X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:51:19 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.169.203] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4957288 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:04:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.169.203; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaout-da04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-da04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.132]) by imr-da06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p3Q2459F005934 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:04:05 -0400 Received: from [10.13.218.17] (mobile-166-137-142-202.mycingular.net [166.137.142.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-da04.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 41240E0000E2; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:04:00 -0400 (EDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8C148) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3--941274721 X-Original-Message-Id: <7B5370F4-E04F-427B-9717-714A9D9ECC9B@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8C148) From: vtailjeff@aol.com Subject: Re: [LML] Re: The Big Squeeze On GA X-Original-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:03:52 -0500 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:478378272:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33844db628100585 X-AOL-IP: 166.137.142.202 --Apple-Mail-3--941274721 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Scott, I believe, based on your statement, that the FAA has no standing to demand a= ccess to the hangars. What is the basis for their need to inspect? Jeff Sent from my iPad On Apr 25, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: > Chris, > =20 > Big Squeeze indeed. I "sublease" a hangar in Sky Haven, the 194 hangar co= mplex at KARR (www.SkyHaven.com). To clarify, rental agreements are made wi= th Sky Haven, a corporation with all of the sub-lessees as its members and r= un by a board elected from among the members. Sky Haven itself leases the g= rounds and buildings from the City of Aurora (municipal public towered airpo= rt) on a very long term basis and annually charges each hangar for providing= common area maintenance (taxes, building exteriors, pavement, etc.). The s= ub-leases may be bought and sold much like real property deeds and are recor= ded with the county clerk since the term of the lease tracks that of the mas= ter lease with the City. > =20 > Last November the FAA inspected the airport and was unhappy that it could n= ot gain entry to each and every hangar - they did inspect over 6 hangars bec= ause the sub-lessees were present and allowed entry. Recently, the FAA issu= ed a letter to the airport demanding that the airport have "unobstructed" an= d "free" access to the Sky Haven hangar interiors. Their suggestion was tha= t the airport have keys to each hangar by September 30. > =20 > The Sky Haven sub-lease provides for reasonable access with the sub-lessee= being present or at any time and by any other means in the case of an emerg= ency. The lease between Sky Haven and the City does provide the City with t= he right to "enter upon the premises" at "any reasonable time" for various p= urposes including inspection. Part of the problem is whether "premises" inc= ludes the interior of each hangar. > =20 > In any event, this does bring up issues of "unreasonable search" (4th Amen= dment), privacy, liability if the airport holds keys, etc. > =20 > We have considered asking the AOPA for advice, but your comments are not v= ery encouraging. > =20 > The net of all this - another example that the agency that is supposed to p= romote GA is sure doing a great job of holding its thumb on the jugular. > =20 > Scott Krueger > N92EX, Hangar 66=20 > =20 > In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:14:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, starlitea= viation@yahoo.com writes: > I find the searching of GA aircraft very interesting but this is not the o= nly way GA is being attacked. Here at our airport, MCAS Yuma, Arizona (NYL),= GA is getting hit on two fronts. First you need to know we are a joint use m= ilitary base with airline, GA, and military traffic. The airline terminal is= on the north side, GA on the west, and military is about a mile or more awa= y on the southeast side of the airport. MCAS is one of three bases that have= been chosen for the F35 Strike Fighter and the military did a threat assess= ment on the base to list potential problems. Last summer, before I became th= e AOPA representative, I was approached by one of the board members stating t= he airport management and the board of directors were told by the military t= hat GA was a security threat and Personally Operated Vehicles, POV=E2=80=99s= , should no longer be able to drive onto the airport. Since the meeting was t= he next day I didn=E2=80=99t have a lot of time to organize the GA populatio= n but was able to get 40 or so pilots together and was able to stall this in= itiative. Since that time the airport management and the board of directors h= ave been pushing this issue. So now the airport management has decided to al= low us, for now, to drive to our hangers and T-Shades and will be taking awa= y any other driving privileges starting July 1st, 2011. You can see the plan= at www.yumaairport.com on the left side click on General Aviation, on the r= ight side click on Vehicles. >=20 > Since then I have become the AOPA ASN Volunteer here at NYL and have atten= ded every monthly board meeting. I feel strongly it won=E2=80=99t be long be= fore we are not allowed to drive onto the airport. I also question AOPA=E2=80= =99s roll in GA as they were no help at all and I am still awaiting a respon= se from an email I sent to Sean Collins on 3-14-2011. As someone else made m= ention, I guess they are too busy selling alcohol and don=E2=80=99t have tim= e for us mere pilots. Since when do alcohol and flying go together? >=20 >=20 > =20 > Fly Safe,=20 >=20 > Christopher J. Alberti > KNYL AOPA Representative > N441JH Lancair 4P Hanger C3 > President/CEO=20 > Starlite Aviation Technologies LLC=20 > 1963 S. 39th Drive=20 > Yuma, Arizona 85364=20 > Phone: 928-581-2383=20 > Fax: 928-329-6488=20 > Email: starliteaviation@yahoo.com > Web Site: www.starliteat.com >=20 > This message contains confidential information only for the use of the add= ressee(s). If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for deliv= ering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminati= ng, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have= received this message by mistake, please notify us, by replying to the send= er, and delete the original message immediately thereafter. --Apple-Mail-3--941274721 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Scott,

I belie= ve, based on your statement, that the FAA has no standing to demand access t= o the hangars. What is the basis for their need to inspect?

