Don’t expect anything by the FAA on the closure issue until after the election, and probably not until Jan 2013. 11 months ago
If you Google “pay back FAA grants” a lot of interesting reading comes up. Apparently the FAA can require the city payback all of the FAA grants if they are found to out of compliance. This also brings up the question of insurance coverage for the airport. If the airport is not in compliance, is the insurance coverage in place? This would be a good question for MIRMA, are they going to cover an airport that has been out of compliance for over four years. This could lead the city to be solely liable without insurance, in case an incident occurred due to non-compliance.
This could be a major flaw in the city’s plan to slowly destroy the airport. In such a case, it would not be difficult to prove negligence and intent, since the city has been notified by MoDOT over and again concerning the safety issues, and especially after they signed a letter threatening legal action against people who are fixing the safety issues, and the turning down of the FAA grants that would fund the correction of the situation.
Consider a situation just like Sullivan twin Otter crash, a twin engine aircraft takes off and looses the port engine, and hits the McDonalds Sign, and kills twenty people. Which by the way penetrates the airspace by 76 feet? This would not be the fault of the aircraft.
11 months ago
Just want to let everyone know the FAA received the part 16 action on the 29th.11 months ago
If Joe and John do not answer, Try Amy Ludwig and Mark Anderson at MODOT, Also At the FAA try David Cushing Jim Johnson, Fred Helms, Anthony Garcia, Randy Fiertz, Katherin Baxter, Stacey Swigart, Deandra Brooks.
11 months ago
Wasn't the carnival at the air[port in the past?11 months ago
I will try this again
I do not need to prove to you that I have spoken to the FAA, these rules are published on the internet for everyone who wants to read them. The rules are no big secret, but when people refuse to read them and follow them, then it is a problem, as in your case. Here is the link to 5190.6b; now you do not have any excuse to not know the rules.
If you have any trouble finding the rules, go to chapter 22, and start there. If you are still having trouble, I would be more than happy to meet you in person and show them to you. As a matter of fact I have a copy that you can have.
11 months ago
You can not prove AI have not spoken to the FAA. Call anyone of these people. Joe miniace, John Speckin,11 months ago
I have never spoken to Catherine Lang, but I and a lot of other people have spoken with to every FAA official involved with this but not Catherine Lang, and some FAA officials that are not involved with the airport closure. Don’t read something into the article that is not there. People that don’t follow the rules are a danger to society, as you will see. How do you know if the city is following the rules if you have not read them? Did someone else that has not read the rules just tell you this?
One of the rules you should read is from the compliance order mentioned in the article. 5190.6b (page 22-18 paragraph 22.25.d.) The closure request must include a provision for reimbursing the airport account for the fair market value of the property if the property is not going to be sold upon release, for example, if the municipality intends to use it for a new city office building or sports complex.
Also refer to the following. The FAA must determine if the following conditions exist. (From 5190.6b page 22-21 paragraph 22.28.b; this is the compliance order referred to by the FAA.)
The release, modification, reformation, or amendment of an applicable agreement will not prevent accomplishment of the public purposes for which the airport or its facilities were federally obligated, and such action is necessary to protect or advance the interest of the United States in civil aviation.
Anyone who can read would come to the conclusion that the airport is not going to close, and that the cities plan is obviously flawed. I am convinced the FAA must by law say no. But they must have something to say no to, which the city has failed to provide so far. The airport fact book as the city calls it meets none of the requirements for a closure document. (Chapter 22 of the compliance manual, they cover it very well.)
Anyone who understands the rules for closure and how the FAA works, would never have attempted to get a closure authorization by using a plan like the one the city has executed. The plan the city is trying to push is actually closer to being the complete opposite of what they need to do, to obtain a closure. I cannot wait for the cities explanations of the airport finances. That would be parts 3 and 4 of the first step in case you missed that part of the article. If the city keeps going forward with the present plan, I am convinced the airport will never close.
The two above mentioned rules for airport closure and deactivation, are copied directly from the rules book. If you do not understand what they mean, I would suggest that you call the FAA and have them explain them to you, you might find them to be very helpful.
In case you do not understand what the compliance manual is, this is on the first page.
This handbook provides guidance to FAA personnel on interpreting and administering the various continuing commitments airport sponsors make to the U.S. Government when they accept grants of federal funds or federal property for airport purposes. The handbook (i) analyzes the various federal obligations set forth in legislatively mandated airport sponsor assurances, (ii) addresses the nature of the assurances and the application of the assurances in the operation of public use airports, and (iii) facilitates interpretation of the assurances by FAA personnel. This manual was designed to provide guidance to FAA personnel pertaining to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Compliance Program.
Randall S. Fiertz
Airport Compliance and Field Operations Division (ACO-1)
11 months ago
It is obvious that you have never talked to the FAA. If you had talked to them you would understand what is meant by READING THE RULES. Places like this blog are so great, because they allow so many people to show how much they do not know. Rockman54 is correct by the way, there is nothing in the offices of the FAA to consider. The information requested is not there yet, and probably will never get there. If the city shows them their books, they will be admitting revenue diversion, and be providing the proof to the FAA for the OIG office. Looks like the city is getting backed into a corner.
11 months ago
What if Wal-Mart does not want to build on the airport property? Then what? What if they go to AH instead? This is starting to sound more and more like vigilante vengeance than and economic redevelopment plan. You seem to want to indicate that it is the tenant’s fault that your community does not have the retail outlets that you want. What have the tenants done to stop economic development in St. Clair? Nothing, but you make it sound like you will never be able to shop in St. Clair until I move my aircraft. No one is stopping you from opening a store. If St. Clair needs a department store, start one.
If there are tenants on the airport or not, it will make no difference what so ever to the FAA’s decision on the closure issue. There is not a minimum number of tenants required to keep an airport open.
I am sure you have a list of the tenants that did not pay hangar rent. If someone is telling you that the rent is St. Clair is cheaper than other airports, you are being lied to.
If you want to call it play ground go ahead, but that is what an airport is for, aviation, federally obligated airports are not future retail developments. Just because you do not fly, does not give you the right to deny others the right to do so.
12 months ago