independent CFI airport prohibition

Salty said:
Lol.


Airport mgr: please send a policeman right away
911: what’s the problem?
Airport mgr: a certified pilot instructor is instructing without my approval

Seriously, that’s some funny stuff.

How exactly will they know when to do these three things?
Click to expand...
Not quite how it works:

After written request to cease instruction at airport and CFI ignores the request, “please send officer to issue a trespass notice”. Then when the CFI enters the airport it is an arrest.

And yes, you can be trespassed off a public airport or any other public property. Happens every day.
 
How exactly will they know when to do these three things?
 
Salty said:
How exactly will they know when to do these three things?
Click to expand...
I know maybe it’s a bit odd in your world, but when asked “is Joe providing you flight instruction” normal people don’t lie about it.

The airport can send you a letter requesting you cease flight instruction from the airport with no physical evidence you are doing so.

Then when they call the police, 61.51 allows an law enforcement officer to inspect pilot logbooks. So even if you are sneaking around doing IR training for a local tenant, the local police can inspect your students logbook for no reason at all and issue a trespass notice when you signature is in the logbook.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
I know maybe it’s a bit odd in your world, but when asked “is Joe providing you flight instruction” normal people don’t lie about it.

The airport can send you a letter requesting you cease flight instruction from the airport with no physical evidence you are doing so.

Then when they call the police, 61.51 allows an law enforcement officer to inspect pilot logbooks. So even if you are sneaking around doing IR training for a local tenant, the local police can inspect your students logbook for no reason at all and issue a trespass notice when you signature is in the logbook.
Click to expand...
Somebody needs a hobby.
 
Are we talking about airports in the US or Red China?
 
This is a difficult subject for airport managers. On the one hand, if you have contracted with a repair or flight instruction business, you want to assure they can stay in business. But on the other hand, it is ethically if not legally problematic to prohibit mechanics or instructors meeting the same standards as the local contractor from conducting business at a public airport if those operations do not compromise safety.

Our airport does not keep a close eye on flight instruction, but we do ask that outside mechanics wishing to do maintenance on field meet the same insurance standards we set for our contracted repair shop. No more, no less. The idea is not to leave the airport exposed due to poor or underinsured maintenance resulting in some sort of incident. In reality, it is not always possible to enforce this policy unless management becomes aware of maintenance activity happening at the airport. But our model of operation is very different than most FBOs. We lease facilities to an operation (repair or flight school) at no cost in return for some in-kind service at the airport plus call-out fees. While this arrangement does not confer an exclusive right of the contractor to do business at the airport, it does confer significant advantages in terms of operating costs and ability to deliver services. This seems like an "equitable" advantage.

In the case of flight instruction restrictions cited in this thread, the regs are being used not to maintain safety or consistency of operation, but simply to keep additional flight instruction activities out of the airport. In other words, the minimum requirements are solely to protect a business monopoly. (Flight instruction can be safely and effectively conducted without leasing business space at the airport.) Ultimately, such policies may inadvertently reduce activity and resulting profits at the airport. I personally grate at the idea that if I'm based at an airport I'm essentially forced to use their services. This is anticompetitive and guaranteed to encourage higher costs to the consumer due to lack of competition. I don't think our airport commission would ever go for this kind of restriction.
 
MauleSkinner said:
that would be a question for the airport authority. but If you want this overturned, you’re not going to get it done by making them prove they can do it. You’re going to have to prove they can’t.
Click to expand...

Thought I had posted this yesterday. The answer to this may lie in the grant assurances, assuming the airport has received grants.


Assurances 22, Economic nondiscrimination and 23 Exclusive rights may apply. There might be something in there about open access too.
 
So what’s the penalty for violating the rule? My guess is that there is no law or enforcement mechanism. If you violate it they can tell you that you did but without something on the books they can’t arrest or fine you for it so you just thank them for letting you know and keep on doing what you are doing. If they want you to stop then ask them to cite the section of the law or ordinance that prevents it.
 
bflynn said:
Thought I had posted this yesterday. The answer to this may lie in the grant assurances, assuming the airport has received grants.


Assurances 22, Economic nondiscrimination and 23 Exclusive rights may apply. There might be something in there about open access too.
Click to expand...
A business rents a space on a dock to provide fuel, boat repair, bait and jet ski rental/instruction. In addition to rent, the business have to provide insurance naming the dock owner as an insured.

Joe comes along and says I just want to do jet ski instruction to the jet ski owners renting spaces on the dock. I am not going to pay the dock owner and not naming the dock owner on my insurance.

Some believe it a travesty to toss Joe off the dock
 
Clip4 said:
A business rents a space on a dock to provide fuel, boat repair, bait and jet ski rental/instruction. In addition to rent, the business have to provide insurance naming the dock owner as an insured.

