not prohibit trailerable aircraft.
FAA recognizes and supports "self fueling", but they don't have to supply the fuel.
 
There were some rather onerous things written in there about clubs, too:

b. General. *The ownership of the club aircraft must be vested in the name of the flying club or
owned by all its members.* The property rights of the members of the club shall be equal; no part
of the net earnings of the club will inure to the benefit of any individual in any form, including
salaries, bonuses, etc. The flying club may not derive greater revenue from the use of its aircraft
than the amount needed for the operation, maintenance and replacement of its aircraft. For a
sample of flying club rules and regulations, see the Sample Flying Club Rules and Regulations at
the end of this chapter.
(3). *No flying club shall permit its aircraft to be used for flight instruction for any person,
including members of the club owning the aircraft, when such person pays or becomes obligated
to pay for such instruction*. An exception applies when the instruction is given by a lessee based
on the airport who provides flight training and the person receiving the training is a member of
the flying club. *Flight instructors who are also club members may not receive payment for
instruction except that they may be compensated by credit against payment of dues or flight time.*
Click to expand...

Ummmm... Say WHAT?!?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
There were some rather onerous things written in there about clubs, too:



Ummmm... Say WHAT?!?
Click to expand...

Yeah...I saw that one too...

Our club lets us use just about any CFI we want for instruction in club aircraft. We have to submit them to the Board for approval, but I've never heard of one being denied. Then we pay them for their time...as we should...CFIs are professionals, and should be compensated for their time (and I'm not a CFI!)
 
Acting foolish, I might ask: is this new language (I presume it is).

Call it, if you like, the "American Flyers Clause."
 
JeffDG said:
No, call it the "FBO's don't like non-affiliated CFIs clause"
Click to expand...

But it's talking about clubs, not FBO's. It seems to prohibit an FBO from pretending it's a "club" - But then it says that regular clubs must not allow OUR members to fly OUR airplanes with OUR chosen CFI's.

Our FBO LOVES us - We mainly use their CFI's, but we don't beat up their airplanes! (And they mainly make their flight-school profits on the CFI's, not on the airplanes.)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
But it's talking about clubs, not FBO's. It seems to prohibit an FBO from pretending it's a "club" - But then it says that regular clubs must not allow OUR members to fly OUR airplanes with OUR chosen CFI's.

Our FBO LOVES us - We mainly use their CFI's, but we don't beat up their airplanes! (And they mainly make their flight-school profits on the CFI's, not on the airplanes.)
Click to expand...

But the clause prohibits you, as a club member, from using a club plane and your own CFI, unless (a) You don't pay said CFI, or (b) That CFI works for an FBO on field.
 
JeffDG said:
But the clause prohibits you, as a club member, from using a club plane and your own CFI, unless (a) You don't pay said CFI, or (b) That CFI works for an FBO on field.
Click to expand...

That's how I read it.

It's chicken stuff.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
There were some rather onerous things written in there about clubs, too:

Ummmm... Say WHAT?!?
Click to expand...

Those provisions certainly could turn into a nightmare for the club I belong to, which as far as I know entirely flies leasebacks. I wonder though, if the words I have put in bold below indicate that these are provisions that airport managements COULD put in place, but aren't necessarily required to.
Chapter 10. Reasonable Commercial Minimum Standards ​


10.1. Introduction.
This chapter describes the sponsor's prerogative to establish minimum standards for commercial service providers and to establish self-service rules and regulations for all other airport activities...​


10.2. FAA Recognition of Minimum Standards.
A sponsor's establishment of minimum standards and self-service rules and regulations contributes to nondiscriminatory treatment of airport tenants and users. It also helps the sponsor avoid granting an exclusive right. (See chapter 8 of this Order, Exclusive Rights, and chapter 9 of this Order, Unjust Discrimination between Aeronautical Users.) When the sponsor imposes reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory minimum standards for airport operations, and the sponsor then denies access or services based on those standards, the FAA will not find the sponsor in violation of the assurances regarding exclusive rights and unjust discrimination, provided those standards:...​


​
10.6. Flying Clubs...
​
d. Violations.

A flying club that violates the requirements for a flying club – or that permits one or more members to do so – may be required to terminate all operations as a flying club at all airports controlled by the airport sponsor.​
 
Last edited:
Let there be no doubt: airport sponsors will be using these "advisories" to claim that they are required by federal law to (fill in the blank). This is a sign of really bad policy on the way.
 
SCCutler said:
Let there be no doubt: airport sponsors will be using these "advisories" to claim that they are required by federal law to (fill in the blank). This is a sign of really bad policy on the way.
Click to expand...

More importantly, the FBOs will be telling the airport commissions that the commission is required by federal law...
 
I could'nt find the paragraph about the banning of MOGAS, Could anyone point me to the area wher that could be found?
 
Dale Young said:
Thanks Dean. That does'nt necessarily mean that MOGAS is'nt recognized as an acceptable fueling option though. I was looking for the paragraph that stated that. I hope that they don't stop us from using it. I use MOGAS almost exclusively, and have been for the past 2 yrs. ETHANOL-FREE of course.
Click to expand...

The way it was explained to me is the new rule does not prohibit MoGas, just states that the the airport authority does not have to offer it. But they can't stop you from bring your own under the right to self service.
 
Dean said:
The way it was explained to me is the new rule does not prohibit MoGas, just states that the the airport authority does not have to offer it. But they can't stop you from bring your own under the right to self service.
Click to expand...

They can't stop you, but they can safety program you to death.
 
SCCutler said:
Let there be no doubt: airport sponsors will be using these "advisories" to claim that they are required by federal law to (fill in the blank). This is a sign of really bad policy on the way.
Click to expand...
Nothing new. Local governments are always doing stuff which gets overturned in court. Only way to stop this from happening is at the voting booth. Fortunately, this keeps lawyers like Spike employed so they have money to spend on flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top