Professional Pilot Banned From Airport

[Jim Rosenow]

The Wayne County, Ohio airport board has taken the unusual action of banning an active commercial pilot from the public airport. Ms. Joann Stype flies and overseas maintenance on a Baron (which is housed in a rental hangar on the field) for her employer. She was recently mailed a letter, over the signature of the board president, indicating that she is not allowed any access, at any time, to the public airport, without being accompanied by her employer. There were no reasons for the ban stated in the letter.

Ms. Stype, who is in her 80's, has been an active pilot and CFI for over 50 years, all of it associated with the local airport. She currently flies as safety pilot in the Baron for her employer, and has until this point overseen maintenance for the aircraft. The airport ban will of course preclude her maintenance duties.

Ms. Stype chose to ignore the airport prohibition and attended the airport board meeting at the County FBO last night. She sat quietly, made no comment, and no notice was officially taken by the board that she was there. Ironically, Ms. Stype sat next to a member of the airport board who is employed by the Wayne County Prosecutor's office. That agency would prosecute Ms. Stype's offense, had she been charged with Criminal Trespass for being at the meeting.

This observers opinion is that Ms. Stype asks too many questions....examples being "Why has there been no wind sock in segmented circle since last September?" and "Why are there two employees sitting in the airport office doing nothing?" The airport manager and Ms. Stype have squabbled regularly over such topics. Simply put, Ms. Stype cares deeply about the airport.

My involvement is only as a fellow pilot and observer. I have a 182RG and Citabria which are both based at the airport, and my house adjoins the airport.

I pass it along for what it's worth....

Jim

 

[James331]

Sounds like you need to get the airport tenants together and make some changes around there, those board memebers need to find themselves a new board.

 

[flyingron]

They can't ban her from attending the board meetings. Ohio has pretty sweeping open meetings laws that won't allow them to legally preclude her.

 

[Geico266]

If the airport took federal funds they cannot ban a licensed pilot from using the facilities for purposes of aviation, and they cannot ban a citizen from attending open meetings for a public airport. Unless they have a court order.

 

[steingar]

I'd be surprised if the airport never took FAA money. Its fairly nice. Great place to fly in and get some Amish goodies.

 

[Clark1961]

Time for a letter to the editor of the local newsrag...

The letter to the pilot is obviously just a scare tactic and bullies like that should be publicly exposed...

 

[flyingron]

I'd be surprised if the airport never took FAA money. Its fairly nice. Great place to fly in and get some Amish goodies.

It doesn't matter, as I stated under Ohio law all sorts of these quasi-government boards come under the open meetings act. They must allow *ANYBODY* to attend.

 

[Florida Cracker]

Government agencies have become deaf to public input, as they seek only to promote and expend their budgets and power. When people ask inconvenient quests, those who perceive themselves more important than those who they are supposed to serve, the ugliness isn't far behind.

 

[SPAJC]

If the airport took federal funds they cannot ban a licensed pilot from using the facilities for purposes of aviation, and they cannot ban a citizen from attending open meetings for a public airport. Unless they have a court order.

Agree....in some areas, here for example, a citizen cannot be trespassed from publically owned property.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SPAJC]

Can she take her letter to the "airport commission" and raise hell about it, I wonder? That is, if there is an overseeing airport commission....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Turningfinal]

I'd be surprised if the airport never took FAA money. Its fairly nice. Great place to fly in and get some Amish goodies.

If we're talking KBJJ here, they've taken plenty of AIP (Airport Improvement Program) funds from the FAA and are obligated to adhere to the Airport Compliance Manual - while I don't believe there's anything specific in there relating to specifically banning individuals from an airport, the general scope of Part IV of the document leads me to believe that the FAA would side with the pilot, and against the board, if any court action came to be over this.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I wonder what the underlying reasons were for this "ban."

 

[N747JB]

She ought to ignore the letter and keep about her daily activities. I would love to see what would happen when they arrest an 80 year pilot and grandmother for doing her job. I made up the grandmother part, but it would certainly be part of the news story, it might make the networks! I've learned a few things in my 51 years and one of them is to NOT pick on little old ladies!! Even if for some reason the airport authority is somehow justified, they will be crucified in the court of public opinion! Unless she has terrorist ties, they would be best served to leave her alone. I know several attorneys that would love to take on a case like this at no charge if it were around here.

 

[SPAJC]

She ought to ignore the letter and keep about her daily activities. I would love to see what would happen when they arrest an 80 year pilot and grandmother for doing her job. I made up the grandmother part, but it would certainly be part of the news story, it might make the networks! I've learned a few things in my 51 years and one of them is to NOT pick on little old ladies!! Even if for some reason the airport authority is somehow justified, they will be crucified in the court of public opinion! Unless she has terrorist ties, they would be best served to leave her alone. I know several attorneys that would love to take on a case like this at no charge if it were around here.

