Recently, a reader named Valerie Lynn Booth left a comment in the online edition of this column, where she shared some impressive enthusiasm – and one errant thought that deserves correction. (Thanks so much for reading and writing, Valerie.)
Valerie’s misinterpretation of a complicated rule is common. As she wrote it, ”FAA takes a dim view of learning to fly at a flying club at federally obligated airports.”
I can completely understand how people might get this impression. As with all things FAA, its documentation on any given topic can be hard to find and even harder to decipher. But I assure you, it is perfectly okay to learn to fly as a member of a flying club.
The FAA has no rule, regulation, order, or policy statement that would prevent you, or anyone else, from learning to fly at the flying club you choose to call home. In fact, as a flying club member you can earn your certificates and ratings all the way through ATP in an aircraft owned or leased by your flying club. You could even do that training in an experimental aircraft.
Flying clubs and their members have an enormous amount of flexibility available to them.
But as with all things aviation, there’s more to it than that. So in the interest of clarity and accuracy, let’s get into the weeds a bit for the benefit of all concerned.
Valerie’s use of the term “federally obligated airports” is important. A privately owned field that hasn’t taken federal money to make improvements is not a federally obligated airport. Even if it’s open to the public and hosts a flight school, a flying club, a maintenance shop, and a restaurant with a bar and a popular karaoke night. Whether it’s rolling in massive profits, or just barely getting by, it makes no difference. If the airport hasn’t accepted federal dollars, itt operates outside the guidance and mandates of the bible FAA Order 5190.6B, The Airport Compliance Manual.
Where the compliance manual does come into play is at those airports where federal dollars have been spent. As you might imagine that money comes with strings, and those strings are known as “grant assurances.” Essentially the deal is, you take our money, you operate as we require you to.
It’s not a heavy handed thing, but it’s a thing nonetheless. The FAA now has a say about how day-to-day activities work on your federally obligated airport.
The Airport Compliance Manual is not a casual read. It’s big. Fortunately for those of us who are interested in flying clubs we can limit our focus to Chapter 10, Reasonable Commercial Minimum Standards. This section is only five pages long, three of which make up a sample document of club rules and regulations.
The basics include these two important points. The FAA defines a flying club as a nonprofit entity, which is organized for the express purpose of providing its members with aircraft for their personal use and enjoyment only. There’s a second point that also provides some important insight. “A flying club qualifies as an individual under the grant assurances.”
Digging deeper into other FAA documents we find that Valerie is right to a degree. A flying club cannot provide flight instruction. It just can’t. It can’t advertise that it provides flight instruction, and it can’t put a sign up outside the hangar that reads “Learn to fly here.” The club is a nonprofit entity that is barred from providing commercial services to the public at large, as flight schools can and do.
Now this is where it gets a little weird. Members can learn to fly using the club aircraft if they wish to. They can earn advanced ratings in the club aircraft. And they can seek instruction from any instructor they choose, whether that instructor is a club member or not.
This works because the flying club member is in effect acting as an owner. They’re individuals who have joined economic forces with others to reduce the cost of accessing an aircraft by forming a club. Like all aircraft owners and pilots (including student pilots) they have specific privileges and limitations. Learning to fly as a member of a flying club is absolutely, positively, without a doubt, allowed by the FAA, even at an airport that must comply with grant assurances.
The key is that the member initiates the process, securing the aircraft and hiring an instructor. Neither the club or the instructor have offered the aircraft for use. That’s important. The club cannot and should not ever compete with a flight school, or present itself as offering the same services as a flight school.
This matters to you and me and GA as a whole as much as it does to the FAA. What if we’re nearby an airport that doesn’t have a flight school? Does that mean nobody in town can learn to fly? No. Anyone can form a flying club that conforms with FAA rules, buy or lease an airplane, and start enjoying the benefits of being an individual pilot who seeks no profit from their flights in the club aircraft. And yes, the members of that club can use the flying club aircraft to learn to fly without running afoul of the feds.
Having said all that, if your flying club is based at an airport where there is a flight school, or multiple flight schools, it would behoove the club to foster a mutually beneficial relationship between the various entities. The flight school can perform intro flights, primary training, flight reviews, advanced training, and many other services the club may decide fall outside their basic goals.
There’s nothing wrong with the club directing prospective members to the school for training, just as there is nothing wrong with the school offering to connect students to the club when they finish earning their ticket.
Rules are rules but the devil is in the interpretation. Over the years I have managed airports located in three regions. Two were very easy to get along with, and had a great rapport with both. They went the extra mile to be helpful yet abide by the conglomeration of rules in the grant assurances. The third was an entirely different matter. ALL the T’s had to be crossed and all the I’s had to be perfectly dotted. With this region we had a saying – “When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the project you may proceed”. We had to appeal to Washington on several issues and were upheld, but the delays increased the cost of the projects considerably.
