"Drastic New FAA Regs Stun Industry

Dennis D

Newbie
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
239
Location
Battle Ground. Washington
Aircraft
scratch built "Viewmaster"
Total Flight Time
200
Drove up to Cathlamet Wa. yesterday to help my uncle repair an old shop heater. As soon as I walked in, he said sit down and read this you won't believe it.
To paraphrase what the article says is that the FAA has issued a revised order #5190.6B. Airport compliance manual.
"From what I read this manual is a guide for local FAA inspectors regarding airport operations"
The manual went from 96 pages to 691 pages.
The article goes on to say,some of the more controversial regs include
1. No more auto fuel can be used in aircraft.
2 Light sport aircraft that can be trailered, and owners/operators of recreational aircraft such as powered parachutes weight shift-control and Gyroplanes will be denied access to airports. "I think they mean towed through the gate"
Other issues had to do with living on camping on airports and fair rent for hangar space......
I went to FAA.Gov and tried to make sense of it but I run out of gas pretty quick
This article was in Pacific flyer, December 2009.
Is anybody familiar with this?
 
It only applies to airports that get federal funds.
It does not ban use of autogas in aircraft that are approved for it (it only addresses how/where fueling is done on secure federally funded airports).
It is primarily an effort to tighten up security for airports that have access via "though the fence" operations and business that could allow someone to bypass normal security measures, for example, by entering a mechanic's front door on a public street and exiting out the back onto the ramp.

Even so, it's a big pain.
 
Actually, security has little to do with it. The FAA says the rules are more about ensuring "compatible land uses." Translating, they're tired of noise complaints and the costs of mitigating noise. They're just applying the same, one-size-fits-all solution to all airports, even ones where the residents are the ones who would make the noise.
 
I read the same article in the PACIFIC FLYER aviation newspaper. My initial gut reaction was what the initials of FAA stand for: F#*k Aviation in the A$$.

Now logically, We'll have to wait and see how this one will run it's course and the lobby efforts of the AOPA and EAA.

Within 50 mile radius of my house, I can only think of two airports that do not receive Federal funding. Auga Dulce Airpark (L70) and Santa Paula Airport (KSZP). All the rest receive Federal funding and have Control Towers.

Wayne
 
Actually, security has little to do with it. The FAA says the rules are more about ensuring "compatible land uses." Translating, they're tired of noise complaints and the costs of mitigating noise. They're just applying the same, one-size-fits-all solution to all airports, even ones where the residents are the ones who would make the noise.

I suppose one can see a variety of issues as primary, depending upon whose interest is threatened. The policy has always had as a major component one of providing economic "fairness" and non-discrimination, so one could just as well say it's all revenue based. But I don't think it's exactly coincidental that there's a perceived sudden need to discourage through the fence access at the the same time that the TSA is pushing new security rules for maintenance shops and the like.

By the way, the order was effective when announced, but is still subject to a comment period through March 2010 if you don't like what you see.
 
JR, the land-use issue is what FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt and his staff said was the major issue during his "Meet the Administrator" forum at Oshkosh. He was questioned on it then, because it had already been an issue for a couple years.

More background here. There's a new organization, www.throughthefence.org, that's sprung up specifically to fight this issue.

The TSA's involvement in maintenance shop security is a mandate from a 2003 bill passed by Congress. They're just now getting around to it.
 
When mustering elephants. one learns quickly that small animals are a nuisance . . .
Heron
 
And when ants (KCAA), try to copy Elephants (FAA), the results are just as irritating to aviators simply trying to fly.

P.S. Heron that is about the most understandable and logical post that I have ever read from you. Congratulations.
 
What the hell is this all about??

I thought your president made a "devout Muslim" (that's what it said in the papers) head of DHS.

Doesn't that mean we are all one happy family now and things will ease up not just a bit,.. but a LOT!!!?

Your rights and freedoms are going one way,... down. Wait,..mine are going down the tubes too!!

Get the vaseline out!!

Jk.
 
What the hell is this all about??

I thought your president made a "devout Muslim" (that's what it said in the papers) head of DHS.

Doesn't that mean we are all one happy family now and things will ease up not just a bit,.. but a LOT!!!?

Your rights and freedoms are going one way,... down. Wait,..mine are going down the tubes too!!

Get the vaseline out!!

Jk.

-Can we [the usa] trade presidents with you?PLEASE!:Cry:
 
Light sport aircraft that can be trailered, and owners/operators of recreational aircraft such as powered parachutes weight shift-control and Gyroplanes will be denied access to airports. "I think they mean towed through the gate"

Was that quoted from the text on the FAA document?

I interpret "Through the fence operations" as Privately owned hangers with access to the airport via a private access gate not the main gate. I am working on an airport runway extension project that I wrote a grant for and the majority of the airport authority owns private hangers on private property bordering the airport property. In the best interest of the County they decided the County should buy out the private hangers and sign lease agreements back to the owners. The hangers will be fenced into the airport once owned buy the County. TTF operations is considered a threat to the airport because some one could open up there own fuel farm with private hangars for rent and basically run the county out of out of business since they would have no control over what a person did on their private property. This airport does not have a security fence right now. With the runway extension they received the grant for, the fencing is part of the project. The County can not fence in private property and they did not want to grant TTF to the existing hangers because this would have to be an option for anyone else that requested access. FAA and Georgia DOT both discourage TTF.

Now restrictions on trailering in airplanes is a whole different ball game. I hope this is not right.
 
Bud,
You really don't want to trade presidents/prime ministers.

It doesn't matter which party is in power anymore.
The elected officials are now just "go-boys" for banks, insurance companies, and big oil.

We only get to vote to passify our belief we live in a democracy.

My rant.
Jim.
 
Bud,
You really don't want to trade presidents/prime ministers.

It doesn't matter which party is in power anymore.
The elected officials are now just "go-boys" for banks, insurance companies, and big oil.

We only get to vote to passify our belief we live in a democracy.

My rant.
Jim.


Yep, that's exactly the way it is. :sad:
 
Grant.
This was stated in the news paper article.

"Light sport aircraft that can be trailered, and owners/operators of recreational aircraft such as powered parachutes weight shift-control and Gyroplanes will be denied access to airports".

Has anyone found this statement (or similar) in FAA documentation?
 
I actually used to meet FAA, KSA PCA, DCA, representatives who were pilots or engineers who had a serious connection with aviation,and or loved flying. They wanted to make it safer and better.

Now it is bureaucrats who generally know little about pilots, engineers, builders and flying enthusiasts, but are simply government employees collecting a wage and going by an increasingly fatter book of regs.
 
Self Servicing

Self Servicing

I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read the whole thing, but the section on Self-Service seems to say to me that our right to service and fuel our aircraft is protected. See this link:

Self-Service

Thanks, Greg Gremminger
 
Top