Joe comes along and says I just want to do jet ski instruction to the jet ski owners renting spaces on the dock. I am not going to pay the dock owner and not naming the dock owner on my insurance.

Some believe it a travesty to toss Joe off the dock
Click to expand...


Is it a public dock? If so, Joe and I both have a right to be there, and I have a right to hire anyone I please to give me jet ski instruction on my own jet ski.
 
Half Fast said:
Is it a public dock? If so, Joe and I both have a right to be there, and I have a right to hire anyone I please to give me jet ski instruction on my own jet ski.
Click to expand...
You need to go down to your local park where there is ice cream vendor paying for the right to sell and set up shop and see how long that lasts.
 
More like “ I go to my park and meet a running coach. We for a run and when done come back to the park”.
 
bflynn said:
Thought I had posted this yesterday. The answer to this may lie in the grant assurances, assuming the airport has received grants.


Assurances 22, Economic nondiscrimination and 23 Exclusive rights may apply. There might be something in there about open access too.
Click to expand...
The person to whom I made that response apparently isn’t looking to read that stuff for himself.
 
WDD said:
More like “ I go to my park and meet a running coach. We for a run and when done come back to the park”.
Click to expand...
Good news is, you’ll never need to take a **** while you’re working with your running coach.
 
A public airport is not the same as a road, sidewalk, or park. You can't just stroll in there and do what you want. Access and activities can be restricted by the managing authority as necessary for safety, liability, economic viability, etc. No different then a "public" hospital, power plant, etc.

A pro sports stadium is a good analogy. It is public property. But the stadium authority can contract with a pro sports franchise to charge admission to events and give them a monopoly on food and drink sales. None of this is communism.

Management authority is conferred by some level of government and thus ultimately subject to public consent. If you don't like a policy, there are various ways to challenge using political, bureaucratic, or legal venues.

In this case, I would request a meeting with the airport manager to ask for clarification of the policy. Use your adult people skills to build rapport and see if an accommodation might be possible. Many bureaucratic policies are ignored or selectively enforced.

If that fails, find out which local government entity controls the airport authority and research their laws and regulations. There will almost always be some process for public input, hearings, etc. The ultimate authority will be an elected official or officials who can be lobbied, petitioned, or campaigned against.

Little known clause in the First Amendment: the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
 
Ed Haywood said:
A public airport is not the same as a road, sidewalk, or park. You can't just stroll in there and do what you want. Access and activities can be restricted by the managing authority as necessary for safety, liability, economic viability, etc.
Click to expand...

It’s not the same. There is a requirement that a public airport must be open to pilots. Economic viability does not exist as a reason to control who can fly out of the airport. That includes restricting independent CFIs so you can charge more.
 
bflynn said:
It’s not the same. There is a requirement that a public airport must be open to pilots. Economic viability does not exist as a reason to control who can fly out of the airport. That includes restricting independent CFIs so you can charge more.
Click to expand...
It's possible you are right.

It is also possible that the airport authority used "best practices" language and had their policies reviewed by a competent lawyer who considered the full body of laws and regulations.
 
bflynn said:
It’s not the same. There is a requirement that a public airport must be open to pilots. Economic viability does not exist as a reason to control who can fly out of the airport. That includes restricting independent CFIs so you can charge more.
Click to expand...
They are not restricting who can fly out of an airport, only who can base a business there. is there a requirement that anyone be able to base a business out of the trunk of his car at an airport?
 
MauleSkinner said:
They are not restricting who can fly out of an airport, only who can base a business there. is there a requirement that anyone be able to base a business out of the trunk of his car at an airport?
Click to expand...

I dunno. Where do you keep your headset when you’re driving to the airport? Mine is in the trunk.

nobody is basing a business out of their car. Try again.
 
bflynn said:
It’s not the same. There is a requirement that a public airport must be open to pilots. Economic viability does not exist as a reason to control who can fly out of the airport. That includes restricting independent CFIs so you can charge more.
Click to expand...
Economic viability does play a role in the rules on a airport. See if you read those Grant Assurances, airports must attempt to remain as economically self sufficient as they can be. When they can't, it then falls on the taxpayers of the city, county, or state that own the airport to fund it's operations, which they don't like to do either. An airport isn't operated for free, it cost money to maintain, pay the utility bills, etc. Yes there are grants available, but those grants are for capital infrastructure improvements only, not operating cost or routine maintenance.
 
I'll add on about Commercial Minimum Standards and why the FAA recommends all airport adopt them. They are there to protect the airport financially and to keep the playing field level between tenants while avoiding economic discrimination.

An example of minimum standards would be a Flight School needs to own at least X aircraft, lease or own X,XXX square feet of office/hangar space, maintain XX hours, XX staff, and provide adequate insurance provisions to protect the airport.

