THIRTY DAYS TO VACATE

A letter dated April 7^th, signed by Jim Johnson of the Central Region Airports Office in Kansas City was sent to the city of St. Clair.  This letter describes the conditions under which the FAA will grant a closure.  What is surprising is that there has been nothing reported on this in any of the local news publications.  You would think that this would be published as “BREAKING NEWS”.  The long awaited documentation from the FAA has arrived, and no mention of this by the city.   Maybe the newspaper does not know about it.  After reading the latest article in the local news publication, one would think that the city is still waiting for the Federal Aviation Administration to provide the closure process.  The article also makes one to believe that when the letter does arrive, the tenants will have thirty days to vacate the property.   This is the second time this has been published, and raises the question, why does this seem to be important enough to be repeated? 

Let’s look at this situation from another view, like what the FAA states in the April 7^th letter. 

In furtherance of the Public Law, I am writing to identify the final steps that the City must take before the Federal Aviation Administration can execute a release from Federal obligations for the Airport. MoDOT, as FAA's representative in the State of Missouri, will be responsible for managing the Implementation Plan discussed below.

(3) Existing Tenants. The City is responsible to develop a plan for the relocation of existing airport tenants to surrounding airports.

It appears here that the tenants will be relocated to another airport, before the FAA authorizes closure, and there will be no one left at the St. Clair Regional Airport to give thirty days notice to vacate the premises. 

NO HANGAR FOR YOU

The city seems to be a little reluctant to rent hangars at the airport, claiming that proof of ownership must be provided before a hangar can be rented.  The following paragraph from the hangar lease describes the conditions for the use of a hangar.  

2. Lessee shall utilize the Premises for the sole purpose of storage of the aircraft identified

above, or any aircraft that Lessee has control of, or in Lessee's possession. The Lessee will have

the right to conduct any non-commercial aeronautical activity as defined by the FAA.

An aircraft does not have a title, when an individual purchases an aircraft, they receive a signed bill of sale from the previous owner, and the bill of sale is sent to Oklahoma City with a registration application.   The registration process can take ten days to several weeks at the least.  If the aircraft has never been registered, or is an ultralight aircraft without an N-number there will be no record of the aircraft in the FAA database. 

The key phrase here is, or any aircraft that Lessee has control of, or in Lessee's possession.  Proof of ownership is not required.  So what is the city doing here?  Is the city trying to keep potential tenants off the airport?   Is the city trying to keep the airport from collecting more revenue?  This would not make any sense after the city complains that the airport is losing money.  Why would the city take steps to keep the airport from being more self sustaining?

Did the city investigate the ownership of any other aircraft stored on the airport in the past?  Has anyone else been told that they must provide proof of ownership in the past before they can occupy a hangar?  

MODOT RESPONDS TO PAVEMENT COMPLAINT

This is from the MoDOT website on the condition og the taxiway:
The T-Hangar area contained one section in poor condition. Large amounts of medium-severity alligator cracking were identified throughout Section 10. High-severity alligator cracking was recorded where the pattern cracking was causing loose or missing material. Medium- and high-severity weathering, rutting, and L&T cracking and high-severity raveling were observed. High-severity L&T cracking was recorded where crack widths exceeded 3 in. Low-severity depression was also observed.

Second Informal Complaint-Taxiway Condition:

This informal complaint alleges that the taxiway pavements (in particular, the pavement located in front of the airport hangar) are in poor condition, which creates a hazard to airport users and which

violates Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurance 19.

Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, states in part that

The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the airport... shall be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal, state and local agencies for maintenance and operation.

Please provide a response to our office concerning the condition of the taxiway and any planned actions by the City to ensure that the taxiway pavement is maintained in a safe condition.

Please provide our office with information to address both of these concerns by June 1. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 573-526-7912. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

JUST A FEW MORE RULES

9.7. Availability of Leased Space. The sponsor’s federal obligation under Grant Assurance 22,

Economic Nondiscrimination, to operate the airport for the public’s use and benefit is not

satisfied simply by keeping the runways open to all classes of users. The assurance federally

obligates the sponsor to make available suitable areas or space on reasonable terms to those

willing and qualified to offer aeronautical services to the public (e.g. air carrier, air taxi, charter,

flight training, or crop dusting services) or support services (e.g. fuel, storage, tie-down, or flight

09/30/2009 5190.6B

Page 9-9

line maintenance services) to aircraft operators. Sponsors are also obligated to make space

available to support aeronautical activity of noncommercial aeronautical users (i.e., hangars and

tie-down space for individual aircraft owners). This means that unless it undertakes to provide

these services itself, the sponsor has a duty to negotiate in good faith for the lease of premises

available to conduct aeronautical activities.

c. Activities Offering Services to the Public. If adequate space is available on the airport and

the sponsor is not already providing identical aeronautical services, Grant Assurance 22,

Economic Nondiscrimination, requires the sponsor to negotiate in good faith and on reasonable

terms with prospective aeronautical service providers.