I agree. Ignore away!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom-D]

I wonder what the underlying reasons were for this "ban."

Pizzing contest. she rubbed their noses in the lack of maintenance and waste of money and poor management.

by asking embarrassing questions.

 

[N747JB]

Pizzing contest. she rubbed their noses in the lack of maintenance and waste of money and poor management.

by asking embarrassing questions.

And that will look GREAT in the local newspaper!!

 

[Tom-D]

And that will look GREAT in the local newspaper!!

they might want to think about the repercussions of pointing out the waste of money at the airport. you can never know what the public will do.

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

Thanks for all the input and ideas! The airport pecking order is, airport manager, hired and owned by the airport board, 7 member airport board is appointed and retained at the will of the 3 County Commissioners. Kind of a small cozy circle.

We haven't had much luck getting anything other than the official airport line on other issues into the local newspaper. Along with posting here, tho, I have contacted Jim Campbell at Aero-News Network and Paul Bertorelli at AvWeb, with the same information in my original post. Got an e-mail from Jim wanting more info, which I provided. Haven't heard back from Paul yet. Sent the same blurb to AOPA and mentioned she's been an AOPA member since, get this....01/01/63!!

The lady's been around...even came in 2nd in a national Powder Puff Derby!

Thanks folks!

Jim

 

[paflyer]

If she plays her cards right she could own the airport.

 

[txflyer]

Too bad she isn't secretly wealthy like a little old bag lady we had here in our small town.

Our mayor hated the little old bag lady and moved to evict her from her shanty and tried to run her out of town. He got a letter from one of the most prestigious law firms in New York basically saying cease and desist or there's going to be big trouble. Mayor backed off. Turns out our crazy little old bag lady was East coast blue blood and from very old money.

I'll be rooting for the underdog.

 

[steingar]

Shame to hear about the rukus. Like I said, flew in and thought it a nice place.

 

[Turningfinal]

Thanks for all the input and ideas! The airport pecking order is, airport manager, hired and owned by the airport board, 7 member airport board is appointed and retained at the will of the 3 County Commissioners. Kind of a small cozy circle.

We haven't had much luck getting anything other than the official airport line on other issues into the local newspaper. Along with posting here, tho, I have contacted Jim Campbell at Aero-News Network and Paul Bertorelli at AvWeb, with the same information in my original post. Got an e-mail from Jim wanting more info, which I provided. Haven't heard back from Paul yet. Sent the same blurb to AOPA and mentioned she's been an AOPA member since, get this....01/01/63!!

The lady's been around...even came in 2nd in a national Powder Puff Derby!

Thanks folks!

Jim

Get in touch with your FAA Airport District Office (ADO). Due to their acceptance of multiple FAA AIP grants, they're a federally obligated airport. The FAA will put a squash to that ASAP.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

Shame to hear about the rukus. Like I said, flew in and thought it a nice place.

It's a great place to fly out of...very diverse, and an exceptional group of pilots! Half a dozen corp jets, 24/7 EMS heli, heli pipeline patrol guys, a few homebuilts/aerobatic aircraft, and a fairly rare 208/amphib float combination. Add the jumpers out of Hilty field, just North, with their Kodiac, and there's always something to sit on the porch and watch!

Just a victim of, IMHO, political crony-ism. Sad that they pick on the 'perceived' weakest member. She was ready to be arrested if it came to that last night tho. She's sumthin'!

Jim

 

[frfly172]

Get an airport rep and co ordinate with AOPA,see if they can help. File a discrimination claim for age discrimination.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

The Airport AOPA ASN volunteer is John P Parker.

Do you know him? Is he an option or is he part of the problem?

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Get-Involved/Airport-Support-Network/Email-form.aspx?refno=01143740

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Get-Involved/Airport-Support-Network/Airport-Search.aspx

 

[Jim Rosenow]

The Airport AOPA ASN volunteer is John P Parker.

Do you know him? Is he an option or is he part of the problem?

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Get-Involved/Airport-Support-Network/Email-form.aspx?refno=01143740

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Get-Involved/Airport-Support-Network/Airport-Search.aspx

I don't think John is in the picture any more. If he's the person I am thinking of, he used to be on the board, and has not been active for years. Great idea tho!

I'm hoping to hear back from AOPA from my direct email contact with them.

Jim

 

[wanttaja]

I wonder what the underlying reasons were for this "ban."

I've just as curious about the OVERlying reasons for the ban...in other words, what was the justification they'll use when contacted by the FAA?

I don't think the FAA would fight the ban if she was banned for true, provable cause. At my airport, we've had people booted because of definitive, flagrant violations of hangar-rental policies (in one case, painting an airplane in a hangar (a no-no) and getting overspray on all the adjacent aircraft).