So ABC flight school does all of this, and due to overhead charges $40 per hour. Now Joe Blow gets his CFI and decides to freelance. Because he has zero overhead, except maybe insurance, he can charge $25 per hour. Soon he is stealing away business from ABC flight school that can't afford to compete because they are complying with the CMS. They lose customers and go out of business or move to another airport. Now there is no flight school, just some independent instructor with no school, and the airport suffers.

Or ABC sues the airport for failing to follow their own CMS, accusing them of economic discrimination.

Now if Joe Blow can meet all the CMS and starts his own flight school, then you have two business competing on a level playing field.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I'll add on about Commercial Minimum Standards and why the FAA recommends all airport adopt them. They are there to protect the airport financially and to keep the playing field level between tenants while avoiding economic discrimination.

An example of minimum standards would be a Flight School needs to own at least X aircraft, lease or own X,XXX square feet of office/hangar space, maintain XX hours, XX staff, and provide adequate insurance provisions to protect the airport.

So ABC flight school does all of this, and due to overhead charges $40 per hour. Now Joe Blow gets his CFI and decides to freelance. Because he has zero overhead, except maybe insurance, he can charge $25 per hour. Soon he is stealing away business from ABC flight school that can't afford to compete because they are complying with the CMS. They lose customers and go out of business or move to another airport. Now there is no flight school, just some independent instructor with no school, and the airport suffers.

Or ABC sues the airport for failing to follow their own CMS, accusing them of economic discrimination.

Now if Joe Blow can meet all the CMS and starts his own flight school, then you have two business competing on a level playing field.
Click to expand...

Conversely the standards can be drafted such that the barrier to entry for ABC Flight School to even open its doors for business are so high no training exists whatsoever. The result; nothing but freelancers. Same thing for mechanics.

Good intentions run amok.
 
bflynn said:
Thought I had posted this yesterday. The answer to this may lie in the grant assurances, assuming the airport has received grants.


Assurances 22, Economic nondiscrimination and 23 Exclusive rights may apply. There might be something in there about open access too.
Click to expand...
Section 22.f-i are the controlling language. According to this language it is not permissible for a grant recipient airport to blanket prohibit on-field maintenance by non-FBO mechanics, or personal flight instruction in one's own plane, but it might be reasonable, if desired, to hold mechanics or flight instructors to insurance standards that are the same as those required for the FBO to help ensure safe and non-discriminatory operation.
 
Probably his house. That’s where my CFI arranges his business from. We meet at the airport and fly, just two pilots going out for a flight.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I'll add on about Commercial Minimum Standards and why the FAA recommends all airport adopt them. They are there to protect the airport financially and to keep the playing field level between tenants while avoiding economic discrimination.

An example of minimum standards would be a Flight School needs to own at least X aircraft, lease or own X,XXX square feet of office/hangar space, maintain XX hours, XX staff, and provide adequate insurance provisions to protect the airport.

So ABC flight school does all of this, and due to overhead charges $40 per hour. Now Joe Blow gets his CFI and decides to freelance. Because he has zero overhead, except maybe insurance, he can charge $25 per hour. Soon he is stealing away business from ABC flight school that can't afford to compete because they are complying with the CMS. They lose customers and go out of business or move to another airport. Now there is no flight school, just some independent instructor with no school, and the airport suffers.

Or ABC sues the airport for failing to follow their own CMS, accusing them of economic discrimination.

Now if Joe Blow can meet all the CMS and starts his own flight school, then you have two business competing on a level playing field.
Click to expand...
It is a violation of the grant assurances to regulate the market, but the FAA has no guts about maintaining the grant assurances. If the did, SMO would have lost control of the airport a long time ago.
 
Independent instructors as described are called "through the fence" operators. It is common to preclude them based on Minimum Standards at the various airports. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just that it is a "thing".

When I opened my flight school 20+ years ago, the existing flight schools on the field ganged up against me and tried to have me thrown off the airport. I had offices there, but they concluded I still did not conform to the Minimum Standards. With the help of an aviation attorney, I successfully fought the battle, but it took a year and a lot of stress to prevail.
 
bflynn said:
It is a violation of the grant assurances to regulate the market, but the FAA has no guts about maintaining the grant assurances. If the did, SMO would have lost control of the airport a long time ago.
Click to expand...

It is not a violation to regulate the market, as long as the regulations are "Fair and Reasonable" and equally applied. Now the definition of "Fair and Reasonable" can be discussed until everyone is blue in the face. Usually lawyers and judges have to get involved to make that determination. Obviously there are some outlier cases that are clearly discriminatory or prejudiced.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So what’s the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is minimum standards pose a ridiculously high barrier to entry at some airports. At other airports there are no barriers. Add to the mix are established flight schools using minimum standards to protect their turf as @write-stuff described above.