I am now retired but my friends in several airports tell me the paper work has not lessened in this region.
We could certainly go around and around on the issues you raise but let’s please not go there. As a retired State Aviation Administrator, airport director and/or Administrator of several public use airports from medium hub to GA, aviation director of leasing and revenue services and a resident of a couple of privately owned fly-in communities I have first hand experience with each of the issues you mention. The bottom line sounds like you have had or are currently experiencing these issues with a specific airport. But whether or not that is the case if you do not choose to attempt definitive resolution with the FAA it may be that you would need to find an airport that will accommodate your needs. If the FAA supports the position of the airport(s) you have in mind it is likely that there are other considerations which they feel are relevant to the issue(s).
On the whole we are in agreement that things shouldn’t be as difficult as you have presented. I genuinely wish you nothing but success in pursuing a reasonable route through these issues.
It is to the benefit of the club, its members, AND the club owned aircraft that a requirement for membership be at least a PPL. Primary training is hard on airplanes. An FBO with A&Ps on staff can handle the possible abuse wrought upon an airplane by student pilots. That sort of maintenance can be a bank account breaker for a club.
“Learning to fly as a member of a flying club is absolutely, positively, without a doubt, allowed by the FAA, even at an airport that must comply with grant assurances.”
Thank you for the in-depth explanation of the intersection between learning to fly at a flying club and maintaining grant assurances at federally obligated airports. That the flying club cannot hold out as a venue to “learn to fly” was the “dim view” I referred to in my comment: https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/01/29/whats-the-point/
It is interesting that those grant assurances are intended to foster competition and prevent monopolies on federally obligated fields. That FAA will not reach down into an airport sponsor’s Airport Minimum Standards, some sponsors are able to limit competition by creating higher economic and operational barriers to entry, artificially driving costs up and access down.
The subject though, is learning how to fly and doing so within a flying club. It is a viable option and should be pursued alongside scouting flight schools and independent CFIs.
While not a popular opinion, I am of the mind that Flying Clubs should be allowed to advertise flight training.
“Some sponsors are able to limit competition by creating higher economic and operational barriers to entry, artificially driving costs up and access down”……
If you are aware of this condition at a federally funded airport I would encourage you to consider discussing it with the FAA district office. As long as the airport sponsor is applying their rates, charges and conditions to all tenant users of a common type (for example: All fbo’s or all maintenance shops, or all restaurants, etc.) on an equal basis they are probably abiding by the assurances. However, if there are existing tenants who are under one set of rates, charges and conditions and the sponsor tries to apply a different set of standards to a potential entrant of the same type they may well be found to be in violation of their grant assurances. Obviously each situation is unique but worthy none-the-less of review if seemingly unfair.
An airport sponsor can easily apply the same set of standards to all potential entrants yet still create an artificially high barrier to entry (that limits access but is not discriminatory) by requiring, in their Minimum Standards, two aircraft for a flight training business, one of which must be a multi-engine aircraft.
By doing so, the airport sponsor sets an economic bar that discourages flight training operations that are limited to single engine aircraft, which is generally where every student pilot begins.
The same can occur for charter operations as well. Many single-pilot Part 135 operators have one aircraft on certificate. If an airport sponsor’s Minimum Standards require two aircraft, one of which must be a multi-engine aircraft, in order to qualify for “access” to leased space on the airport, that business may not gain access to available space.
None of this is “discriminatory” when the sponsor applies the same standard to all tenants and potential tenants but certainly limits access to a legitimate segment of General Aviation and the public – particularly when the airport sponsor also limits the use of hangars to storage only (no business ops).
I know all to well the the challenges of operating a flying club at a GA airport that accepts Federal dollars and the county as the only FBO selling fuel. I hung a poster in the airport terminal advertising for potential members for the club listing the airplane (C172) and that we have a CFI on staff and that “student pilots are welcome.” At first the Michigan DOT Aero questioned this and then through correspondence ok’d it.
I found myself defending being arrested for an illegal flight school based on MDOT questioning this poster for two misdemeanor counts. TWICE, but both cases were dismissed shortly before court. The flying club which had been a presence at this airport since 1993 was labeled not valid because the airplane which I own and exclusively lease to the club. I and the plane have since been evicted and now denied access to this airport. They have since allowed another flying club to apply and accepted as they own their plane.
I have obtained the services of a lawyer and I am suing the county’s airport authority for defamation and harassment. The reason the county states is that the club discourages an FBO to come to this airport. This is monopoly and is against the AIP.
Good Morning all
If anyone is interested in all the Lawsuit against Menominee County Michigan and Menominee Regional Airport over Hanger issues and flying club issues go to menomineenews.com have a great day
Ed Powell Jr.