MINUTES OF THE BARSTOW
AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
PRESENT: Bergstein, Pollack, and Janson
EXCUSED: Woodruff
and Siemer
OTHERS: James Branson, J.T. Raraigh, Steve
Bile’, Jack Hallet, Jim Reike, Jim Dobbin, Tim Michalski, 5 others in
attendance
REPORTED
BY: Bradd Maki
Commissioner Pollack called the meeting to order at
Pollack began by announcing that the purpose of the
special meeting was to review and receive input on the revised draft airport rules
recently provided to them. Also, further
revisions as recent as the afternoon of October 12th have been made
and will be discussed. The rules will be
reviewed by section with the idea of moving forward in a focused and productive
manner.
McManus indicated that the format now includes
Articles and other format changes for clarification as recommended per
Branson. A paragraph was added in
Section II (2), regarding Ultralight aircraft.
The consensus at previous meetings was to eliminate these rules. Also in Section II (3-6), parking rules
changed some, with the basic intent of allowing parking if it does not
interrupt airport operations. Sections
IV and V were related to aircraft use and storing aircraft. The changes were important clarifications. For grant assurances, these sections must be
followed. The FAA is taking tours of
airports and making sure they are operating as airports. Grant assurances can be removed if the
airport is not in compliance with FAA regulations. The City does not want to compromise the
large contributions (95%) current received from the FAA.
Section V (10), was added by Bradd and J.T. based on
review of rules from other airports. It
was developed to help clarify what non-commercial activities can occur in
private airport hangars. Section VII
(4), describes skydiving requirements.
Article 2, Commercial Operations, is the major area
of changes. In Section I (1d), the
current rules are more difficult to have flight school operations. Building sizes, locations, FBO essential, and
other factors reduced the likelihood of having a flight school. The changes loosen these requirements some.
Article 3, Rates:
Bradd and J.T. revised some of the rates, such as the fuel flowage rate
suggested at $0.10/gallon, based on research of other airports in the area.
Article I, Section II, Aircraft: Pollack read a change made the afternoon of
this meeting to Section II (2), basically adding “or be a licensed pilot” at
the end of the first statement and adding the word “applicable” between “all”
and “general” in the second statement.
Jim Reike suggested that “Ultralight pilots, instructors” be taken out
as they are not associated with this section and to start with “Aircraft”. After some discussion, this change will be
taken under advisement. Jack Hallet
suggested removing the first statement in Section II (1), as it is
redundant. After some explanation from
J.T. and further discussion, the change will be taken under advisement. Hallet added that Section VII (4), regarding
skydiving should be eliminated. It was
mentioned to possibly create another location for skydiving rules (will be
discussed further in the order of review).
Back to Section II, Janson asked whether sport aircraft should be
included. Bergstein indicated that it was
not necessary.
Article I, Section III: No comments.
Article I, Section IV: Janson wondered whether trailers, etc. should
be included. Hallet wondered whether his
glider trailer could be stored. McManus
indicated this section was related to motorized vehicles, but indicated this
could be addressed or clarified elsewhere. Branson agreed. Bergstein indicated that he thought the
proposed version was adequate.
Article I, Section V: Pollack indicated that J.T. had a change to
4c in that the FAA Form 7460-1 should be sent to MDOT, not the FAA, as MDOT has
authority in this regard. Bergstein
asked whether Section V (3) will be enforced.
McManus indicated this section will be enforced, and that the rules in
general are being revised to be enforceable.
A question was asked from the audience whether this section applied to
City owned hangars or all hangars.
McManus indicated the rules applied to all hangars. Section V (10) is a
new section to clarify non-commercial private hangar use, as mentioned earlier. Pollack indicated changes that were made
during the afternoon prior to this meeting.
Section V, (10a) now reads “Tenants who are the owner of an experimental
class aircraft may maintain and repair their aircraft in their hangar to the
extent allowed by the FAA. Pollack also
indicated Section V (10b) includes “on their own hangar” between the words
“maintenance” and “in”. Tim Michalski
wondered why experimental crafts could do what they want to, but if he has a
registered aircraft, he is subject to more requirements. J.T. explained that experimental crafts are
exempt from many requirements and owners can pretty much do what they want in
their own hangars to experimental crafts.
Hallet wondered what constitutes an FBO (definition) as stated in
Section V (10e). After discussion, “FBO”
was tentatively changed to “commercial operation”. In Section V (10d), Michalski indicated that
as an owner of a hangar and plane, he should be able to anyone he want work in
his hangar. J.T. explained that if
someone in his situation is hiring someone else to do work, it will be
considered a commercial operation, and therefore subject to the state laws and
related requirements for commercial operations.
