Colyn, et al,

 

To clarify - the FAA conducted a "land use" inspection of our airport.  They wrote a letter to the airport requiring a response on 5 compliance issues, one of which was that the airport did not have instant access to the interior of each of the 194 hangars in the complex known as Sky Haven.  There claim is that this issue "potentially conflicts" with certain grant assurances.  They have suggested that one way is for the airport to hold keys to each of the hangars.  We think that the terms and conditions spelled out in our master lease and tenant sub-leases reasonably deal with tenant escorted access at reasonable times with a cutout for immediate entry in case of an emergency.  Sky Haven is currently working up a comprehensive response to and for the airport.  Time will tell.

 

Q: What are they looking for?  To eliminate the potential conflict.

 

Sky Haven is trying to resolve this without being forced to give up private hangar keys to the airport, notwithstanding any given up voluntarily.  After all, the master lease with the City (and agreed to by the FAA) provides for the storage of non-aircraft and the establishment of private offices in each hangar. 

 

Private offices imply confidentiality of activities conducted therein although the master lease does not allow any commercial activity within Sky Haven.  Giving out keys is problematic.

 

Anyway, it is not a problem a this moment, just a dark cloud on the horizon that is being worked on.

 

Scott   

 

Scotty,   what was the rational for FAA access to the hangars?   What are they looking for?

On Apr 25, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:

Chris,

 

Big Squeeze indeed.  I "sublease" a hangar in Sky Haven, the 194 hangar complex at KARR (www.SkyHaven.com).  To clarify, rental agreements are made with Sky Haven, a corporation with all of the sub-lessees as its members and run by a board elected from among the members.  Sky Haven itself leases the grounds and buildings from the City of Aurora (municipal public towered airport) on a very long term basis and annually charges each hangar for providing common area maintenance (taxes, building exteriors, pavement, etc.).  The sub-leases may be bought and sold much like real property deeds and are recorded with the county clerk since the term of the lease tracks that of the master lease with the City.

 

Last November the FAA inspected the airport and was unhappy that it could not gain entry to each and every hangar - they did inspect over 6 hangars because the sub-lessees were present and allowed entry.  Recently, the FAA issued a letter to the airport demanding that the airport have "unobstructed" and "free" access to the Sky Haven hangar interiors.  Their suggestion was that the airport have keys to each hangar by September 30.

 

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 emergency.  The lease between Sky Haven and the City does provide the City with the right to "enter upon the premises" at "any reasonable time" for various purposes including inspection.  Part of the problem is whether "premises" includes the interior of each hangar.

 

In any event, this does bring up issues of "unreasonable search" (4th Amendment), privacy, liability if the airport holds keys, etc.

 

We have considered asking the AOPA for advice, but your comments are not very encouraging.

 

The net of all this - another example that the agency that is supposed to 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, starliteaviation@yahoo.com writes:

I find the searching of GA aircraft very interesting but this is not the only 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 military 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 away 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 assessment on the base to list potential problems. Last summer, before I became the AOPA representative, I was approached by one of the board members stating the airport management and the board of directors were told by the military that GA was a security threat and Personally Operated Vehicles, POV’s, should no longer be able to drive onto the airport. Since the meeting was the next day I didn’t have a lot of time to organize the GA population but was able to get 40 or so pilots together and was able to stall this initiative. Since that time the airport management and the board of directors have been pushing this issue. So now the airport management has decided to allow us, for now, to drive to our hangers and T-Shades and will be taking away any other driving privileges starting July 1^st, 2011. You can see the plan at www.yumaairport.com on the left side click on General Aviation, on the right side click on Vehicles.

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

 

Fly Safe,

Christopher J. Alberti

KNYL AOPA Representative

N441JH Lancair 4P Hanger C3
President/CEO
Starlite Aviation Technologies LLC
1963 S. 39th Drive
Yuma, Arizona 85364
Phone: 928-581-2383
Fax: 928-329-6488
Email: starliteaviation@yahoo.com

Web Site: www.starliteat.com

This message contains confidential information only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us, by replying to the sender, and delete the original message immediately thereafter.

=