Sometimes there are Barney Fife airport managers and busy body tennants who try to insert themselves into independent CFIs providing flight training. For example, I know of a nearby airport that will not allow a CFI to brief or debrief a training flight in the pilot lounge even when the client is an airport tennant airplane owner. That might or might not be a problem depending on one's temperament.

As you keep pointing out, there's nothing illegal about having high standards. If the city or airport sponsor wants Gucci flight schools then that's what they get.

I know the mayor of our city was super impressed by the "free" cookies at a Signature/Atlantic or some other big FBO chain he passed through and now that's what he wants for his city instead of the city running the airport. It won't be good for the rank and file small GA airplane owners. You can be sure his experience will be a part of minimum standards someday.

The only recourse is to get the standards changed or find an airport to operate out of with lower minimum standards.
 
Walboy said:
The problem is minimum standards pose a ridiculously high barrier to entry at some airports. At other airports there are no barriers. Add to the mix are established flight schools using minimum standards to protect their turf as @write-stuff described above.

Sometimes there are Barney Fife airport managers and busy body tennants who try to insert themselves into independent CFIs providing flight training. For example, I know of a nearby airport that will not allow a CFI to brief or debrief a training flight in the pilot lounge even when the client is an airport tennant airplane owner. That might or might not be a problem depending on one's temperament.

As you keep pointing out, there's nothing illegal about having high standards. If the city or airport sponsor wants Gucci flight schools then that's what they get.

I know the mayor of our city was super impressed by the "free" cookies at a Signature/Atlantic or some other big FBO chain he passed through and now that's what he wants for his city instead of the city running the airport. It won't be good for the rank and file small GA airplane owners. You can be sure his experience will be a part of minimum standards someday.

The only recourse is to get the standards changed or find an airport to operate out of with lower minimum standards.
Click to expand...
Minimum standards don’t prevent people from flying into or out of an airport, nor do they necessarily mean Gucci standards. If a pilot wants to change the minimum standards, going into the meeting with “you’re not allowing me to fly,” or, “Gucci standards are unreasonable,” he’s going to get a response of, “we’re not doing that, have a nice life.” The words used need to be accurate and relevant in order to make the desired changes.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Minimum standards don’t prevent people from flying into or out of an airport, nor do they necessarily mean Gucci standards. If a pilot wants to change the minimum standards, going into the meeting with “you’re not allowing me to fly,” or, “Gucci standards are unreasonable,” he’s going to get a response of, “we’re not doing that, have a nice life.” The words used need to be accurate and relevant in order to make the desired changes.
Click to expand...

You're distorting what I said.

I never said minimum standards prevented people from flying into or out of an airport nor did I suggest an approach for getting standards changed with airport management or the local advisory board. What I am saying is that minimum standards can make opening a business cost prohibitive with expensive (Gucci) and in some cases unreasonable requirements.

Minimum standards can be written such that only the large FBO chains (or large flight schools) have the financial ability to set up shop or they can be written with a much lower bar. I'm not sure why that's a difficult concept to comprehend. I'm also fairly certain that if an airport sposnor wanted to change the standards such that it threatened a large established business, there would be intensive lobbying to resist change.

All that said, minimim standards can be resonable, I'm not totally against them.
 
Walboy said:
You're distorting what I said.

I never said minimum standards prevented people from flying into or out of an airport nor did I suggest an approach for getting standards changed with airport management or the local advisory board.
Click to expand...
that was, however, what the previous poster that I responded to said.

Walboy said:
What I am saying is that minimum standards can make opening a business cost prohibitive with expensive (Gucci)
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that having restroom facilities constitutes Gucci, but it certainly isn’t the responsibility of government to make starting a business fit someone’s wallet. That’s what investors are for. I havent seen anyone post anything specifically ureasonable about the standards posted by the OP.
Walboy said:
and in some cases unreasonable requirements.
….
All that said, minimim standards can be resonable, I'm not totally against them.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’m not sure that having restroom facilities constitutes Gucci, but it certainly isn’t the responsibility of government to make starting a business fit someone’s wallet.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep quoting me and then bringing up something I never mentioned? Where did I say anything about restrooms?
 
Walboy said:
Why do you keep quoting me and then bringing up something I never mentioned? Where did I say anything about restrooms?
Click to expand...
I’m just trying to figure out what’s specifically unreasonable about the standards posted by the OP.
 
midwestpa24 said:
It is not a violation to regulate the market, as long as the regulations are "Fair and Reasonable" and equally applied. Now the definition of "Fair and Reasonable" can be discussed until everyone is blue in the face. Usually lawyers and judges have to get involved to make that determination. Obviously there are some outlier cases that are clearly discriminatory or prejudiced.
Click to expand...
when the minimum standards are the standards of the only FBO, they are unreasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top