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 25, 2011, at 3:2= 4 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:
Chris,
 
Big Squeeze indeed.  I "sublease" a hangar in Sky Haven, the 1= 94=20 hangar complex at KARR (www.SkyHaven.com).  To=20 clarify, rental agreements are made with Sky Haven, a corporation with a= ll=20 of the sub-lessees as its members and run by a board elected from among= the=20 members.  Sky Haven itself leases the grounds and buildings from the Ci= ty=20 of Aurora (municipal public towered airport) on a very long term basis and=20= annually charges each hangar for providing common area maintenance= =20 (taxes, building exteriors, pavement, etc.).  The sub-leases may be bou= ght=20 and sold much like real property deeds and are recorded with the county= =20 clerk since the term of the lease tracks that of the master lease with the=20= City.
 
Last November the FAA inspected the airport and was unhappy that it cou= ld=20 not gain entry to each and every hangar - they did inspect over 6 hanga= rs=20 because the sub-lessees were present and allowed entry.  Recently,= the=20 FAA issued a letter to the airport demanding that the airport have=20 "unobstructed" and "free" access to the Sky=20 Haven hangar interiors.  Their suggestion was that the airpor= t=20 have keys to each hangar by September 30.
 
The Sky Haven sub-lease provides for reasonable access with the sub-les= see=20 being present or at any time and by any other means in the case of= an=20 emergency.  The lease between Sky Haven and the City does provide the C= ity=20 with the right to "enter upon the premises" at "any reasonable time" for var= ious=20 purposes including inspection.  Part of the problem is whether "premise= s"=20 includes the interior of each hangar.
 
In any event, this does bring up issues of "unreasonable search" (4th=20= Amendment), privacy, liability if the airport holds keys, etc.
 
We have considered asking the AOPA for advice, but your comments are no= t=20 very encouraging.
 
The net of all this - another example that the agency that is supposed t= o=20 promote GA is sure doing a great job of holding its thumb on the jugular.
 
Scott Krueger
N92EX, Hangar 66 
 
In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:14:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 starliteaviation@yahoo.com= writes:
=

I find the=20 searching of GA aircraft very interesting but this is not the only wa= y GA=20 is being attacked. Here at our airport, MCAS Yuma, Arizona (NYL), GA is=20= getting hit on two fronts. First you need to know we are a joint use milit= ary=20 base with airline, GA, and military traffic. The airline terminal is on th= e=20 north side, GA on the west, and military is about a mile or more away on t= he=20 southeast side of the airport. MCAS is one of three bases that have been=20= chosen for the F35 Strike Fighter and the military did a threat assessment= on=20 the base to list potential problems. Last summer, before I became the AOPA= =20 representative, I was approached by one of the board members stating the=20= airport management and the board of directors were told by the military th= at=20 GA was a security threat and Personally Operated Vehicles, POV=E2=80=99s, s= hould no=20 longer be able to drive onto the airport. Since the meeting was the next d= ay I=20 didn=E2=80=99t have a lot of time to organize the GA population but was ab= le to get 40=20 or so pilots together and was able to stall this initiative. Since that ti= me=20 the airport management and the board of directors have been pushing this=20= issue. So now the airport management has decided to allow us, for now, to=20= drive to our hangers and T-Shades and will be taking away any other drivin= g=20 privileges starting July 1st, 2011. You can see the plan at www.yumaairport.com o= n=20 the left side click on General Aviation, on the right side c= lick on=20 Vehicles.

Since then I have become the AOPA ASN=20 Volunteer here at NYL and have attended every monthly board meeting. I fee= l=20 strongly it won=E2=80=99t be long before we are not allowed to drive onto t= he airport.=20 I also question AOPA=E2=80=99s roll in GA as they were no help at all and I= am still=20 awaiting a response from an email I sent to Sean Collins on 3-14-2011. As=20= someone else made mention, I guess they are too busy selling alcohol and d= on=E2=80=99t=20 have time for us mere pilots. Since when do alcohol and flying go together= ?=20


 
Fly Safe,

Christo= pher=20 J. Alberti
KNYL AOPA=20 Representative
N441JH Lancair 4P Hanger=20= C3
President/CEO
Starlite Aviation Technologies LLC
1963 S. 39t= h=20 Drive
Yuma, Arizona 85364
Phone: 928-581-2383
Fax: 928-329-648= 8=20
Email: starliteaviation@yahoo.com
Web Site: www.st= arliteat.com

T= his message contains confidential=20 information only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the=20 addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, y= ou=20 are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying t= his=20 message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mista= ke,=20 please notify us, by replying to the sender, and delete the original messa= ge=20 immediately=20 thereafter.
= --Apple-Mail-3--941274721--