Survey of Minimum Standards: Commercial Aeronautical Activities at Airports (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

11 tal and operating costs of competing fixed-base opera- tors.”53 • Two-thirds of those interviewed recognized that some commercial aeronautical activities should be pro- hibited in the interest of aviation safety. Several others indicated that it may be appropriate to restrict commer- cial aeronautical activities if aviation safety is compro- mised. • Roughly one-half of those interviewed believed that Minimum Standards should be reviewed and up- dated every 5 years. • Just over 90 percent of those interviewed believed that sufficient resources and guidance exist to develop, update, implement, and enforce Minimum Standards. However, some individuals felt that there were some limitations (e.g., the airport sponsor may not know about the resources or guidance, the resources or guid- ance may be difficult to find or understand, and it may be hard to apply resources or guidance under particular circumstances). 53 Director’s Determination, The Aviation Ctr., Inc. v. City of Ann Arbor, FAA Docket No. 16-05-01, at 27 (Dec. 16, 2005), • Approximately 58 percent of those interviewed stated that FAA policies, practices, and decisions were not very reflective of the market-based realities of commercial aeronautical activities at airports; however, approximately 63 percent of those interviewed believed that the Sponsor Assurances, as currently interpreted and enforced by the FAA, were “about right” in terms of finding the balance between airports and commercial aeronautical operators. • The vast majority of those interviewed, regardless of position, recognized the need for (and the important purposes served by) Minimum Standards. V. COMPENDIUM OF COMPARATIVE MINIMUM STANDARDS According to the Problem Statement, one purpose of this project was to develop a “compendium of compara- tive minimum standards applicable to commercial aeronautical activities that are customary at airports (occurring with a frequency of 25 percent or greater).” The compendium is provided in Appendix D. A threshold task in developing the compendium was to determine which commercial aeronautical activities occur with a frequency of 25 percent or greater. The questionnaire results revealed the following informa- tion regarding the frequency of specific commercial aeronautical activities at the 99 respondent airports. The horizontal line represents 25 percent. http://part16.airports.faa.gov/pdf/16-05-01b.pdf. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe rc en ta ge Activity

12 In rank order by frequency, the customary commer- cial aeronautical activities are: 1. FBO. 2. Aircraft storage. 3. Aircraft maintenance. 4. Flight training/instruction. 5. Aircraft rental. 6. Aircraft charter. 7. Avionics/Instruments. 8. Aircraft refurbishment. 9. Aircraft sales. 10. Aircraft management. 11. Agricultural operations. The compendium in Appendix D identifies the mini- mum standards that apply to these customary commer- cial aeronautical activities. To develop the compendium, 39 airport Minimum Standards (subject documents) obtained from the respondent airports were reviewed. Minimum Standards have been categorized by type of commercial aeronautical activity and subject area. As stated in the Introduction, this information is not in- tended to serve as a recommendation as to any particu- lar airport’s Minimum Standards. The review of the subject documents yielded the fol- lowing information and findings: • There is considerable variability in the frequency of airport Minimum Standards addressing the custom- ary commercial aeronautical activities. For example, 87 percent of the subject documents contain Minimum Standards for FBOs, which exist at roughly 80 percent of the respondent airports. However, only 25 percent of the subject documents address aircraft storage opera- tors, which is the second-ranked commercial aeronauti- cal activity, occurring at more than 70 percent of the respondent airports. None of the subject documents prescribe standards for aircraft refurbishment, which occurs at more than 30 percent of the respondent air- ports. It appears that many airports have Minimum Standards for commercial aeronautical activities that are not occurring at the airport, and that many airports lack minimum standards for activities that are occur- ring at the airport. • In the majority of the subject documents, specific or numerical standards are prescribed relating to com- mercial aeronautical activities. For example, more than 50 percent of the subject documents that address FBOs specify whether Jet A and Avgas fueling is required; provide numerical standards for minimum leased space (land, ramp, hangars, and other buildings); provide numerical standards for Jet A and Avgas fuel storage capacity; prescribe minimum hours and days of opera- tion; and prescribe numerical standards for commercial general liability insurance and hangar keeper’s liability insurance. • Notwithstanding these commonly-prescribed stan- dards, there is considerable variability in the frequency with which airports prescribe specific or numerical standards for each topic. This is true for each of the customary commercial aeronautical activities. For ex- ample, while commercial general liability insurance is commonly prescribed, there is considerable variability in whether policy limits are prescribed for other insur- ance products (e.g., business automobile liability, han- gar keeper’s legal liability, aircraft passenger and liabil- ity, students and renters, and environmental). • There is great variability in the numerical values prescribed for most topics. Here too, insurance re- quirements provide an illustrative example. There is a broad range between the low and high values for most insurance requirements. Similarly, there is a broad range between the low and high values for minimum leased space. While certain low and high values may constitute outliers, thorough analysis of the data con- firmed a high degree of variability. • While the subject documents reflect considerable variability in the frequency of specific or numerical standards for each topic, the subject documents exhibit greater consistency in other areas. The following are some common features of the subject documents: • In approximately 82 percent of the subject documents, key terms are defined. In approximately 94 percent of the subject documents that define key terms, the definitions of the key terms are consolidated in a separate section of the document. • Approximately 85 percent of the subject documents contain a separate section that outlines or identifies the general standards that apply to all com- mercial aeronautical operators. When included in the document, this section typically outlines or identifies a variety of general requirements such as applicability, application, agreement/permit, experience/capability, payment of rents/fees, hours of activity, insurance, mul- tiple activities, and grounds for denial. • In approximately 56 percent of the subject documents, an agreement is required to engage in commercial aeronautical activities at the airport. A permit is required in approximately 44 percent of the subject documents. In nearly every case (approximately 97 percent), an agreement is required to lease land or improvements at the airport. • In approximately 74 percent of the subject documents, the airport sponsor requires that any entity desiring to engage in commercial aeronautical activities at the airport complete and submit an application for approval prior to the airport sponsor entering into agreement with or granting a permit to the commercial aeronautical operator. • In approximately 48 percent of the subject documents, the application criteria are specified. Ap- proximately 24 percent of the subject documents refer to a separate application that is not part of the Mini- mum Standards. Approximately 24 percent of the sub- ject documents outline or identify the application crite- ria or provide the application as part of the Minimum Standards.