J.T. also indicated that the liability on the freelance mechanic is
great and that the City’s airport insurer could cancel the current city airport
insurance if they found out commercial activity like this was occurring. However, the rules are set-up so that work
can occur in emergency situations to get the aircraft flyable. Janson wondered if a mechanic passes an
inspection without working on a plane, is it considered commercial. Bergstein indicated “Yes” because they are
taking responsibility. Reike indicated
that if they are located on the airport, why can’t they operate. Hallet wondered whether revisions should be
made to the required size of buildings needed, since a smaller space may be all
that is required. Branson clarified
comments by indicating this is city owned property, subject to City
requirements. It is not as easy as it
could be on privately owned properties and may need to go through a drawn-out
process to get necessary approvals.
Reike indicated times are changing and suggested that the rules be
reviewed and changed in this regard.
Branson added that liability issues would be difficult to address. Bergstein was concerned that those in
attendance were losing sight of the fact that the City is providing this
airport and that hangars are there because of the City. City rules are different than private. Person in attendance asked what would happen
if the FBO closes. McManus responds by
first agreeing with Reike that times are changing. The intent is not to undermine the FBO. The approach is set-up as a model of fairness
to the FBO. McManus also reiterated
J.T.’s earlier comments that we could lose our grant assurances if the City is
not operating under FAA guidelines. J.T.
added by reiterating the liability issue and fact that we must follow state
rules. In 10e, Janson wondered if a
mechanic could pay the $25 fee do what they wish on an aircraft. The response was that any work is subject to
a temporary commercial operating agreement with the City. Specifics can be defined in the
agreement. Branson described the civil
infraction fines as described by city ordinance.
8:
Article 1, Section VII (4): McManus indicated that both skydiving and
ultralights will be written as separate sections. He also suggested that adding a Table of
Contents may be helpful. Bergstein
asked J.T. whether there is a current list of all pilots with flying clubs. J.T. indicated that he does not have a
current list yet but is working on it.
Article 2, Section I: Janson suggested removing the word
“Commercial” in Section I (1c), as he indicates it is redundant. Removal of this word will be taken under
advisement. Pollack indicated the
Section I (1d) was revised to state “Flight Schools are exempt from other commercial
requirements of these rules.”. Steve
Bile’, the only airport FBO, indicates that flight schools are commercial
operations and meant to fully operate under one building, not be broken up so
the office is in one building and the restrooms located in another
building. Bile’ questioned how his
current insurance will be offset if the flight school requirements were relaxed
as proposed. McManus responded by
indicating the proposal is to lighten the restrictions and promote this
activity, and the current situation does not allow any flight training at the
airport. Janson added that the proposed
changes would lift the current building requirements, but still require a
commercial operation agreement. J.T.
provided his interpretation of the FAA requirements regarding flight
schools. He indicated they include
having an airplane, having records on airport grounds, having a sit-down
location and rest rooms. He did not
believe the rules to specify the requirement that all requirements need to be
met in one office building, and indicated the terminal building could be used
as a sit-down location and for restrooms as long as the building is not being
used commercially. Jim Dobbins asked why
mechanics couldn’t get similar breaks as the flight schools. Branson explained that the City is being
accommodating based on previous meetings.
Flight schools were changed. The line was drawn there. Some will win and some will lose with the proposal. Bile’ indicated that nobody wants to get into
business for themselves and are “skimming off the top”. He added that instructors should get
together. Branson indicated that there
must be a base line of understanding.
Reike asked whether Bile’ could get a tax break to help compensate him
due to the proposed changes. Janson added that the rules for flight schools are
not changed other than building and restroom requirements and that an agreement
is still required. Branson clarified the
difference in logic between flight schools (basically is a community activity
with community involvement) and mechanic (basically for private gain only).
Article 2, Section X: Pollack indicated a change in 1d adding the
words “or mobile” between the words “fixed” and “dispensing”. Bergstein asked for a clarification of the
FBO flowage fees, which was discussed briefly between Bile’ and the
commission.
Article 3, Rates and Fees. McManus indicated that the contract and the
rules are tied together, and changes to the rules may constitute changes in the
agreement. Bile’ disagreed. McManus also pointed out that the contract
allows selling to the public. Bile’
added that the proposed $.10/gallon fuel flowage fees are too large and promote
unfair competition. Janson indicated
that fees are standard at every airport.
McManus added that the proposed rates could change if necessary. Branson indicated that he added a note at the
end of this section indicating the tentative effective date for enforcement of
the new rules is
Pollack adjourned the meeting at