If adequate space is available on the airport and the sponsor is

not already providing identical aeronautical services, Grant

Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, requires the

sponsor to negotiate in good faith and on reasonable terms with

prospective aeronautical service providers.

The FAA interprets the willingness of a prospective provider to lease space and invest in

facilities as sufficient evidence of a public need for those services. In such a situation, the FAA

does not accept a sponsor’s claim of insufficient business activity as a valid reason to restrict the

prospective provider access to the airport.

NEW TENANT

It seems that the city has taken a 180 degree turn in its rental policy.   The city has agreed to rent Mr. Saunders a hangar. 

After repeated attempts to rent a hangar at the St. Clair Regional Airport, and being turned down by the City, Mr. Mark Saunders was given three copies of a lease.   BUT!!!!!  It appears that the city had the lease hidden up their sleeve.   The lease appears to be bogus.  It had the phrase Three hundred Dollars, written in to the monthly hangar rate. 

So much for the claim that the city has been playing by the rules all along.  It appears that the city is using the dismissal of the formal complaint to broadcast the concept that the city is not breaking the rules in order to close the airport.   In the determination by the FAA the city was warned about refusing to rent hangars to the public, after citing lack of proof in the Ficken situation.  Over the last couple of weeks it appears that the city has provided enough proof to show that it was trying to keep Mr. Saunders from renting a hangar. 

When considering how well the city is following the rules, the results of actions by the city tell a completely different story from what the city claims.  For instance, when the city demolished the Atkinson hangar, five aircraft were forced to move to another airport.  Three of those aircraft could have been stored in the maintenance hangar.  The city claimed it was storing airport equipment in the maintenance hangar,  later the city stated that it had no proof that this junk was being used at the airport, and was instructed by the Feds to remove it.   

As soon as the deal can be closed, another aircraft will also be brought to St. Clair Regional.  It is expected to be purchased in the next month.   That will bring the number of tenants to nine. 

THE LATEST

In the analysis page of the blog, there are resources to follow who is reading the blog.   There are certain areas that readers appear repeatedly, even with the last couple of months when there is no news to speak of.   The blog has just past 60,000 page hits, but the interesting part of the analysis, is that there are eight  viewers with the domain name FAA.GOV that are regulars.   Some read every day, some once a week. 

There is news now though the FAA has sent the city the details of the FAA closure process.   It is dated April 7^th.  The letter will not be posted here at this time, but will be in the near future.  One item is worth mentioning at this time, and it reads as follows:

(3) Existing Tenants. The City is responsible to develop a plan for the relocation of existing airport tenants to surrounding airports. 

The city is not going to get the long awaited opportunity to tell the tenants at the airport to hit the road. 

More on the closure letter when time permits.

PROBABLLY WON’T SEE THIS IN THE NEWS PAPER.

The city has denied an individual by the name of Mark Saunders, not sure of the spelling, a hangar at the airport.   The city claims they have to get permission from Jim Johnson in the FAA airports office in KC.  Mr. Saunders has been denied three times by the city, the third at a city council meeting where Mr. Saunders videotaped the episode. 

Since Ron Blum has become mayor over a dozen aircraft have move away from St. Clair to other airports mainly due to rental increases.  Along with the previous denials by the city, the question should be; how many aircraft would be on the airport if Ron Blum was not the mayor.

The question that taxpayers should ask the city is; do we want to keep funding the airport just so Blum can have his way.  How much more are the St. Clair taxpayers willing to pay to follow Blum.

The following is from pages 26 and 27 of the director’s determination in the formal complaint against the city.from 2014.

However, the Director is concerned that the Respondent appears to have used its active

petition to close the airport as part of its justification to postpone hangar negotiations. As

previously discussed, an airport sponsor’s federal obligations are not altered or suspended

based on its intent and desire to close the airport. The Director notes that the Respondent’s

continued practice of waiting until November to begin lease negotiations for the following

year—particularly if rate increases are involved—could create a situation in the future in

which it may fail to make a good-faith effort to reach an agreement. While at no time were

the Complainants denied access to their leased hangars, the Director cautions the Respondent that the continued practice of using the City’s airport closure petition as a means to dissuade,

intimidate, or otherwise turn away potential tenants could potentially be a violation of Grant

Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, or Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental

Structure, in the future.