[NOTE: I edited the original post at the same time Jim was replying to the original post. My fault, not his.]

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Jim Rosenow]

I've just as curious about the OVERlying reasons for the ban...in other words, what was the justification they used in the letter she'd sent them?

I don't think the FAA would fight the ban if she was banned for true, provable cause. We've had people banned from my airport because of definitive, flagrant violations of hangar-rental policies (in one case, painting an airplane in a hangar (a no-no) and getting overspray on all the adjacent aircraft).

So: Let's see the complete, actual text of the letter than banned her.

If it isn't specific, if it doesn't provide the direct legal basis for the ban, then it probably *IS* getting back at her for protesting the airport conditions. IF that's the case, would some of the whistle-blowing laws apply?

Ron Wanttaja

I haven't uploaded to here before Ron, but I think I attached it here...

Jim

 

[wanttaja]

I haven't uploaded to here before Ron, but I think I attached it here...

Jim

Thanks, Jim. After posting, I'd gone back and read your original post, where you said they hadn't provided a reason. I edited my posting to reflect that, but you'd already responded.

Sounds like it's time to lawyer up. I wonder if a FOIA request for information to back up the ban would be useful? There should be minutes of the meeting where they decided to ban her.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[dwright5]

Pizzing contest. she rubbed their noses in the lack of maintenance and waste of money and poor management.

by asking embarrassing questions.

This. I registered just to chime in. For everyone here not from a small town, this is what it's like, unfortunately.

This sounds like a woman who we should all be supporting as fellow pilots. And as a female pilot from that era, $10 she's tough as nails. Rooting for her.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

Thanks, Jim. After posting, I'd gone back and read your original post, where you said they hadn't provided a reason. I edited my posting to reflect that, but you'd already responded.

Sounds like it's time to lawyer up. I wonder if a FOIA request for information to back up the ban would be useful? There should be minutes of the meeting where they decided to ban her.

Ron Wanttaja

I was at the meeting where they decided to ban her. They went thru the meeting agenda, voted to go into executive session, and just prior, the board president announced that it would be a long session and probably no reason for anyone to stay around. My supposition is that they came back out of executive session and held the vote then. None of us stayed, of course. I think I will ask for a copy of the minutes of that meeting, to see what they say about it.

Jim

 

[retailguy]

There has to be more to this story than we are being told.

 

[SPAJC]

I'll bet she is a member of the 99's....if so, I wonder if the 99's might have something to say about it. Theres a VERY well known member at my home drome. I'll ask her about it. She's known nationally as well as internationally and i'll bet she knows some important people.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dwright5]

I haven't uploaded to here before Ron, but I think I attached it here...

Jim

Just read this, and that is BS. The law they refer to says the following:

"2911.21 Criminal trespass.


(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:



(2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard;



(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access;



(B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the land or premises involved was owned, controlled, or in custody of a public agency."


http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2911.21


I suppose they have the ability to ban her, but it has to be for some documented reason, e.g. criminal behavior of some kind. That's essentially what they're accusing her of. This is pretty infuriating.

 

[Turningfinal]

I was at the meeting where they decided to ban her. They went thru the meeting agenda, voted to go into executive session, and just prior, the board president announced that it would be a long session and probably no reason for anyone to stay around. My supposition is that they came back out of executive session and held the vote then. None of us stayed, of course. I think I will ask for a copy of the minutes of that meeting, to see what they say about it.

Jim

Just get in touch with the FAA ADO. Seriously.

They're in violation of the FAA Airport Compliance Manual, of which they must adhere to as a recipient of FAA Airport Improvement Program funds.

See Chapter 9, Section 9.1(a) This issue can be solved with a simple phone call.

a. Federal Grant Obligations.

Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination,
requires the sponsor to make its aeronautical
facilities available to the public
and its tenants on terms that are
reasonable and without unjust
discrimination. This federal obligation
involves several distinct
requirements.

First, the sponsor must make the
airport and its facilities available
for public use.

Next, the sponsor must ensure that
the terms imposed on aeronautical
users of the airport, including rates
and charges, are reasonable for the
facilities and services provided.

Finally the terms must be applied
without unjust discrimination.
The prohibition on unjust
discrimination extends to types,
kinds and classes of aeronautical
activities, as well as individual
members of a class of operator.
This is true whether these terms are
imposed by the sponsor or by a
licensee or tenant offering services
or commodities normally required
at the airport. The tenant’s
commercial status does not relieve
the sponsor of its obligation to
ensure the terms for services
offered to aeronautical users are
fair and reasonable and without
unjust discrimination.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

This. I registered just to chime in. For everyone here not from a small town, this is what it's like, unfortunately.