And again on page 29

While at no time were the Complainants denied access to their leased hangars, the Director

cautions the Respondent that the continued practice of using its closure petition as a means to

dissuade, intimidate or otherwise turn away potential tenants could potentially be a violation

of Assurance 24 in the future.

Assurance 24 satisfies the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(13). It states:

[The airport owner or sponsor] will maintain a fee and rental structure for the

facilities and services at the airport that will make the airport as self-sustaining

as possible under the circumstances existing at the particular airport, taking

into account such factors as the volume of traffic and economy of collection.

No part of the federal share of an airport development, airport planning or

noise compatibility project for which a grant is made under Title 49, United

States Code, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, the Federal

Airport Act, or the Airport and Airway Development of 1970 shall be

included in the rate basis in establishing fees, rates, and charges for users of

that airport.

On page 36.

It appears as though there was intent on the Respondent’s part to

turn away potential hangar tenants to allow for the airport to close. As noted below, it is

incumbent upon the Respondent to provide aeronautical access on reasonable and not

unjustly discriminatory terms and make the airport as self-sustaining as possible, as it agreed

to do when it received federal funds to use on the airport.

Sponsors have the obligation to negotiate in such a way that does not deter potential tenants

from doing business with the airport. Because the Respondent had requested permission from

the FAA to close the St. Clair airport it appears that it believed it could begin to close out

services to its aeronautical users.

From the pleadings, the Director surmises that loose or informal business practices, fueled by

a belief that the airport would be closing soon, led to Ms. Ficken being told she was not

allowed to lease a hangar. It appears as though there was intent on the Respondent’s part to

turn away potential hangar tenants to allow for the airport to close. As noted below, it is

incumbent upon the Respondent to provide aeronautical access on reasonable and not

unjustly discriminatory terms and make the airport as self-sustaining as possible, as it agreed

to do when it received federal funds to use on the airport.

THE BARRON AT ST CLAIR

The aircraft that had an engine failure was a Beachcraft Barron twin engine piston powered aircraft.  It experienced a connecting rod failure somewhere between St. Clair and Spirit.  Since St. Clair was the closest, that is where they went.  The aircraft is still on the field.  The owner is expecting to have to do an engine swap to get the aircraft out of St. Clair and back to Jeff City Regional Airport where the aircraft is based.  

WHAT IF

The editorial in the local news publication, (not posted on line) praises the responders to the incident at the St. Clair Airport involving the Mizzu basketball coach.    The article is obviously trying to divert attention to the fact that this could have ended very differently if Ron Blum and Keith Domke would have gotten their way, and the airport was already closed.

One of the arguments against the airport has been that it does nothing for the community.  But anyone with two cents worth of common sense would realize that it is not there to serve St. Clair .  The main purpose is to serve the needs of the aviation public.  Which it did so last week.  It gave the pilots a place to put the aircraft down. 

The WHAT IF in this situation jumps right up to the front of the line.

WHAT IF this aircraft would have had to come down like the twin otter at Sullivan, and there was no longer an airport at St. Clair?

 WHAT IF the trees were still standing at the end of the runway and they could not clear them.

WHAT IF this aircraft needed just a few more feet to make the runway, and ended up in the twelve foot deep ditch at the end of the runway.  A twin coming from Columbia Missouri would have lots a gas on board. 

WHAT IF they would have been coming back from IL, and would have had this happen and landed to the North, and hit the MoDOT traffic cameras poles, or the street lights on 47.   

WHAT IF they would have made it down through the clouds, but did not see the airport because the rotating beacon is out. 

All these WHAT IFS brings up the question of liability and airport management. 

BUT,,,,,,, there is another airport “JUST DOWN THE ROAD”.  Could they have made it to Sullivan?  Apparently the pilot did not think so.  The attempts by the airport haters to diminish the importance of aviation at the St. Clair Airport, don’t seem so realistic right now, and I think I can safely say that the people on board this aircraft would disagree with them %100.  What the airport haters don’t realize is how REAL aviation is, maybe because they don’t know what reality is.   When an aircraft needs a place to land things get REAL, real quick, and the rest of the world just doesn’t have as much “REAL”
 to it at the moment.  I am sure Mr. Domke will read this and find a way to make the reality of aviation seem “NOT SO REAL” in St. Clair, but last week it was very REAL.