This sounds like a woman who we should all be supporting as fellow pilots. And as a female pilot from that era, $10 she's tough as nails. Rooting for her.

Thanks...and welcome to POA!!!

Jim

 

[Clark1961]

Ohio revised statute referenced in the letter:

2911.21 Criminal trespass.
(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:

(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;

(2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard;

(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access;

(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.

(B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the land or premises involved was owned, controlled, or in custody of a public agency.

(C) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender was authorized to enter or remain on the land or premises involved, when such authorization was secured by deception.

(D)

(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(2) Notwithstanding section 2929.28 of the Revised Code, if the person, in committing the violation of this section, used a snowmobile, off-highway motorcycle, or all-purpose vehicle, the court shall impose a fine of two times the usual amount imposed for the violation.

(3) If an offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to two or more violations of this section or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance, and the offender, in committing each violation, used a snowmobile, off-highway motorcycle, or all-purpose vehicle, the court, in addition to or independent of all other penalties imposed for the violation, may impound the certificate of registration of that snowmobile or off-highway motorcycle or the certificate of registration and license plate of that all-purpose vehicle for not less than sixty days. In such a case, section 4519.47 of the Revised Code applies.

(E) Notwithstanding any provision of the Revised Code, if the offender, in committing the violation of this section, used an all-purpose vehicle, the clerk of the court shall pay the fine imposed pursuant to this section to the state recreational vehicle fund created by section 4519.11 of the Revised Code.

(F) As used in this section:

(1) "All-purpose vehicle," "off-highway motorcycle," and

"snowmobile" have the same meanings as in section 4519.01 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Land or premises" includes any land, building, structure, or place belonging to, controlled by, or in custody of another, and any separate enclosure or room, or portion thereof.

Amended by 128th General AssemblyFile No.9, HB 1, §101.01, eff. 10/16/2009.

Amended by 128th General Assemblych.9, HB 2, §101.01, eff. 7/1/2009.

Effective Date: 04-08-2004

The letter claims authority to forbid entry based on the above statute. The statute doesn't appear to define the circumstances under which an individual can be forbidden entry. Last time I checked being an annoying old fart wasn't grounds to deny a citizen the use of public facilities. What say the lawyers?

 

[JeffDG]

Along with posting here, tho, I have contacted Jim Campbell at Aero-News Network

Careful what you wish for there. Not really sure getting Campbell involved would be a benefit.

 

[Turningfinal]

Ohio revised statute referenced in the letter:

2911.21 Criminal trespass.
(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:

(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;

(2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard;

(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access;

(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.

(B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the land or premises involved was owned, controlled, or in custody of a public agency.

(C) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender was authorized to enter or remain on the land or premises involved, when such authorization was secured by deception.

(D)

(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(2) Notwithstanding section 2929.28 of the Revised Code, if the person, in committing the violation of this section, used a snowmobile, off-highway motorcycle, or all-purpose vehicle, the court shall impose a fine of two times the usual amount imposed for the violation.

(3) If an offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to two or more violations of this section or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance, and the offender, in committing each violation, used a snowmobile, off-highway motorcycle, or all-purpose vehicle, the court, in addition to or independent of all other penalties imposed for the violation, may impound the certificate of registration of that snowmobile or off-highway motorcycle or the certificate of registration and license plate of that all-purpose vehicle for not less than sixty days. In such a case, section 4519.47 of the Revised Code applies.

(E) Notwithstanding any provision of the Revised Code, if the offender, in committing the violation of this section, used an all-purpose vehicle, the clerk of the court shall pay the fine imposed pursuant to this section to the state recreational vehicle fund created by section 4519.11 of the Revised Code.

(F) As used in this section:

(1) "All-purpose vehicle," "off-highway motorcycle," and

"snowmobile" have the same meanings as in section 4519.01 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Land or premises" includes any land, building, structure, or place belonging to, controlled by, or in custody of another, and any separate enclosure or room, or portion thereof.

Amended by 128th General AssemblyFile No.9, HB 1, §101.01, eff. 10/16/2009.

Amended by 128th General Assemblych.9, HB 2, §101.01, eff. 7/1/2009.

Effective Date: 04-08-2004

The letter claims authority to forbid entry based on the above statute. The statute doesn't appear to define the circumstances under which an individual can be forbidden entry. Last time I checked being an annoying old fart wasn't grounds to deny a citizen the use of public facilities. What say the lawyers?

FAA grant obligations to allow public access to the airport would overrule this statute if they're banning her just because they don't like her.

 

[wsuffa]

Small town politics are not for the faint of heart.

We don't know the whole story - if there is a legitimate safety or security reason for the ban, that's one thing. A discriminatory ban is another.